Did a border skirmish in 2018 actually happen, or was it a state-sponsored fairy tale?
In May 2018, Azerbaijan announced significant territorial gains along its border with Armenia. Yet, analysts and officials suggest these claims were largely performative. While both nations reported casualties and military maneuvering, the reality of the conflict remains obscured by conflicting narratives, propaganda, and the strategic ambiguity of a neutral zone.
The 2018 clashes centered on the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, a region where tensions flared following a visit by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Aliyev boasted that the local army possessed missiles capable of striking Yerevan. Shortly after, both nations reported military activity. Azerbaijan claimed to have seized control of the village of Gyunnut and several strategic heights, including Khunutdagh and Aghbulag, asserting these areas had been occupied by Armenian forces since 1992.
However, the narrative of a major military victory was met with skepticism. Eurasianet reported that the territory in question was never claimed by Armenia and likely sat in a no man's land. Former diplomat Arif Mamedov publicly mocked the government's claims, noting that the idea of liberating 11,000 hectares without a fight was a fabrication. He argued that the village of Gyunnut held no strategic value and that official maps contradicted the state's triumphant rhetoric.
The human cost of the operation was also contested. Azerbaijan reported the death of infantryman Adil Tatarov, who was later posthumously awarded a heroism medal, while Armenia claimed he had advanced toward the border. Casualty figures remained inconsistent; Azerbaijan claimed three Armenian soldiers died, while Armenia confirmed only one death, attributing another reported casualty to a separate incident in Nagorno-Karabakh. By June 2018, the focus shifted to infrastructure, with Azerbaijan announcing the construction of a 50-kilometer road network.
This episode serves as a precursor to the larger conflict that would erupt two years later. While the 2018 events were framed by Baku as a strategic success, critics viewed them as a domestic propaganda exercise designed to project strength. The incident highlights the volatile nature of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, where engineering works and humanitarian gestures—such as allowing visits to a cemetery—are frequently repurposed for political signaling.
