Abstract
Azerbaijan’s journey in 2024 is a compelling story of balance, strategy, and resilience. As the South Caucasus remains a region of shifting alliances and persistent challenges, Azerbaijan has emerged as a nation carefully navigating its place in an intricate geopolitical landscape. This is a tale of a country managing the pressures of external influence, longstanding regional tensions, and the demands of modernization, all while maintaining its sovereignty and crafting a vision for a stable future.
At the heart of this narrative lies Azerbaijan’s decision to dismiss the idea of a permanent Turkish military base on its soil. Despite speculations and media buzz, President Ilham Aliyev has made it clear that such an installation is unnecessary. The Shusha Declaration, a cornerstone of Turkish-Azerbaijani security cooperation, already ensures robust mutual defense arrangements. For Azerbaijan, the decades-long collaboration with Turkey—spanning from military training to cutting-edge defense technology—has created a self-reliant and agile armed forces. This decision reflects not just a strategic calculation but also a modern understanding of sovereignty and defense. In today’s world, where intelligence and mobility often outweigh the need for fixed bases, Azerbaijan’s approach aligns with contemporary defense thinking.
But this is not simply a story of one partnership. Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is a masterclass in balance. Its historical ties with Russia remain vital, not just for security but also for economic cooperation. Projects like the North-South corridor illustrate how Azerbaijan is leveraging its geography to build bridges, not barriers. At the same time, it keeps a watchful eye on the evolving dynamics with the United States, hoping for a recalibrated approach that prioritizes stability over division. Meanwhile, its engagement with the European Union walks a fine line, welcoming constructive collaboration but raising concerns over missions that might overstep their mandates.
The challenges are many. Azerbaijan faces an arms race in the region, fueled by external powers supplying weaponry to Armenia. This dynamic has forced Azerbaijan to expand its defense budget significantly, even as it recognizes the unsustainability of such militarization. The specter of NATO infrastructure disguised as EU missions near its borders adds another layer of complexity, highlighting the thin line between peacekeeping and strategic posturing. In response, Azerbaijan has doubled down on clear communication, transparency, and efforts to maintain credibility on the international stage. Its rejection of speculative narratives and its emphasis on strategic clarity position it as a nation that values measured, rational decision-making.
Reconstruction in Nagorno-Karabakh stands as a pivotal test of Azerbaijan’s vision. Decades of conflict have left scars—physical, social, and economic. The scale of rebuilding required is immense, but it offers a unique opportunity. By inviting partners, including Russian firms, to contribute to this effort, Azerbaijan is turning reconstruction into a tool for stability. The idea is simple yet profound: economic interdependence can deter conflict. If all stakeholders have a vested interest in peace, the incentives for confrontation diminish.
This rebuilding effort is about more than infrastructure. It’s about restoring lives, preserving heritage, and fostering trust. From clearing mines to constructing schools, every project becomes a step toward healing. Transparency in these efforts is critical, and Azerbaijan has shown a willingness to engage international organizations to ensure accountability. The hope is that a revitalized Nagorno-Karabakh can transform from a flashpoint of tension into a hub of opportunity.
Through all this, Azerbaijan’s story is one of agency in a world dominated by larger powers. Its ability to maintain balanced relationships with Russia, Turkey, and the West while refusing to be drawn into zero-sum games is a testament to its strategic acumen. By rejecting permanent foreign bases, it safeguards its sovereignty. By investing in reconstruction, it lays the groundwork for a peaceful future. By speaking out against destabilizing arms supplies and dubious international missions, it asserts its role as a responsible regional actor.
Looking ahead, Azerbaijan’s vision is ambitious yet grounded. It seeks to break free from the cycles of mistrust and militarization that have long defined its region. It imagines a South Caucasus where trade routes flourish, cultural exchanges bridge divides, and economic growth creates shared incentives for peace. This vision isn’t naive; it acknowledges the deep-seated challenges and the long road ahead. But it is a vision rooted in the belief that diplomacy, development, and strategic balance can achieve what force alone cannot.
