The Kremlin Believes That "Certain Forces" Want To Disrupt Russian-Azerbaijani Relations
Ukraine, Azeri hardliners, Turkiye, the US, and the UK all have an interest in this.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s decision to stir up highly publicized trouble with Russia caught the Kremlin completely off guard since he’s close to Putin and their countries are officially strategic allies. Three separate officials have therefore posited that “certain forces” want to disrupt their relations. The first to put forth this notion was Russian Foreign Ministry 4th CIS Department Deputy Director Dmitry Masyuk at the at the opening of an event organized by the prestigious Gorchakov Fund think tank.
According to him, “We can see active efforts by certain forces to drive a wedge in our relations with Baku. They are speculating about the crash of the AZAL (Azerbaijan Airlines) plane last December, which, among other things, led to the closure of the Russian House in Baku.” This was followed by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who declared that “Ukraine will do everything possible to add fuel to the fire of this situation and provoke the Azerbaijani side into taking emotional action. This is easy to predict.”
He added that “Russia has never threatened and does not threaten Azerbaijan. Even the incident in question that caused all this - involving investigative actions and work to solve crimes, including against Azerbaijani citizens living in Russia. Of course, the Kiev regime will hone in on this and use it to escalate tensions.” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova then said that “We must remember that [we] maintain relations of strategic allies. And, certainly, there are forces who resent that.”
Apart from Ukraine, whose divide-and-rule interests are self-evident given its ongoing conflict with Russia, the other forces with an interest in disrupting Russian-Azerbaijani relations are Azeri hardliners, Turkiye, the US, and the UK. Beginning with the first, this faction has always disliked Aliyev’s Russian-Turkish balancing act and believe that their country’s interests are best served by siding with Turkiye and the West against Russia. This brings the analysis around to the others’ role in the latest drama.
Turkiye envisages expanding its sphere of influence eastwards into Central Asia by subordinating Armenia as a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate in order to then streamline its military logistics to that region. Azerbaijan plays an irreplaceable role in these plans due to its geostrategic position so it naturally follows that Erdogan would prefer for Aliyev to facilitate this and join him in containing Russia along its southern front. That outcome would also autonomously align with the Anglo-American Axis’ interests.
The US wants to coerce Russia into freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, in pursuit of which turbocharging Turkiye’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power in Central Asia by “giving” Armenia to it as a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate is considered an effective means to that end. The UK, which is already close to Azerbaijan, could maximize the resultant containment pressure upon Russia by utilizing the “Turkic Corridor” to Central Asia to expand its military influence in Kazakhstan per their newly signed two-year agreement.
As can be seen, Ukraine, Azeri hardliners, Turkiye, the US, and the UK all have interests in disrupting Russian-Azerbaijani relations, but Aliyev is still ultimately responsible for his own decisions. It’s therefore incumbent on him to do what’s required to restore their strategic ties lest he possibly be perceived by the Global South as a Western proxy and perhaps even provoke intensified asymmetrical responses from Russia. He can still change course if he truly wants to, but it might be too late if he doesn’t act soon.
It is a gang hitting an individual. If the individual resists, the gang will harass his siblings, steal his pocket money and lunch, smear his textbook, or dump mud into his lockers. Do you fight back, or do you comply? Fighting back guarantees no victory, and compliance guarantees no fair treatment. Even if one day the besieged one was able to knock out one of the minions, the gang will retaliate by escalating. Sometimes, the newest gang members will be asked to prove themselves to the gang by abusing the targeted one. Hence no matter what he does, he is under attack everywhere all the time, even if he did nothing wrong.
Is all this due to the targeted one having a lousy brain, some blind spots, or wrong convictions? Not really. If the targeted one is willing to join the gang and beat up the next victim to prove himself, he might even become the new number two. BUT, the gang may not want to take him in and simply want to loot his money. Better yet, force him to steal money from his parents. If this kind of things happen in school, the parents can transfer the kid to a different school. If the harassment happens in the neighborhood, the parents can choose to relocate to the far side of the city. Of course, when the gang learn how to drive, distance may not be of any help.
The key of the situation is not the targeted one makes some mistakes in handling the situation, but rather in the decision by the gang master. Instead of talking about a rule-based world order, we are just in the Wild Wild West (or East, for that matter). In ancient societies, people banded together into a village and built a wall, then they trained for martial arts and bought weapons. Some would survive the bandits raids, some would perish entirely.
One day, you see this unlucky kid surrounded by seven gangsters. Ouch, how come he did not see that hook coming? Ouch, why didn't he watch for somebody trying to kick his ankle? The kid is certainly not the kind of material to play Chuck Norris. So, what is the benefit of being the friend of this unlucky kid? To get hammered in the same way? Why should anyone put themselves into hot water by defending this unlucky kid who is not their sibling or neighbor? Of course, most passers-by will simply pass by quietly.
As early as 2014, I saw commentaries by China's scholars describing the Western plot to deal with Russia was the same one as applied to China in the late 19th century. The goal was fragmentation, hence all the attackers united after each had made their claims and mutually agreed on the division. China was invaded multiple times. Beijing City and the Royal Palace were looted many times. Some of the loot is still displayed in British Museums.
"...caught the Kremlin completely off guard"
Amazing. Are russian intelligence services sleeping?
Maïdan? Off guard.
Armenia? Off guard
Syria? Off guard.
And tomorrow? Iran? Belarus? India?
Andreï is right when he emphasize this point: what is , for a country, the interest of being a russian friend?
Because if Russia is unable to say what is the interest to be its friend, ennemies of Russia are telling them what is the interest to be theirs and what is the danger to be a Russia's friend.