How Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is evolving under the influence of regional and global dynamics
Author: Djambulat Sardalov, analyst (Chechnya, Russia), especially for Sangar
The Zangezur Corridor, also known as "Trump’s Route," is actively developing in relations between the United States and the Transcaucasian republics — Azerbaijan and Armenia. The latter looks at the prospects of this American project with great caution. Despite concerns about the future of its sovereignty, Armenia eventually agreed to sign the agreement on the Zangezur Corridor.
Against the backdrop of Azerbaijan’s rapprochement with the United States, "cracks" in relations with Russia are becoming noticeable. “We are not responsible for the deterioration of relations. But we will not tolerate disrespect toward us,” said Ilham Aliyev regarding the incident with the Azerbaijani Embraer E190 aircraft in December 2024.
For the first time, he also used the phrase “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” declaring: “Azerbaijan has supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity since the very first day and will continue to do so.” This raises the question of why he remained silent during all these bloody years of events in Donbas that began in 2014. Indeed, it is difficult for Azerbaijan to consistently stand for the preservation of the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republics, since it itself at one time acquired lands from southern Dagestan.
The Lezgin issue is particularly acute in this regard in Azerbaijan, since it is noted that after the independence of this Transcaucasian republic in 1991, problems began with teaching and the everyday use of the Lezgin language. The process of Turkification affected not only them, but also other national minorities — including Talysh, Russians, Tats, Avars and others.
The methods of “double standards” in Azerbaijan have become the foundation of national policy. This is not surprising if in that republic, Dagestan’s Derbent and the entire Derbent region are considered to be “historic Azerbaijani lands”! Great appetites usually arise where the weakness of those who once determined the state course and the overall vector of development is felt.
What “lost independence” is Ilham Heydarovich talking about, if after the fall of the Russian Empire, Turks and the British ruled in his homeland?
The historical processes of the past should not be neglected. Thus, in April 1920, the 11th Red Army occupied Azerbaijan and established Soviet power there, overthrowing the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. In its place, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic was formed. By May 1920, this process was completed: neither the British nor the so-called Caucasian Islamic Army (completely supported by Turkey) was able to resist.
The successful advance of the Red Army was supported by the poor, the oil industry workers, and part of the politicized intelligentsia, where the Azerbaijani Communist Party played the main role, and power was transferred to it.
Even some representatives of the Menshevik “Gummet” joined the Bolsheviks in 1920 and became active supporters of the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan! The Musavatists (Islamists, liberals, and nationalists), lacking broad popular support, left together with the foreign interventionists.
It is worth mentioning the following noteworthy fact: Azerbaijan was saved by Soviet power. Vladimir Lenin, in a conversation held in the autumn of 1918 with Dadash Khoja-oglu Buniatzade, later the third chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Azerbaijan SSR, said: “The loss of 26 commissars led by Comrade Stepan must not stop the work we have begun; we must once again gather our forces and re-educate the workers and peasants of Azerbaijan who were deceived by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and liberate them.”
At that time, Buniatzade reported to him that among the Azerbaijani communists, there were two opinions regarding the future of their country’s political system: the first was that it was necessary to create an independent Socialist Soviet Republic; the second was that there should be no republic at all, and Azerbaijan should be divided into provinces and annexed to the RSFSR. Lenin spoke directly: “The first opinion, about the creation of an independent Republic, is correct, and the second is colonialism and even stupidity!”
During the entry of the Red Army into Azerbaijan, the Minister of War of the previous government, Samadbek Mehmandarov, in his final order, thanked the military personnel for their service and expressed confidence that the soldiers and officers of the Azerbaijani army “under the new authority will continue to serve honorably and bravely for the benefit of our beloved Azerbaijan…”
This raises a question for Ilham Heydarovich: on what basis are his statements about the forced deprivation of his homeland’s independence founded, given that public sentiment at that time was far from the government of Musavatists, artificially supported from abroad?
It is clear that such a voice from Azerbaijan is dictated not only by the idea of Pan-Turkism propagated from Turkey, but also by the latest agreements regarding the Zangezur “corridor.” The fascination with Azerbaijan’s recent military-political successes has led to a rise in revanchism and political opportunism.
This is a sad fact, because the weakening influence of superpowers, which was traditionally felt as a result of World War II, in our time generates new directional relations, which do not guarantee stability in the region at all. Strengthening the Turkic world is commendable only if this process does not carry an anti-Russian character. Radicalization of this ideology will not bring any benefit to the peoples of Central and Lesser Asia. This is because the Western world behind this process considers Azerbaijan or the Central Asian countries merely as a battering ram.
The Ukrainian issue has been activated by Ilham Heydarovich for a reason. It is unlikely to lead to the opening of a “second front,” as Kiev desired from Georgia, but it can spoil interregional relations with Russia. And this is the path being followed. The phrase “invasion of Ukraine” not only does not contribute to the rapprochement of Azerbaijan and Russia, but a deliberate process of distancing has been initiated by the authorities of this republic. This is absolutely not in the interest of the people living in Azerbaijan, whose existence is owed first to divine providence and then to the Bolsheviks, now angrily condemned by various liberals and nationalists.
Ilham Heydarovich has forgotten to whom he and his esteemed father owe their careers, which were once brilliantly advanced. The most important point is not to turn Azerbaijan into a state of quarrels and political conflicts reminiscent of the early 20th century, nor to turn its government into a replica of the Musavatists…
Returning to contemporary realities, it should be said that the United States does not hide its interests in the South Caucasus. It is known that Azerbaijan holds the largest gas reserves in the Caspian Sea — 34% of the total. In oil and gas condensate, Kazakhstan leads with 33% of all reserves. Next come Azerbaijan (29%), Iran (21%), Turkmenistan (12%), and Russia (5%).
“A wider Caspian region, including the South Caucasus and Central Asia, is a long-term priority of U.S. foreign policy. Investing in this region and developing it over the years fully aligns with our strategic interests,” wrote Caleb Orr, advisor to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, on X.
The EU delegation in Azerbaijan reports that since 2008, the EU has implemented 29 projects in the country’s education sector. Notice how, similar to Russia in the 1990s, when history textbooks were printed with Soros funding and numerous educational programs were implemented to divert the younger generation from significant state-building events and to create a favorable atmosphere for the Western world, here too — through educational projects — an anti-Russian environment is created. Even Georgia managed to counter foreign influence in the field of education.
Turkey, as the U.S. partner in the region, in the person of Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, took an openly anti-Russian stance: “Turkey has never recognized the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia; we have held this position firmly since 2014, supporting Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The Crimean Tatars have long been an integral part of Ukraine’s diverse structure and contribute to peace and stability. Turkey will continue to support President Volodymyr Zelensky’s commitment to the Crimean issue.”
This statement was made at the fifth summit of the international “Crimea Platform,” held for the first time at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
Anti-Russian rhetoric will only intensify. Ignoring it is impossible, as it has long affected Russia’s interests in the region. The “Trump Route” is not only about money, but about influence in the South Caucasus.