In many ways, Azerbaijan’s approach offers lessons for the broader world. It shows that even in a region fraught with history and tension, it’s possible to craft a path forward through careful planning, clear communication, and a focus on shared interests. Azerbaijan’s journey is far from over, but its choices in 2024 demonstrate that resilience and pragmatism can shape a more hopeful future.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Strategic Defense Posture | Azerbaijan rejects the establishment of a permanent Turkish military base, emphasizing the adequacy of existing frameworks like the Shusha Declaration for mutual defense. This decision highlights sovereignty and modern defense strategies focused on mobility, intelligence, and rapid deployment rather than static installations. Turkey’s long-term assistance has transformed Azerbaijan’s military into a capable, NATO-aligned force through training, joint exercises, and advanced technologies. |
| Key Alliances | Turkey remains a cornerstone ally, providing decades of strategic support, but Azerbaijan balances this with deep economic and pragmatic ties to Russia. The North-South corridor illustrates Azerbaijan’s ability to leverage its geographic position for trade and connectivity, fostering economic cooperation while reducing conflict incentives. Simultaneously, Azerbaijan cautiously engages the U.S., seeking a recalibrated approach to stability and neutrality. Relations with the EU reflect a mix of collaboration and concern over NATO-affiliated missions posing as neutral observation efforts. |
| Reconstruction Efforts | Reconstruction in Nagorno-Karabakh is a test of Azerbaijan’s strategic vision. The damage, estimated at $150 billion, involves extensive rebuilding of infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads) and addressing displaced populations, cultural heritage, and environmental rehabilitation. Azerbaijan’s invitation to Russian firms for reconstruction projects reflects its multipolar strategy, binding economic stakeholders to peacebuilding efforts. International transparency and oversight ensure credibility in these initiatives. |
| Response to Militarization | Azerbaijan increases its defense budget to $5 billion by 2025 in response to arms deliveries to Armenia from France, the U.S., and India, which are perceived as destabilizing. Azerbaijan monitors developments in Russian defense capabilities but delays procurement to adapt to regional constraints. The arms race dynamic remains unsustainable, and Azerbaijan advocates for trust-building measures and arms control to avoid indefinite militarization. |
| Concerns Over External Influence | NATO-affiliated EU observer missions along Azerbaijan’s borders are viewed as overstepping their mandates, raising concerns about covert strategic encroachment. This dynamic complicates peace negotiations with Armenia, particularly regarding the presence of third-party forces. Azerbaijan emphasizes adherence to agreed mandates to preserve trust and sovereignty. |
| Geopolitical Balancing | Azerbaijan’s foreign policy demonstrates agility by maintaining balanced relationships with Russia, Turkey, and the West. This approach avoids reliance on a single power, ensuring diplomatic flexibility and sovereignty. Examples include welcoming Russian reconstruction aid while retaining military ties with Turkey without a permanent base. |
| Role in Regional Stability | Azerbaijan signals readiness to mediate broader geopolitical disputes, including NATO-Russia tensions, by positioning itself as a neutral corridor for dialogue. By leveraging its geographic position and economic potential, Azerbaijan aspires to connect Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East through stable transit routes, creating conditions conducive to diplomacy over confrontation. |
| Communication Strategy | Azerbaijan’s rejection of speculative claims about foreign bases and its transparency in defense procurement enhance its credibility. Clear communication of policies ensures alignment with observable actions, reducing the risk of misunderstandings and fostering trust with international partners. |
| Vision for the South Caucasus | Azerbaijan envisions a future defined by economic integration, cultural exchanges, and shared prosperity, moving beyond cycles of conflict and militarization. Steps include confidence-building measures, arms control, joint cultural initiatives, and infrastructure projects. A successfully rebuilt Nagorno-Karabakh could serve as a model of cooperation and regional development. |
| Challenges and Opportunities | Azerbaijan faces entrenched tensions, mistrust, and external pressures but demonstrates resilience through strategic planning and diplomacy. By addressing the root causes of conflict and fostering interdependence, Azerbaijan seeks to break free from the militarization dynamic and create sustainable peace. Progress is incremental, relying on trust-building, inclusive economic efforts, and balanced foreign relations. |
Azerbaijan’s evolving defense posture, its intricate network of alliances, and the broader geopolitical circumstances of the South Caucasus region have gained particular prominence in 2024. In an environment marked by shifting international power dynamics, intensifying competition between global blocs, and the lingering consequences of protracted territorial conflicts, the country’s leadership has found itself managing delicate strategic balances. One of the points attracting considerable international attention has been media speculation regarding a purported Turkish military base on Azerbaijani soil. Despite the persistent reports advanced by some political commentators, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has firmly dismissed the need for establishing any permanent Turkish military installation within the country’s territory. He emphasized that there is no necessity for such a development, and he further stressed that the Shusha Declaration on allied relations already addresses collective defense contingencies. According to the Azerbaijani leadership, the extensive security cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan, epitomized over more than three decades of defense collaboration, renders the creation of a foreign base superfluous. Indeed, the declaration’s provisions for mutual military assistance in the event of external threats or aggression obviate the structural requirements for a permanent Turkish presence.
