National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan, speaking to journalists in parliament, attributed Azerbaijan’s aggressive rhetoric and actions to political developments in Artsakh. He characterized Baku’s statements as a “mirror response” to what he described as provocations initiated by Artsakh.
“Aren’t we also making territorial claims when, for example, representatives of Karabakh elect a new president and make statements? We don’t seem to notice that, but when Azerbaijan reacts, we say—look what they did,” Simonyan said, placing responsibility on the people of Artsakh for escalating tensions.
Simonyan went further, asserting that statements from Yerevan or Stepanakert referencing Karabakh inevitably provoke reciprocal claims from Baku. “If we say Karabakh, he [Aliyev] feels he must respond with ‘Western Azerbaijan,’” he stated, implying causality between Armenian discourse and Azerbaijani expansionist narratives. When asked whether he believed such comparisons were justified, Simonyan affirmed, “Of course, it is.”
In response to a journalist’s observation that Azerbaijan had employed the term “Western Azerbaijan” even before Artsakh’s parliamentary elections, Simonyan denied any direct linkage and reiterated his view that both sides react to each other’s actions.
This is not the first time Simonyan has made such statements. On January 15, 2024, again speaking to journalists, he similarly framed Azerbaijani rhetoric as reactive rather than initiatory. “Today we can talk about mirror rhetoric. In other words, Aliyev is talking about something to create a counterbalance to the narratives that we have created for the past 30 years”, he said.
By framing Azerbaijan’s rhetoric as a reaction to Artsakh’s internal political developments, Simonyan effectively placed the onus on Artsakh, portraying it as a catalyst for Baku’s increasingly assertive posture. His remarks also appear to downplay the historical and symbolic weight of Armenian and Artsakh history, implicitly allowing Azerbaijani narratives – such as “Western Azerbaijan” – to gain legitimacy by treating them as symmetrical responses rather than aggressive revisions of history.
