The extension of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia raises a number of questions. The staff appointed for a period of 2 years in February 2023 is still in the territory of Armenia.
Political scientist Sahil Isgandarov told Modern.az that the European Union is an unstable organization.
He noted that, in fact, the problem is more on the political plane:
“From a political perspective, the European Union is in a seriously unstable state. A number of well-known European and Western experts openly admit that the EU's current political model is not effective and faces internal contradictions.
Although the European Union tries to appear strong economically, this instability continues on the political plane and does not disappear. Despite this, the institution attempts to present itself as a strong and stable actor both economically and politically. However, reality does not confirm this.
This process is a clear indicator of the European Union's internal political crisis and the weakening of its governance model in general.
In such a situation, the European Union's attempt to present itself as a stable and strong political center is more an effort to create an image and does not align with the real situation.
I believe that the issue is not limited to this alone. I think that other institutions within the European Union are also seriously involved in this process.
US–European Union relations, as well as Russia–European Union relations, are quite complex and sensitive. The essence of these relations is also clearly manifested in the process of resolving the Ukraine conflict.
The European Union tries to prove that it plays a greater political and geopolitical role in international processes. In this regard, it strives to maintain and strengthen its influence in processes occurring in various regions, including the South Caucasus.
It was precisely in the context of such involvement in processes, meaning everyone wanting to “get their share of the pie” in this matter, that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict was not allowed for many years. These interventions served to deliberately prolong the problem.
However, in 2020 and the subsequent period, as a result of Azerbaijan's resolute stance, military-political victory, and lightning-fast anti-terror operations, this problem was effectively brought to its conclusion, and its root cause was completely eliminated.
Nevertheless, it appears that institutions like the European Union, as well as individual European countries — especially Germany and France — still do not want to accept this reality, they cannot digest it. In my opinion, these very factors play a significant role in Armenia's continued destructive stance and its attempts to prolong the process today.
Because if Armenia were a party making decisions independently, I do not believe it would have been capable of acting so boldly and aggressively on the Karabakh issue since the late 1980s. It is clear that promises, support, and political patronage provided to them from outside have been one of the main reasons for this behavior.
In fact, this mission itself is a tool.
Incidentally, this mission is neither entirely civilian in nature nor does it possess a peacekeeping and neutral essence. When we look at the composition of the mission, we see that a significant portion of its members are individuals who have worked, either in the past or currently, in special services, military, or security structures. These facts raise serious questions and doubts about the true purposes served by the mission's activities.
Precisely for this reason, it is difficult to believe claims that the mission is solely engaged in observation or humanitarian activities. In my opinion, there is a predetermined scenario in this matter. It is no coincidence that concerns about the nature of this mission were expressed from the very first days.
If a process is underway in the South Caucasus, with the United States' mediation to some extent, towards the signing of a peace agreement and normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and this process is effectively conducted solely between Azerbaijan and Armenia, while at the same time the normalization of Armenia–Turkey relations is being discussed, then the extent to which the European Union's civilian observation mission operating in the region is justified comes into question.
In my opinion, the European Union's traditionally pro-Armenian stance is clearly evident here. On the other hand, the European Union does not want to retreat from its position in the South Caucasus in recent years and therefore tries to maintain its influence over the processes.
It is known that Azerbaijan had clearly stated its position regarding this mission from the very first days. Initially, it was announced that the mission would operate for only two months and conduct observations within certain frameworks. Later, it was claimed that the mission would leave the region after the completion of the border delimitation and demarcation process between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
However, over time, we saw these conditions change. The mission's mandate was extended, its activities expanded, and the number of personnel increased. The mission, initially planned with a staff of 50, was later expanded to a team of 200, and its duration was extended multiple times".