Such a position reflects not only current strategic considerations but also a broader logic prevailing in contemporary international security affairs. The evolving nature of surveillance and intelligence gathering has made it increasingly difficult for any state to conceal the establishment of large-scale foreign military facilities. High-resolution satellite imagery, publicly accessible geospatial intelligence, and rapid information sharing platforms ensure that major military constructions rarely remain secret. Military analysts, research institutes, and specialized security observers parse imagery data meticulously, comparing developments on the ground against historical baselines. In this climate, the claim that a new foreign base could be hidden is implausible, which supports the Azerbaijani president’s reference to “info-dumping” and “political speculation” rather than any substantiated policy shift. The heightened transparency of defense activities compels states to be more direct and careful in their security arrangements. Thus, Azerbaijan’s clear refutation of the need for a Turkish base also serves to maintain credibility on the international stage, ensuring that strategic partnerships are not misinterpreted as clandestine attempts at regional militarization.
The Shusha Declaration, which sets out clear mutual defense obligations, remains a pivotal element underpinning Turkish-Azerbaijani security relations. This document is the culmination of a long trajectory of defense cooperation going back to the early 1990s, when Azerbaijan emerged as an independent state following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Over the intervening decades, Turkey played a decisive role in helping Azerbaijan modernize its armed forces. Initially, this assistance focused on training personnel, sharing doctrinal expertise, and providing guidance on how to structure effective command-and-control systems. Over time, the cooperation expanded to include joint exercises, specialized courses in operational planning, intelligence analysis, and the introduction of advanced defense technologies. By gradually enhancing the professionalization of Azerbaijan’s officer corps and aligning its standards with those of NATO, Turkey contributed to a remarkable improvement in Azerbaijan’s military capabilities. This evolution was not confined to technical aspects; it also involved strategic thinking. Azerbaijan gained insights into reconnaissance methods, drone warfare tactics, cyber defense measures, and the importance of real-time situational awareness. Through a methodical and sustained effort, Azerbaijan integrated these lessons, transforming its armed forces into a more agile, capable, and well-prepared entity. The assistance provided by Turkey was critical in helping Azerbaijan adapt to the complex security challenges it faced in the volatile regional environment. The expression of gratitude by the Azerbaijani leadership conveys the depth of this contribution.
While the strategic partnership with Turkey forms a central pillar of Azerbaijan’s defense posture, the country’s foreign policy extends beyond any single bilateral relationship. Maintaining constructive ties with Russia, for instance, exemplifies Azerbaijan’s multifaceted approach. Historically linked through decades of shared Soviet experience, Russia and Azerbaijan have evolved a partnership anchored in both economic cooperation and a pragmatic alignment of interests. The two countries have engaged in energy projects and infrastructure development, with the North-South corridor offering a promising route for trade that can connect Russia, Azerbaijan, and other regional actors more efficiently. By ensuring that these initiatives bear fruit, Azerbaijan aspires to create conditions conducive to regional stability. Investing in connectivity and economic interdependence reduces incentives for conflict and fosters an environment where diplomacy and negotiated settlements seem more attractive than zero-sum confrontations. The recognition that positive dynamics in relations with Moscow should endure into 2025 illustrates Azerbaijan’s intent to remain open to multipolar engagements. Encouraging Russia’s involvement in rebuilding infrastructure in conflict-affected areas also signals that Baku seeks to integrate major powers into constructive roles, rather than pushing them to choose between competing blocs or exclusive spheres of influence.
