Azernews.Az

By Farman Aydin | AzerNEWS

There can exist various types of bilateral relationships between states, some unique and without precedent, but what domains they encompass, and how exactly they influence regional dynamics, often raises pressing questions.

France’s recent decision to establish a new post within its Foreign Ministry—a coordinator for cooperation with Armenia—raises a fundamental question: is this a role truly intended to benefit Yerevan, or is it, in fact, a new window into the South Caucasus for Paris’s broader ambitions?

This initiative was disclosed during the Fifth Conference on Decentralised Cooperation between Armenia and France by the French Ambassador to Armenia, Olivier Decottignies, who, in characteristically distorted language, once again articulated France’s misguided stance on regional matters.

A fundamental question arises: what business does France have with Garabagh? Why does Paris maintain a double standard, recognising the region as Azerbaijani territory in principle while acting otherwise in practice?

France’s unchanging and dangerous policies appear designed to water the seeds of revanchism in the South Caucasus, nurturing them back to life.

As the French diplomat stated:

“What we are building together is not just technical cooperation, not just friendship, but also real levers to have an impact on the situation, support Armenia, and act for peace. Goris is a city that is at the heart of Armenia’s geopolitics and a city that hosted the entire [Armenian] population displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh.”

These words leave little doubt: France’s intentions are not confined to Armenia alone. Paris seeks to artificially reignite a conflict that has long since ceased, stoking the fires of revanchist factions under the pretence of “peace”. The dissonance between France’s rhetoric and its actions could not be more stark: deploying heavy artillery, fortifications, and even military personnel to Armenian territory in the name of peace is a contradiction so brazen it borders on the absurd.

One must ask: Is France truly needed in the Caucasus peace process? What stake does Paris have in permanent regional stability? Or is the opposite true—by deepening tensions, France is attempting to carve out a new geopolitical outpost for itself, transforming Armenia into a forward operating base?

Ambassador Decottignies’ remarks reveal a targeted agenda focused squarely on Baku. His rhetoric seeks to provoke Armenia into a confrontational posture, redirecting regional attention and energy back to the conflict. While France is fully aware that the Armenian military, even when armed by Paris, remains unfit for war, it is nevertheless determined to capitalise on whatever small window of opportunity remains. France is, in effect, playing with fire.

When the ambassador claimed that “Goris will become a crossroads again, and our presence here is very significant,” he echoed, almost verbatim, the same manipulative narratives that Prime Minister Pashinyan has long used to evade peace agreements. It is clear that these talking points originate in Paris, and that France is positioning Armenia at the centre of its regional ambitions, empowering revanchist forces to one day realise their irredentist dreams.

If one were to ask whether France has ever acted as an honest broker in a peace process anywhere in the world, the answer would be tantamount to searching for water in the desert. France’s bitterness towards Baku stems from the erosion of its influence in Africa and the island states. It now seeks to retaliate by entering the Caucasus, targeting Baku, and manipulating Armenia as a pawn in its geopolitical game.

Perhaps Paris has been unsettled by the growing strategic importance of Lachin, including the major infrastructure developments in the region and the recent Azerbaijan–Turkey–Pakistan summit held there. Colonial powers, after all, rarely view the positive initiatives of others with goodwill. For such states, suspicion is a default response.

In this regard, Armenia’s worldview increasingly aligns with that of Paris. The concerns of these two “sister states” appear synchronised, fuelled by mutual anxiety over regional developments. After all, what genuine strategic interest could Goris, or “Zangazur” as historically known, possibly hold for France?

The truth is that Zangazur is of strategic value—not only to France, but to every state with economic interests in the broader region. It is no coincidence that even Armenia’s closest neighbours have previously voiced concern over developments there. Some even rushed to establish consulates and dispatch diplomatic missions—only to later realise the situation was far more complex than they had assumed.

France today repeats this mistake again, but this time with added sentimentality. It operates on the territory of its favourite ally, Armenia, perhaps even more favoured than its own citizens. Clearly, nothing has changed. As the saying goes, same old, same old...