“Armenia rearming itself for another war”—this phrase, or a variation of it, frequently appears in Azerbaijani media, accompanied by reports on new military purchases and defense alliances. Meanwhile, Armenian outlets warn that “Azerbaijan is preparing to strike Zangazur (Syunik)”, painting a picture of an imminent threat to Armenia’s territorial integrity. These headlines, though appearing on opposing sides, reflect a common reality: the increasing militarization that keeps the region in a constant state of tension. The recent escalation in militarization by both countries has reignited fears of further tensions, raising questions about the sustainability of peace in the region. While Azerbaijan asserts its military superiority and accuses Armenia of preparing for another conflict, Armenia, in turn, perceives Azerbaijan’s actions as a direct threat to its sovereignty. This cycle of mutual suspicion and arms buildup is a textbook example of the Security Dilemma, a concept rooted in realist international relations theory. The question remains: are Armenia and Azerbaijan trapped in this dilemma, and can they break free from the cycle of militarization to achieve lasting peace?
The Security Dilemma: A Realist Perspective
The security dilemma, a cornerstone of realist theory, posits that states’ efforts to increase their own security often result in decreased security for others, leading to an arms race and heightened tensions. In the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, this dynamic is playing out in real time. Azerbaijan, emboldened by its victory in the 2020 Karabakh war and its significant military and economic advantages, has continued to invest heavily in its defense capabilities. It justifies this militarization as necessary to deter Armenia from reclaiming Karabakh and to protect its territorial integrity. However, from Armenia’s perspective, Azerbaijan’s military buildup is seen as a direct threat, prompting Yerevan to seek its own security guarantees through increased defense spending and alliances. This mutual distrust is exacerbated by the lack of a comprehensive peace agreement following the 2020 war.
Despite a Russian-brokered ceasefire, the underlying issues remain unresolved, and both sides continue to prepare for the possibility of renewed conflict. Azerbaijan’s rhetoric, which often frames Armenia as an existential threat, reinforces Armenia’s fears and perpetuates the cycle of militarization. Similarly, Armenia’s efforts to rearm and strengthen its defensive capabilities are interpreted by Azerbaijan as evidence of hostile intentions. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of insecurity that benefits neither side. A recent report titled “Contemporary Trends in Militarisation” by the Australian Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) reveals a concerning increase in military expenditures and their proportion of national GDP. In terms of military spending as a percentage of GDP in 2024, North Korea ranks highest, with at least 24 per cent of its GDP allocated to military needs, followed by Afghanistan (10%) and several Middle Eastern and African nations, such as Oman (5.9%), Algeria (4.8%), and Saudi Arabia (4.5%). Among former Soviet states, Armenia (4.2%) and Azerbaijan (3.8%) exhibit the highest military expenditure ratios. The report also highlights Armenia's significant number of servicemen per 100,000 inhabitants, ranking among the highest globally.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev addressed this issue in a speech to the seventh convocation of the Milli Majlis, stating, “Revengeful forces are raising their heads in Armenia. These are not only marginal political elements. Today's Armenian government lives with these ideas and fantasies as well. They do not want to come to terms with the results of the Second Karabakh War and the anti-terror operation. Although they are saying one thing, their work, policies and steps create a completely contrary picture.” The Armenian Foreign Ministry has always rejected these claims and insisted that Yerevan remains committed to its “peace agenda” and “will not deviate from this strategy.” She pointed out that Baku has ignored a recent Armenian proposal to conduct joint investigations into ceasefire violations alleged by both sides.
Media Narratives and Escalating Tensions
Media narratives in both countries further fuel the security dilemma. Azerbaijani media frequently highlights Armenia’s military exercises, arms purchases, new partnerships and treaties on military cooperation (with France and US) and statements by Armenian officials as proof that Yerevan is preparing for another war. For example, Azerbaijan’s government has pointed to Armenia’s acquisition of advanced weaponry, such as Indian-made ATAGS artillery systems, as evidence of its aggressive intentions. These reports are often accompanied by calls for increased military spending and preparedness, reinforcing the narrative that peace with Armenia is impossible. On the other hand, Armenian media portrays Azerbaijan’s military buildup and occasional border provocations as signs of Baku’s intent to launch another offensive, potentially targeting Syunik (Zangazur) to establish a land corridor to Nakhchivan. This narrative is bolstered by Azerbaijan’s recent military exercises and its acquisition of advanced drones and other weaponry. The result is a media environment in which both sides are constantly reminded of the perceived threat posed by the other, making it difficult to build trust or pursue meaningful dialogue.