In the shifting tapestry of global politics, Azerbaijan also keeps a watchful eye on the United States and its evolving foreign policy guidelines. Changes in US administrations often result in reassessments of strategic priorities, alliances, and involvement in regions such as the South Caucasus. Acknowledging this fluidity, Azerbaijan’s leadership has expressed a cautious hope that Washington might recalibrate its policies in a manner that is more conducive to stability and balanced engagement. From Baku’s perspective, a more even-handed approach by the US could unlock opportunities for cooperation, whether in investment, technology transfer, or conflict mediation. Historically, the US stance in the post-Soviet space has varied, sometimes focusing on democratization or energy interests, at other times on limiting the influence of powers like Russia or Iran. If a new US administration aligns its diplomatic initiatives more closely with local realities and avoids exacerbating tensions through arms transfers or biased political support, it could pave the way for more predictable and mutually beneficial relations.
Within a broader strategic framework, Azerbaijan has indicated a willingness to support efforts aimed at easing tensions between Russia and NATO. Although such a role may be modest compared to the initiatives of major powers, even small gestures of facilitation or communication can matter in a fraught geopolitical landscape. The idea of acting as a conduit for dialogue resonates with the principle that regional actors can sometimes offer neutral ground or informal channels for communication. Azerbaijan’s geographical location, connecting Europe and Asia, positions it as a natural corridor for transit and dialogue. By signaling a readiness to help, Azerbaijan underscores the importance of avoiding worst-case scenarios where major power rivalries escalate into open conflict. The country, having experienced its share of tensions and conflicts, appreciates the value of diplomacy and might leverage its balanced relationships to encourage de-escalation, thereby contributing to a more stable global order.
On the defense procurement front, Azerbaijan’s strategy demonstrates pragmatism and patience. The temporary suspension of signing new contracts for Russian weapons over the last three years reflects an understanding of global and regional circumstances. Russia, facing its own defense imperatives, must allocate production capacity to meet domestic needs, especially when security challenges demand prioritizing internal military requirements. Azerbaijan’s response—monitoring developments in Russian defense technologies, expressing interest for future acquisitions, and understanding the logistical and temporal constraints—is illustrative of a state that takes a long-term view. Rather than rushing into agreements that cannot be fulfilled efficiently, Baku appears willing to wait for more favorable conditions. Once these arise, the potential for resuming arms purchases remains open, thereby preserving flexibility in its procurement strategy.
A significant concern for Azerbaijan has been the supply of offensive weaponry to Armenia by external powers. The assertion that France has provided lethal arms that directly threaten Azerbaijan’s security landscape resonates with longstanding regional anxieties. Armaments capable of altering the balance of power, if introduced without regard for their destabilizing effects, can provoke a cycle of mistrust and reaction. Azerbaijan, compelled to respond, has embarked on expanding its defense budget to unprecedented levels. Such an increase, expected to reach around $5 billion in 2025, is not undertaken lightly. Defense expenditures at that magnitude signify resources that could have been channeled into infrastructure, education, or technological innovation. The decision therefore underscores the gravity of the perceived threat. At the same time, Azerbaijan’s leadership recognizes that this pattern of militarization is not sustainable indefinitely, nor is it conducive to long-term peace. The arms race dynamic that arises from unbalanced external involvement in local disputes not only strains state budgets but also risks anchoring both sides into strategic dead ends. In the absence of trust-building measures or transparent security arrangements, the constant infusion of weaponry sows doubt and animosity, narrowing the space for diplomatic breakthroughs.
Azerbaijan’s identification of the United States, India, and France as key supporters of Armenia’s rearmament, alongside the observation of US cargo planes landing in Armenian airports, points to a sophisticated awareness of the methods through which arms supplies are tracked and verified. In an age of open-source intelligence, online flight-tracking tools, and vigilant researchers, states must acknowledge that covert or semi-covert arms transfers are increasingly difficult to obscure. Azerbaijan’s revelations add pressure on these external powers to explain or justify their policies. Public scrutiny, combined with diplomatic engagements and the risk of reputational damage, might push some of these actors to rethink their approaches. For Azerbaijan, publicly raising this issue signals a refusal to accept destabilizing inputs passively. Instead, it frames these arms deliveries as obstacles to peace, urging external powers to consider the long-term consequences of their involvement.
