Executive Summary
The Shaki incident exposed vulnerabilities in Armenia’s security and institutional system. Despite advance information provided by Azerbaijan that serviceman Nasimi Musayev was missing and might have crossed into Armenian territory, he had not been located and subsequently reached a civilian residence, seriously wounded Ani Avetisyan and injured her two children.
The incident raises questions regarding the response to early warning, interagency coordination, border communities and civil defence, the accountability of state institutions, strategic communication, psychological and cognitive security, as well as the management of such incidents in the context of the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process.
Armenia should conduct an after-action review of the warning and search operations and establish clearer interagency procedures for responding to possible border crossings by armed individuals. Effective civil-defence mechanisms should be ensured in border communities, including early-warning mechanisms, local emergency planning, preparedness exercises and emergency communication. Ani Avetisyan and her family should receive comprehensive medical, psychological and material support, while her actions should receive appropriate state recognition.
Criminal proceedings against Musayev should continue, taking into account the gravity of the crimes committed against Avetisyan and her children. His case should not be treated as an ordinary case of accidental border crossing, while the possibility of subsequently exchanging him for Armenian captives held in Azerbaijan should not be excluded. Armenia and Azerbaijan should also institutionalize mechanisms for managing missing servicemen, accidental border crossings and armed border incidents.
Strategic communication should become an integral part of crisis management and national resilience. The incident also underscores the need to address the psychological and cognitive dimensions of security. In parallel with the Shaki incident, Azerbaijan has again intensified its aggressive rhetoric and use of cognitive warfare tools, emphasizing its military superiority and directing accusations and demands against Armenia based on false narratives. Such rhetoric contradicts the logic of the peace process and may deepen perceptions of insecurity and vulnerability within Armenian society.
Such incidents constitute a serious obstacle to advancing the peace process and strengthening stability in the region. They not only reduce the effectiveness of bilateral efforts aimed at normalizing relations but also undermine the consistent efforts of international partners.
The Shaki incident should neither be interpreted as evidence that peace is impossible nor treated as an isolated criminal case. It underscores that the peace process must be accompanied by effective border security and civil defence, strengthened public communication and societal resilience.
Introduction
On 29 September 2026, Azerbaijan’s State Security Service informed Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) that an Azerbaijani serviceman had left his military unit under unknown circumstances and that his possible crossing into Armenian territory could not be excluded. Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities subsequently began search operations.
On 1 October, two children in the village of Shaki in Armenia’s Syunik Province discovered Azerbaijani serviceman Nasimi Musayev in their home. Their mother, inhabitant of Shaki village Ani Avetisyan, returned home and encountered the armed Musayev. Musayev fired at Avetisyan and seriously wounded her. The two children were also injured during self-defence. Avetisyan was hospitalized with serious injuries, was operated on and remains under medical supervision. Musayev fled but was found approximately 90 minutes later in the barn of another residence and detained.
Armenian authorities initiated criminal proceedings concerning illegal crossing of the state border, firearms smuggling and illegal possession, violation of the inviolability of a dwelling, and causing serious bodily harm. Musayev was placed in pre-trial detention for two months.
The incident raises questions extending beyond an individual criminal case. They concern Armenia’s actions following the advance warning, the protection and preparedness of border communities, the appropriate legal and political approach towards the detained serviceman, assistance and support for the affected family, public perceptions, strategic communication and cognitive security, as well as the possible implications for the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process.
1. The Gap Between Warning and Response
The central security question is not only how the Azerbaijani serviceman crossed the border, but what occurred during the period between Armenia’s receipt of the advance warning and the incident in Shaki two days later.
It is important to establish when and where Musayev crossed the border, how the information provided by Azerbaijan was assessed, which institutions received it, whether search operations were conducted and, if so, over what geographical area, and whether the police, border troops and regional authorities shared a common operational picture. Musayev was detained relatively quickly after the shooting. The question therefore arises as to why the advance warning did not result in his interception before he entered a civilian residence.
From a policy perspective, the principal conclusion is that credible early warning should trigger a predefined response: rapid threat assessment, interagency information sharing, enhanced monitoring and search measures, and proportionate notification of communities potentially at risk.
2. Desertion, Accidental Border Crossing or Diversion?
The circumstances surrounding Musayev’s departure from his military unit, his crossing into Armenia and his subsequent actions remain unclear. It is assumed that he was a deserter who left his military unit and subsequently crossed into Armenia either deliberately or accidentally. A diversionary or reconnaissance purpose cannot be excluded, although there is currently insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion.
