AZERBAIJANI DIPLOMACY

Journalists often say that an interview is like a tango—it requires two participants. While journalists are trained in the art of conducting interviews, mastering the skill of responding to questions is not taught at any university. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's recent interview with Dmitry Kiselyov, Director General of the Rossiya Segodnya International News Agency, serves as a prime example. For many Azerbaijani experts, this conversation—with its sharp and ironic observations, declarative statements, and nuanced expressions—was reminiscent of the President's interactions with international media during the 44-day Patriotic War.

The interview was not pro-Western, anti-Western, pro-Russian, or anti-Russian. It was, above all, pro-Azerbaijani. Much like Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, President Aliyev's rhetoric is grounded firmly in national interests. Over time, Azerbaijan has matured beyond the need for "political short trousers" or seeking external applause.

A uniquely Azerbaijani approach to multi-vectorism

In this dialogue, the President covered a range of topics, including the flawed policies of France’s current leadership, challenges from the United States, the status of the Russian language, Azerbaijani-Russian relations, and the prospects for a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan. A significant portion of the discussion focused on strengthening bilateral ties with Russia. President Aliyev spoke of friendship, cooperation, and joint projects, while conspicuously avoiding references to Azerbaijan’s involvement in Russian-led integration initiatives. This underlines a core principle of Azerbaijani foreign policy: fostering strong friendships and partnerships without compromising sovereignty—whether with Moscow, Tehran, Brussels, or Washington.

Of note was the President’s sharp critique of the leadership in Paris and Washington. However, his comments were directed not at the countries themselves but at specific ruling factions. Even regarding France, with whom relations are presently strained, he reflected on a time when ties were amicable, marked by twinning agreements between Azerbaijani and French cities. This suggests a clear message: the current challenges are not of Azerbaijan's making, and a shift in leadership in Paris or Washington could pave the way for renewed cooperation.

Reviving détente

During the interview, President Aliyev proposed a genuinely global initiative. Responding to Dmitry Kiselyov's question about the risk of conflict between Russia and NATO, he said: "I still want to express hope that it will not escalate into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia." He further explained: "The notion of a hot war between NATO and Russia is tantamount to envisioning a global apocalypse. Such a conflict would have no winners, and no country, regardless of its distance from NATO or Russian territories, could feel secure. I believe there is enough political wisdom in Washington, Moscow, and other capitals to avoid such a catastrophic scenario." 

He then offered a striking perspective: "I think Azerbaijan can contribute to the cause of détente—a somewhat forgotten term that I believe is now relevant in international discourse. Azerbaijan's foreign policy is uniquely independent, recognised by both the West and the East, making it an entirely self-directed actor. Moreover, Azerbaijan holds the unique distinction of being an ally of both Russia and Türkiye, a NATO member—no other nation occupies this position." 

President Aliyev also reminded that Baku has been the site of pivotal meetings between Russian and NATO military leaders, including discussions between the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army and the Chief of the NATO Military Committee, as well as US and Russian military leaders. He emphasised that these meetings were deliberately held in Azerbaijan. 

The concept of détente recalls the 1970s, when the USSR engaged in continuous negotiations with three US presidents—Nixon, Ford, and Carter. This period of détente lasted until the USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, after which strategic dialogue resumed, eventually leading to landmark disarmament treaties. President Aliyev’s reference to this historical precedent underscores the evolving global stature of Azerbaijani diplomacy. 

"So that we don't have any claims against us later."

It is understandable that the expert community paid particular attention to President Aliyev’s remarks regarding the peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan. The situation is complex. On one hand, preparations for the treaty are advancing, with 15 out of 17 articles already agreed upon. On the other hand, Armenia’s militarisation poses a significant threat to the negotiation process and to peace in the South Caucasus overall. 

Azerbaijan has repeatedly cautioned that efforts to rearm Armenia endanger the stability of the entire region. Reflecting on this issue, President Aliyev stated: "The weapons being supplied to Armenia by Macron’s government are offensive and lethal, presenting a tangible danger to Azerbaijan. Our border with Armenia stretches over a thousand kilometres, and many of our settlements are located in close proximity to this border. As former refugees return to these areas, we cannot simply observe passively. We have consistently informed Armenia and its backers within the U.S. State Department that this escalation must stop. Regrettably, our concerns have fallen on deaf ears, and the militarisation of Armenia is accelerating at an alarming pace. France is undoubtedly leading in this regard, with India following as the second-largest supplier and the United States in third place." 

Armenia justifies this militarisation by asserting that Azerbaijan has ambitions to seize Syunik (Western Zangezur), arguing that it must be prepared to defend against such a scenario. However, Azerbaijan has made it clear that it has no intentions of occupying Armenian territory. After restoring its territorial integrity, Azerbaijan proposed that both countries focus on drafting a peace treaty that prioritises mutual recognition of each state’s territorial sovereignty. 

Despite these proposals, Armenia continues to stall the drafting and signing of this treaty. Baku has also called for the removal of constitutional claims to Garabagh, which it views as a reasonable and necessary request. However, throughout the discussions, Armenia has shown reluctance and a lack of constructiveness. Most concerning is the growing presence of revanchist sentiments within Armenia, which heightens tensions and raises significant concerns for Azerbaijan. 

While it is highly improbable that Armenia could gain any military advantage over Azerbaijan in the near future, its provocations along the shared border remain a persistent issue. Even though the situation is currently calm, conditions could shift quickly. Earlier incidents, such as those in February, demonstrated that the presence of European observers does not guarantee stability. The continued delivery of arms risks emboldening Armenia’s ambitions, potentially undermining peace efforts. 

The President reminded Armenian politicians to draw lessons from the 44-day war and the recent anti-terrorist operations, urging them to reconsider their approach. He also criticised Western nations for sending mixed signals: professing support for peace while simultaneously supplying arms to Armenia—a country that has historically initiated aggression against Azerbaijan. 

President Aliyev concluded his remarks with a pointed warning: "We have informed, and will continue to inform, all relevant parties—be it within the framework of ongoing negotiations, through the delimitation commission working between Armenia and Azerbaijan, or directly to their supporters in Washington—that this escalation must end. If it does not, then there will be no grounds for claims against us later." As history has shown, the warnings issued by the President of Azerbaijan should not be disregarded.