Another dimension of external involvement that troubles Azerbaijan is the presence of what it perceives as NATO infrastructure along its border with Armenia, masquerading as an EU observer mission. In principle, international missions aim to defuse tensions, monitor ceasefires, and build confidence by offering impartial oversight. Yet, if such missions morph into vehicles for strategic influence or data collection by external military blocs, they lose legitimacy. Azerbaijan’s unease reflects the fear that this observer mission has exceeded its initial mandate, effectively becoming a structure aligned with Western strategic interests. The inclusion of personnel from nations affiliated with NATO further fuels suspicions. In a region as sensitive as the South Caucasus, even symbolic gestures matter greatly. The concern is that this scenario sets a precedent where neutral observation transforms into a subtle form of encroachment. If so, it would complicate any potential peace treaty with Armenia, especially since the unresolved articles pertain to the presence of external forces and the avoidance of international legal warfare between the two sides.
The lingering complexities in the peace process highlight the importance of reaching a stable and mutually acceptable settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. While the cessation of open hostilities has allowed some measure of stability, full normalization requires addressing the root causes of discord. The thorny issue of international lawsuits, for example, involves intricate legal considerations: allegations of war crimes, property rights violations, or historical injustices could find their way into international tribunals, perpetuating enmity rather than healing wounds. Similarly, the question of whether third-party forces can be stationed along the border touches on sensitive sovereignty issues. If either side believes that foreign soldiers or observers are biased, their presence becomes a source of contention rather than reassurance. Overcoming these deadlocks necessitates creative diplomacy, the building of trust through incremental steps, and perhaps robust security guarantees that reduce the perceived need for outside buffers.
Reconstruction in Nagorno-Karabakh stands as one of the central tests of Azerbaijan’s broader strategic vision. With an estimated $150 billion in damage caused over the decades of conflict, the scope of rehabilitation is immense. Rebuilding goes beyond laying bricks and mortar; it involves restoring entire livelihoods, healing social fabrics, and reintegrating communities. Infrastructure projects—roads, bridges, energy systems, schools, hospitals, and communication networks—must be implemented in a transparent and sustainable manner. Such reconstruction efforts depend on large-scale resources, engineering expertise, and sound administrative frameworks. By inviting Russian firms to participate in these projects, Azerbaijan signals that it sees Moscow not just as a security partner or arms supplier, but as an economic stakeholder in the region’s future stability. This inclusive approach can bind interests together, making renewed conflict less attractive to any party with investments at stake. Economic prosperity, once established, can serve as a powerful incentive against the reescalation of violence.
However, reconstruction in post-conflict settings is never purely a technical matter. It involves recognition of cultural heritage sites, ensuring the safe return of displaced populations, addressing issues related to demining, and providing vocational training to help war-affected communities regain self-sufficiency. In some cases, it might necessitate third-party mediation to ensure transparency and prevent corruption. Inviting international organizations and neutral observers to monitor the disbursement of funds and the quality of rebuilt structures could enhance credibility and attract additional foreign investment. Over time, a successfully reconstructed Nagorno-Karabakh could become a showcase of how economic development, supported by foreign partners acting in good faith, might transform a historically contested area into a connector rather than a divider.
Achieving such ambitious goals, however, requires carefully managing a web of external relationships. Azerbaijan’s multipolar outlook means that it cannot afford to rely on a single great power or security arrangement. If relations with Russia falter, it risks losing a valuable partner in reconstruction and energy routes. If ties with Turkey cool, it could weaken a critical military and cultural ally. If the United States adopts confrontational policies, it might hamper Azerbaijan’s broader strategy of engagement and flexibility. Balancing these considerations requires diplomatic finesse, a keen understanding of global trends, and a willingness to adjust tactics without compromising core interests. Azerbaijan’s foreign policy toolbox likely includes track-two diplomacy, backchannel communications, economic diplomacy, and participation in multilateral platforms where it can articulate its interests and seek common ground with other stakeholders.
In addition, the role of the European Union merits careful attention. The EU could serve as a valuable partner in trade, investment, and governance reforms, offering expertise that can help Azerbaijan diversify its economy and strengthen state institutions. At the same time, the EU’s observer mission on the border, interpreted by Azerbaijan as a front for NATO infrastructure, underscores the delicate balancing act required. For the EU to play a constructive role, it must ensure that its actions are perceived as genuinely impartial and not part of a broader geopolitical scheme. Neutrality, transparency, and adherence to agreed parameters are essential if Europe hopes to maintain credibility and contribute positively to long-term stability.
