What happened in the direction of Lachin on April 11 once again showed that Armenia has not and will never give up its provocation intentions.
Changes in the rhetoric of the Armenian leadership, including Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, especially after the arrival of the European Union mission, could not be ignored. The observations show that Armenia, avoiding the peace negotiations and border delimitation process under various pretexts, prepares new provocations. It happened as expected. On April 11, both sides suffered losses in a short-term battle as a result of provocation by Armenian armed units in the direction of Digh settlement of Gorus district.
Another expected event happened following this. As always, Armenia tried to throw its provocative act on Azerbaijan and committed information pollution. However, the conflicting information and images spread by the Armenian propaganda machine itself were enough to expose the failed neighbor who did not stop enmity.
The conflicting statements made by Armenia in order to justify itself showed that they were looking for a more or less comprehensible answer, and also that unexpected results caused confusion, and as a result, their plans were completely disrupted.
Yesterday, APA published information about how the Armenian propaganda mouthpiece exposed itself.
The information stated that the Armenian media and the Armenian segment of social networks published the first information about yesterday's provocation, where the commander of the special-purpose corps of the Armenian army, Armen Gozalyan, held talks with the Azerbaijani military.
It was reported that at that time Azerbaijani soldiers allegedly opened fire on Armenian soldiers who came for negotiations. As a result, a shootout took place, people were killed and injured, and Gozelyan was also injured.
A little bit later, the Armenian propaganda machine invented the next piece of information.
In the information of the Armenian sources, it was mentioned that the Azerbaijani soldiers came to the area where the engineering and fortification works were being carried out on the conventional border and opened fire in order to negotiate with the Armenians.
The fact that two pieces of information disseminated by the same source contradict each other shows that the Armenian media is engaged in spreading lies. The goal is to shift responsibility for the provocation.
However, only this conflicting information show that the armed conflict was caused by Armenia, and the Azerbaijani Army responded adequately to it.
There is no doubt that what happened on April 11 is another deliberate provocation by Armenia.
A question arises: what is the commander of the special-purpose corps of the Armenian army, Armen Gozalyan, doing with an object of no strategic importance? The answer is simple: the presence of the commander of the special-purpose corps clearly shows that the provocation was committed by the direct order of the military leadership of Armenia.
As we have already mentioned, the leadership of Armenia, which was ecstatic that the European Union sent a mission, believed that with this provocation it would be possible to show Azerbaijan as the culprit. However, it could not achieve its intended wish and fell into a bad situation.
At this point, it is appropriate to emphasize the fact that Armenia wanted to attract the European Union mission to the area after causing provocation in the village of Digh. Armenian Telegram channels write that yesterday after the incident happened, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia asked Markus Ritter, the commander of the European Union observation mission, to go to the Armenian positions in the direction of Digh village. But Ritter refused. The German head of the European Union mission even refused to visit the village accompanied by Armenian soldiers. With this, Armenia's desire to show Azerbaijan's "provocations" to European observers has not realized. The mission of the European Union has dashed the dreams of Yerevan, which relied heavily on it.
Another point is that the provocation at the conventional border took place at a time when there were certain positive trends in the negotiation process, and even when reports were circulated about the parties would be invited to Washington to continue negotiations. This shows that Armenia, as usual, is not interested in achieving peace, eliminating the problem, but deepening it.
The intention of Armenia, which resorted to provocation relying on the mission of the European Union and some circles, did not come true and received a worthy response the next time. The Azerbaijani Army did not let the blood of the martyrs remain unrevenged, and the Armenian Army suffered more losses.
The entire responsibility for this incident lies with the military and political leadership of Armenia, which recently occupied the agenda with its inappropriate and disruptive statements, did not respond to Azerbaijan's calls for peace, but instead took the path of hostility and preferred revanchist rhetoric.
Finally, the Armenian authorities should understand that instead of relying on the mission of the European Union, the support of some countries and forces, and hoping that they will realize their goals, and continue the path of successive provocations, it would be better for both the Armenian state and the Armenian people if they come to terms with the current realities and continue working on a peace agreement.