Musayev was armed and moved through Armenian territory. This provides grounds for examining his movements and intentions. At the same time, it was Azerbaijan itself that informed Armenia that the serviceman was missing and might have crossed the border, while Armenia’s NSS stated that he had crossed the border alone.
The investigation should establish his military function, the circumstances and location of his border crossing, his route and movements, communications and contacts, as well as whether he attempted to collect information, observe infrastructure or pursue any other specific objective.
3. Border-Community Preparedness and Civil Defence
The incident demonstrates the need to balance operational secrecy and the need to avoid creating panic with civilians’ right to have information necessary for their own security. The authorities did not necessarily need to disclose details of the ongoing search operation, but regional authorities, municipalities, police, schools and communities potentially at risk could have received warnings proportionate to the situation.
Civil-defence mechanisms should include early warning and different levels of notification depending on the degree of threat, while ensuring that the population is informed in a timely manner about the danger and the actions they need to take. Border communities should have clear emergency plans and conduct regular preparedness exercises, including sheltering and evacuation measures when necessary.
Any additional mechanism for ensuring the security of border communities should operate within the state security system, with clear regulation and accountability. At the same time, communities should see concrete steps being taken by state institutions to prevent similar incidents in the future. This would strengthen their confidence in the state’s ability to ensure the security of the population.
4. Accountability and Possible Exchange
Musayev’s case cannot be treated simply as an instance of illegal or accidental border crossing. He entered a civilian residence, fired at and seriously wounded a woman, while her two children were also injured. These actions require criminal investigation and appropriate accountability.
Armenia and Azerbaijan have committed to returning servicemen who accidentally cross the interstate border. This confidence-building principle should be preserved, but it cannot extend to cases in which a person who has crossed the border commits serious criminal offences.
Accordingly, the criminal investigation and accountability process should continue, with priority given to the rights of Avetisyan and her children. Refraining from holding Musayev accountable out of concern for the peace process would create a risk of impunity and undermine the sense of security and justice among residents of border communities.
Armenia should not exclude the possibility of subsequently exchanging Musayev for Armenian captives held in Azerbaijan. Such a decision could only constitute a political and humanitarian step and would not alter the legal assessment of the crimes committed against civilians.
5. Strategic Communication
Strategic communication is part of national resilience.The state should provide reliable information in a timely manner, clearly distinguish verified facts from unverified information, acknowledge identified vulnerabilities and explain the steps being taken to address them. At the same time, commitment to peace should not be presented as incompatible with the need to ensure security. Border protection, military preparedness and civil defence should be a natural part of public and political debate.
During security incidents, state institutions should inform the public rapidly and in a coordinated manner and update the information as new facts emerge. This would reduce the information vacuum and opportunities for the spread of unverified or manipulative information. Regional and local authorities should also be involved in this process.
6. Support for Ani Avetisyan and Her Family
The state’s responsibility should not be limited to emergency medical assistance. Ani Avetisyan sustained a serious gunshot wound in her own home, while her children were subjected to armed violence and were also injured. The family should receive state-funded medical support and rehabilitation, as well as psychological assistance that should be long-term where necessary. Material assistance or compensation should also be provided.
Ani Avetisyan’s actions in protecting her children merit a state award or certificate of recognition. The treatment of this family also has broader significance: residents of border communities should be confident that the state will support civilians affected by security incidents.
7. Psychological and Cognitive Security and Implications for the Peace Process
The Shaki incident coincided with an intensification of aggressive Azerbaijani rhetoric, including an emphasis on military superiority and new accusations and demands directed at Armenia. While the presence of an armed Azerbaijani serviceman in a civilian residence deepens feelings of insecurity and vulnerability among the population, particularly in border communities, the aggressive rhetoric accompanying the incident may amplify its psychological impact.
Demands that Armenia prepare its society for peace stand in contradiction to Azerbaijan’s continued emphasis on military superiority, accusations and messages containing threats. At the same time, despite a civilian woman and children having been harmed, the Armenian side refrained from characterizing the incident, without evidence, as a deliberate Azerbaijani action or from politically escalating it. Such restraint should be reciprocal. Incidents such as the one in Shaki and the aggressive rhetoric accompanying them should not undermine the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, to whose advancement international partners have also devoted considerable efforts.