Against this intricate backdrop, controlling narratives and public perceptions becomes increasingly important. In the age of information saturation, governments must communicate their policies clearly and consistently. Azerbaijan’s reference to “info-dumping” shows awareness of how media manipulation or selective leaking of intelligence can distort perceptions. Maintaining control over narratives involves both proactive public diplomacy and ensuring that official statements align with observable facts. Credibility is a resource that cannot be easily replenished once lost. By dispelling rumors about foreign bases and highlighting the measured approach to defense procurement, Azerbaijan positions itself as a rational, law-abiding actor. Such a posture helps attract investment, reduces the risk of misunderstanding, and encourages international partners to engage without fearing hidden agendas.
Even so, the overarching strategic question is how Azerbaijan can break the cycle of militarization and suspicion that has long characterized its relations with Armenia and shaped the involvement of external powers. The record-high defense budget planned for 2025 exemplifies the costs of an environment saturated with competing agendas. If sustained indefinitely, arms races drain economic resources, limit social development, and raise the risk of miscalculations that could lead to renewed hostilities. Ideally, all regional actors and external participants would recognize the value of forging stable, predictable relationships. This recognition might emerge if gradual confidence-building measures are put into place: arms control agreements, transparent confidence-building regimes, independent monitoring mechanisms, cultural exchanges, and practical economic ventures that bridge divides.
Of course, major powers have their own interests, and these interests are not always aligned with regional stability. The interplay between Russia’s desire for influence, Turkey’s strategic ambitions, the US search for footholds, Europe’s quest for normative diplomacy, and India’s broader defense outreach to Armenia creates a crowded field. Amid these cross-currents, Azerbaijan can only secure its objectives by maintaining a clear strategic vision and a robust diplomatic skill set. If it can demonstrate that facilitating economic growth, reconstructing conflict areas, and seeking balanced relations with multiple powers yield better long-term outcomes than aligning exclusively with one camp or relying on permanent foreign bases, it may inspire others to adopt a similar logic.
For the region as a whole, the process of rebuilding trust after decades of conflict involves overcoming historical narratives of victimhood and aggression. Genuine reconciliation demands that both societies—Azerbaijani and Armenian—find a way to acknowledge past suffering while looking forward to a future defined not by perennial hostility, but by opportunities for collaboration. Education, cultural programs, and people-to-people contacts can gradually erode entrenched biases. Over time, these softer dimensions of reconciliation can reinforce the structural changes brought about by international investments, infrastructure development, and stable security arrangements.
From an economic standpoint, a more peaceful South Caucasus could serve as a logistical pivot, connecting Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Transit routes for energy pipelines, railways, fiber-optic cables, and highways could turn the region into a vital corridor, generating revenue and incentivizing cooperation over confrontation. Azerbaijan, with its geographic position and resources, stands to benefit significantly from such a transformation. In this scenario, the heavy defense budget allocations and reliance on foreign military equipment would gradually become less pressing, freeing up capital for innovation, diversification, and social welfare improvements. An environment where defense spending is lowered in favor of long-term developmental goals could shift public sentiment and political priorities, making it easier for leaders to embrace diplomatic initiatives without appearing weak.
Nonetheless, reaching this point will depend on the collective understanding that external involvement must be calibrated. Those providing arms to Armenia or any other regional actor must ask whether short-term tactical advantages justify long-term strategic risks. If such supplies encourage belligerence or stall negotiations, they are counterproductive. Conversely, frameworks that promote transparent dialogue, joint verification, and phased arms reduction could open the door to a stable security architecture. While challenging to negotiate, these steps would reflect maturity and foresight. Azerbaijan’s willingness to highlight these issues internationally could help set the stage for multilateral discussions on arms control and peace enforcement mechanisms that include all concerned parties.