The Human Cost of Militarization
While the security dilemma provides a useful framework for understanding the dynamics between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is important not to lose sight of the human cost of this cycle of militarization. Both countries are diverting significant resources away from economic development, healthcare, and education to fund their militaries. In Armenia, which has a smaller economy and population, the burden of defense spending is particularly acute. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s reliance on oil and gas revenues to fund its military leaves it vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices, potentially undermining its long-term stability.
Moreover, the ongoing tensions have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people in both countries. Families displaced by the 2020 war continue to live in uncertainty, while border communities face the constant threat of violence. The psychological toll of living under the shadow of war cannot be overstated, and it is the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan who bear the brunt of their governments’ inability to break free from the security dilemma.
Breaking the Cycle: Is Peace Possible?
The security dilemma suggests that breaking the cycle of militarization requires a fundamental shift in how both countries perceive each other’s intentions. Confidence-building measures, such as mutual arms reductions, increased transparency, and the establishment of direct communication channels, could help reduce tensions. International actors, including the European Union, Russia, Turkiye and the United States, have a role to play in facilitating dialogue and providing security guarantees to both sides. However, achieving lasting peace will require more than just external mediation. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan must confront the narratives of mutual hostility that have dominated their politics for decade.
The recent decline in global support for civil society activities, the shutdown of cross-border initiatives—particularly fact-checking collaborations—and the failure to restore dialogue nearly five years after the war have all reinforced divisive narratives. In Azerbaijan, where post-war relations with Armenia and the future of Karabakh remain tightly controlled by the authorities, civil society’s influence in shaping discourse has significantly weakened.
To counteract this, targeted initiatives must go beyond traditional dialogue programs. First, independent fact-checking networks should be re-established, possibly under the framework of regional media watchdog organizations, to monitor and debunk disinformation on both sides. These networks could operate anonymously or through international partners to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Second, the creation of a Conflict Memory Archive—a collaborative digital repository documenting narratives of past and present conflicts—could serve as a tool for historical accountability and reconciliation, offering fact-based counterpoints to nationalist rhetoric. Third, journalist exchange programs should be revamped with a focus on security reporting, equipping reporters with tools to critically assess military developments without amplifying fear-mongering headlines. Additionally, structured Track 2.5 Diplomacy Roundtables, where retired diplomats, military analysts, and civil society actors engage in informal yet strategic discussions, could provide alternative policy recommendations that challenge the dominant state-driven narratives.
By creating these specialized platforms, civil society actors and expert communities can offer concrete counter-narratives that are harder to dismiss, gradually fostering a shift from zero-sum thinking to security cooperation. This will not be easy, as these narratives are deeply entrenched and often serve domestic political purposes. Yet, without a genuine commitment to reconciliation, the cycle of militarization and insecurity will continue, with devastating consequences for the region.
Conclusion
Armenia and Azerbaijan are indeed caught in a security dilemma, where their efforts to increase their own security have only deepened mutual distrust and heightened the risk of conflict. While realist theory suggests that such dilemmas are difficult to escape, they are not insurmountable. Both countries must recognize that their current path leads only to further instability and suffering. The choice between militarization and peace is not just a theoretical question—it is a matter of survival for the people of the South Caucasus. Only by prioritizing dialogue, trust, and cooperation can Armenia and Azerbaijan hope to break free from the cycle of insecurity and build a future defined by peace rather than war.
Reference List
1. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167-214.
2. International Crisis Group (ICG) (2021). Armenia and Azerbaijan: A Season of Risks.
3. APA.az (2023).Azerbaijani officials warn of Armenia’s military preparations.
4. Trend News Agency (2023).Armenia’s acquisition of Indian ATAGS artillery systems raises concerns in Azerbaijan.
5. Armenpress (2023). Armenia warns of Azerbaijani threats to the Syunik (Zangazur) region.
6. Caucasus Watch (2023). Azerbaijan’s military exercises and drone acquisitions escalate tensions.
7. Eurasianet (2023). Azerbaijan’s reliance on oil revenues for military spending.
8. UNHCR (2021). Displacement and humanitarian needs in the aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
9. Institute for Economics and Peace (2024). Contemporary Trends in Militarisation