Recently, the president of Azerbaijan once again voiced territorial claims against Armenia — this time concerning Lake Sevan, using an artificial Azerbaijani name. Instead of responding firmly, the Armenian government tried to justify the remark, saying that it was intended for Azerbaijan’s domestic audience.
How appropriate was such a response, and how do Baku’s actions fit into the declared “peace logic”? Former ambassador Dzyunik Aghajanyan shared her view.
Azerbaijan distorts even its short history
Aghajanyan emphasized that Azerbaijan’s actions do not fit any logic of peace.
“Aliyev has never pretended to truly want peace. On the contrary, through his statements, actions, and the policies of his circle and parliament, he consistently pursues a policy of Azerbaijani expansionism — one that, unfortunately, our current authorities facilitate with their defeatist and submissive approach.”
She recalled that such statements by Aliyev are nothing new. Over the centuries, various peoples who lived on Armenian lands distorted Armenian toponyms, and today Baku presents those altered names as ‘Azerbaijani’.
The main problem, she said, is that the current Armenian authorities take no steps to counter these claims, despite Armenia’s millennia-old documented history, etymological records, and maps that prove otherwise.
Aliyev reminding the government of its “homework”
Aghajanyan noted that Aliyev’s recent remarks are a reminder to Armenia’s current leadership of the obligations it has undertaken.
“It’s no coincidence that they’ve done everything to gain control over water resources — not only in military-political terms but also in terms of resource management.”
She added that maps used during the war and before the depopulation of Artsakh clearly showed the boundaries of these ambitions.
When asked what obligations she meant, Aghajanyan explained:
“Under the guise of peace, territories are being surrendered — both through abandoning Artsakh and by ceding certain areas of the Republic of Armenia itself. We saw Goris–Kapan, we saw Kirants, and now we hear from government officials that supposedly ‘some Azerbaijani lands are under our control,’ without any legal justification.”
She did not rule out that before the elections, under the pretext of “border delimitation,” the current authorities might hand over new territories.
The strategy of fear and false peace
According to Aghajanyan, Aliyev’s speech was a reminder — “do what you promised.”
On one hand, he supports the current government; on the other, he releases another dose of fear into Armenian society.
“In Baku, they believe that keeping our people constantly under the threat of war helps these authorities get re-elected and sell this false ‘peace paper’ to the public. Paper — because it’s not a real agreement, it’s just a document, pre-signed at that,” she said.
She stressed that even signed and ratified documents with Azerbaijan often fail to become reality.
“They are known for their lack of contractual reliability — both the Azerbaijanis and the Turks. It’s part of their value system,” Aghajanyan noted.
The “lifting of the transit ban” as a staged performance
Aghajanyan stated that the lifting of Azerbaijan’s ban on cargo transit to Armenia is a staged performance rather than a genuine concession.
“Azerbaijan hasn’t made any real concessions — it simply allowed trains coming from Russia to Armenia, supposedly carrying Kazakh wheat, to pass through its territory.”
She emphasized that this has nothing to do with real unblocking or compromise.
“It’s merely an attempt to launch the ‘Middle Corridor — Gateway to Europe’ project, presenting it as a ‘confidence-building measure between two conflicting sides,’ while its true goal is entirely different.”
Originally, the initiative was presented as an alternative route, yet the wheat didn’t come directly from Kazakhstan across the Caspian Sea — it traveled by rail through Russia.
As a result, two EAEU countries, Armenia and Russia, now have intermediaries — Azerbaijan and Georgia, which benefit politically and economically from these so-called “confidence measures.”
“I don’t know how much the price of that wheat has risen, but given that it made a ‘world tour’ before reaching Armenia, it’s obvious that the cost has multiplied,” she said.
Aghajanyan also pointed to security concerns.
First, this route creates a dependence on Azerbaijan.
Second, there’s the issue of whether the quality or safety of the goods has been compromised.
She reminded that Azerbaijan had previously poisoned water sources and used phosphorus weapons during and after the war, devastating the environment.
“Given who we’re dealing with, we cannot rule out that the wheat or other goods might be contaminated — and I’m not sure this won’t manifest itself over time,” she concluded.