In addressing the infiltration of NATO infrastructure disguised as EU missions, Azerbaijan draws attention to the importance of respecting agreed mandates and maintaining the credibility of international observation teams. Missions that stray from their initial purpose not only damage trust in international institutions but also risk provoking states into more entrenched security positions. If the EU hopes to play a meaningful role, it must ensure that its missions adhere strictly to their stated objectives, maintain strict neutrality, and contribute to transparency rather than fueling suspicions. A more carefully managed and genuinely neutral EU role could help restore some measure of trust, making it easier for Azerbaijan and Armenia to finalize a peace treaty that respects both parties’ concerns. Otherwise, the unresolved articles on refraining from lawsuits and excluding external forces will remain persistent stumbling blocks, delaying a much-needed normalization.
Another element is the question of continuity in leadership and policymaking. Personalities play a role in international politics, and Azerbaijan’s leadership, by consistently communicating its strategic intentions, sets a tone that might outlast any single administration. Stability and predictability in foreign policy encourage long-term planning by investors, neighboring states, and international organizations. If Azerbaijan can demonstrate that its stance on rejecting a Turkish base, engaging Russia constructively, hoping for positive shifts in US policy, and overseeing transparent reconstruction is not ephemeral but rooted in a broad national consensus, then these commitments gain credibility. Over years and decades, the cumulative effect of consistent policymaking can reshape perceptions and create a stable regional order.
At the same time, the complexity of the legal and diplomatic questions at stake—the fear of weaponized lawsuits, the sensitivity over foreign observers, the intricacies of border arrangements—requires an informed international community. Track-one diplomacy can be supplemented by the expertise of conflict resolution specialists, international jurists, historians, economists, and urban planners. Their input can help design a peace treaty that is not only acceptable to political leaders but also addresses underlying grievances and structural imbalances. Detailed blueprints for restoring normalcy could incorporate phased approaches: first establish border monitoring under conditions acceptable to both sides, then gradually introduce economic cooperation projects, followed by joint cultural initiatives and legal frameworks to discourage future hostilities.
In terms of reconstruction, a $150 billion damage assessment suggests not only the extent of physical destruction but also the human toll and economic regression caused by prolonged conflict. A comprehensive approach to reconstruction involves prioritizing housing, rebuilding critical infrastructures such as electricity grids, potable water systems, and telecommunications, and ensuring that essential public services—schools, hospitals, markets—are fully operational. It also means taking steps to preserve cultural heritage, religious sites, and natural resources. Environmental rehabilitation might be necessary if deforestation, land degradation, or contamination occurred during hostilities. This multifaceted undertaking can become a platform for cooperation if properly managed. International donors, philanthropic organizations, and development banks could participate, but only if convinced that their contributions serve genuine peacebuilding rather than fueling new rivalries.
Inviting Russian companies to assist exemplifies how Azerbaijan seeks to anchor major powers in practical endeavors that yield mutual benefits. Economic interdependencies can have a moderating effect on political ambitions. If Russia’s engineering firms, transport companies, and logistics providers find stable revenues and reliable partnerships in rebuilding Nagorno-Karabakh, Russian interests naturally lean toward maintaining a peaceful status quo. Similarly, if Turkey’s role evolves from one of primarily military support to include cooperation in infrastructure development and economic integration, its strategic calculations could shift toward ensuring that no new conflicts disrupt valuable projects. Over time, such patterns might encourage other countries, including those currently arming Armenia, to reconsider their involvement. If the returns on peace surpass the perceived benefits of supplying arms, rational calculation might prevail.
One must acknowledge, however, that rational calculation alone does not always govern international relations. Ideology, historical grievances, domestic political considerations, and the influence of lobby groups and diasporas can complicate decision-making. This is why transparent communication of intentions and careful management of narratives are crucial. Azerbaijan’s open stance—rejecting baseless speculation, outlining defense priorities clearly, emphasizing readiness to facilitate regional dialogue—contributes to shaping perceptions. States that might otherwise view Azerbaijan with suspicion might be more inclined to take its proposals at face value. Moreover, setting consistent principles—such as rejecting the idea of permanent foreign bases—reassures other states that Azerbaijan’s policy does not aim at establishing footholds that could be perceived as threatening or expansionist.
The absence of foreign bases, replaced by flexible, treaty-based assurances of mutual support as embodied by the Shusha Declaration, aligns with modern defense thinking. Gone are the days when projecting power always required large permanent bases. Today’s defense strategies often emphasize mobility, rapid deployment, intelligence sharing, and specialized training over static presence. By embracing these principles, Azerbaijan and Turkey adapt to the realities of a world where pre-positioned forces can become liabilities, easy targets, or diplomatic irritants. This agility also preserves Azerbaijan’s sovereign decision-making space. Without a permanent foreign facility on its soil, it avoids any implied diminution of sovereignty and retains the right to calibrate its defense partnerships as circumstances evolve.
