Any victory achieved on the battlefield requires political justification. This typically occurs after the cessation of hostilities. A notable example is from 1945, during the Yalta Peace Conference, when Soviet leader Joseph Stalin countered the pressure from the Western coalition represented by Truman and Churchill. The diplomatic battles were uncompromising, with neither side willing to concede. However, Stalin’s assertiveness proved timely, and he successfully bolstered the Soviet Union’s military victory with a diplomatic one, ultimately pushing Western influence out of Eastern Europe.
In the post-war realities of the South Caucasus, a political struggle persists between Azerbaijan and Armenia, particularly involving Armenia’s Western backers who challenge Baku’s official stance. The United States and Western Europe continually attempt to intervene in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs, seeking to revise the new status quo established by President Ilham Aliyev.
During a phone conversation with the Azerbaijani leader, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed views that, to say the least, challenge Baku’s approaches, despite them aligning with the conditions for stabilization.
President Ilham Aliyev developed a peace agenda based on five principles that align with the creation of a new, healthy order, offering Armenia a reasonable policy for establishing peace and tranquility. However, the Armenian side, pondering the region’s future, struggles to establish conditions for stabilization. The interference from the U.S. and France, preventing Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan from making sovereign decisions on post-war realities, shows that external forces see themselves as moderators in setting new conditions.
The optimal solution would be non-interference in South Caucasus affairs, supporting Baku’s efforts to create a new regional order to eliminate escalation policies from reality. Yet, the West deliberately hinders the stabilization process, prioritizing its presence in the regional arrangement. It’s no coincidence that high-ranking American emissaries frequently visit Armenia, consulting the Armenian leadership in a destructive manner, attempting to create conditions for Armenian revanchism.
Despite Blinken’s calls for Azerbaijan and Armenia to sign a peace agreement soon, he imposes unnecessary demands on Azerbaijan regarding “democracy and personal freedoms,” emphasizing the release of detained leaders of the separatist regime in Hankendi. According to the American politician, individuals like Ruben Vardanyan, Bako Sahakyan, Arkadi Ghukasyan, and others, who sponsored terrorism against Azerbaijanis for years, are prisoners of democracy.
Such positioning is nothing but a gross interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Azerbaijan, a country that endured terrible aggression and pressure for decades. Armenia did everything to elevate the politics of hatred and alienation to the norm in the South Caucasus. In 2020, President Ilham Aliyev authorized a counteroffensive operation in light of Armenian aggression, liberating the occupied territories of his country from separatist filth. In September 2023, through anti-terrorist measures, Baku decapitated the Armenian fascist hydra.
Order was restored in the South Caucasus, and to avoid a return to the dark past, Azerbaijan began forming a new hopeful order in the region, offering cooperation to Armenia. This approach received a positive response from the majority of countries and their leaders. However, the collective West’s position remained dangerous and unclear.
Washington, Paris, and other Western countries unnecessarily supplied Armenia with new types of weapons, aiding Armenian revanchists and radicals. This is evident to the naked eye.
Washington’s position clearly leans towards destructiveness. The U.S. Secretary of State and his recently visiting team members in Armenia make significant distortions in assessing the current situation, imposing their unjustified demands and assessments on Azerbaijan. By distorting the current situation and bringing forward unnecessary requests, Washington shows bias and selectiveness. This inevitably justifies the crimes committed by military and separatist criminals against the Azerbaijani state and people.
A reasonable question arises: why doesn’t the American establishment’s vision reflect the just position of a country that endured Armenian occupation for nearly thirty years, facing immense humanitarian problems? It seems the end of Armenian aggression didn’t sit well with the Western protectors of the Armenian tribe. Exactly.
This bias is reflected in Blinken’s views, which showed clear prejudice in his conversation with the Azerbaijani leader. By revealing its views, the American side inevitably exposes its true nature in new attempts to interfere in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs. Otherwise, Blinken wouldn’t be stirring the topic of “Azerbaijan fulfilling its international obligations” in the context of human rights.
When discussing this topic, the head of the American foreign policy department referred to “unjustly detained” hardened criminals who must answer for their heinous deeds under Azerbaijani law. By building a defensive line for Armenian terrorists and bandits, Washington tramples on the legitimate rights of thousands of Azerbaijanis, people who suffered from Armenian vandalism and barbarism.
The U.S., France, and other Western countries, armed with imperial and neocolonialist ambitions, undermine international order and create dangerous precedents by grossly interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states. They should not pretend to be “doves of peace” because their intentions and actions reveal their hawkish nature. If White House representatives emphasize the importance of peace in the South Caucasus at every opportunity, they should not hinder the stabilization process initiated by official Baku, which has become a fully self-sufficient country. The bilateral communication format established by Baku with Yerevan yields visible results, and isn’t this what irritates America and its Western partners, who rush to become uninvited intermediaries? It seems so.
The West’s biased approach to South Caucasus affairs reveals its unhealthy essence in how it assesses events in Armenia. To suppress protests, Pashinyan’s police and law enforcement openly resort to violence against demonstrators. Political arrests continue, yet Westerners ignore this outrage, covering up acts of violence against unarmed people. Western diplomats interpret violence and barbarism against ordinary people in their own way, which literally pressures the Armenian authorities. And why does no one talk about the issue of human rights and freedom of speech?
The aggressive export of fake democracy, indulged in by Western politicians and influenced institutions, has become tiresome. It not only creates new troubles but also undermines the atmosphere of trust, which Azerbaijan and its partners uphold. Western hypocrisy fuels a policy of slander and deceit, ultimately transforming into new problems for international life. Isn’t it time to stop? And isn’t it time to recognize Azerbaijan’s victory, which is successfully securing its diplomatic status?
Tofig Abbasov
Translated from minval.az