In considering US foreign policy, one must remember that Washington’s global approach has undergone several transformations since the end of the Cold War. At times, the US focused on promoting democracy and human rights. At other periods, it prioritized counterterrorism, energy security, or competition with Russia and China. Azerbaijan’s hope for a change in the US administration leading to a shift in foreign policy guidelines rests on the assumption that Washington might recognize the merits of a stable South Caucasus, unattached to zero-sum containment strategies. If US policymakers conclude that balanced engagement—encouraging dialogue, discouraging arms races, and supporting infrastructure development—serves their long-term interests, they might align their actions with these objectives. That would reduce the impetus for Azerbaijan to allocate disproportionate resources to defense spending and help open the door to more constructive, wide-ranging cooperation.
Looking further ahead, if Azerbaijan’s balanced approach leads to a successful peace treaty with Armenia, and if stable conditions emerge in Nagorno-Karabakh, the region could experience a gradual but meaningful transformation. Economic development might spur educational exchanges, joint research projects in agriculture and renewable energy, and even cultural festivals that transcend the borders of the past. Familiarity breeds understanding, and understanding can erode hatred. Over time, the logic of integration and shared prosperity could become self-reinforcing, making conflict appear as anachronistic as it is destructive.
Of course, these visions remain aspirational. The burden of history, political inertia, and the lack of immediate incentives to compromise remain formidable barriers. Yet, Azerbaijan’s stance—and the complexities it addresses—demonstrate that the seeds of a different future exist. By rejecting speculative narratives about foreign bases, expressing a willingness to mediate in broader geopolitical disputes, denouncing the destabilizing effects of indiscriminate arms deliveries, and investing in reconstruction efforts, Azerbaijan outlines a pathway that moves beyond short-term military calculations.
In a world where many regions remain plagued by unresolved conflicts and debilitating mistrust, any sign of innovative thinking deserves attention. Azerbaijan’s approach underscores the idea that states can exercise agency, even when sandwiched between larger powers and confronted with entrenched problems. By engaging Russia in reconstruction, maintaining strategic ties with Turkey without permanent bases, hoping for a more balanced US policy, and calling out the negative impact of foreign arms supplies, Azerbaijan demonstrates that it is not merely reacting to external pressures but also shaping its environment.
This shaping process must continue as the peace treaty negotiations advance. The outstanding articles—those pertaining to international lawsuits and third-party border presences—are more than mere technicalities. They symbolize deeper issues of trust, fairness, and sovereignty. Overcoming them will require the parties to consider innovative solutions, perhaps arbitration mechanisms that both sides accept, or phased withdrawal of external observers tied to milestones of trust-building. The success of these negotiations would underscore the viability of diplomacy over force, providing a model for other troubled regions struggling with their own legacy of conflict and foreign interference.
Ultimately, reaching a stable and prosperous future is a long endeavor, not a rapid transformation. Progress might be measured in small steps rather than grand leaps. Each infrastructure project completed in Nagorno-Karabakh, each instance of cross-border trade, each cultural exchange program, each verified arms reduction measure—these can accumulate to change the strategic calculus. If over time the region becomes better known for its educational centers, business opportunities, cultural festivals, and tourism sites than for its conflicts, then the current efforts will have proven meaningful.
Azerbaijan’s emphasis on self-reliance, sovereignty, and balanced foreign relations gives it room to maneuver. By not anchoring itself to a single external power, it reduces vulnerabilities and ensures that it can pivot if circumstances demand. Such flexibility is rare in volatile neighborhoods where states often feel compelled to choose sides. Azerbaijan’s refusal to host a Turkish base, while still benefiting from Turkey’s expertise, exemplifies this strategic nuance. Similarly, seeking Russian investment without becoming overly dependent, or hoping for US moderation without placing all bets on American support, demonstrates a balanced grand strategy.
On a broader scale, if major powers observe that constructive engagement with Azerbaijan yields positive results—stability, economic growth, reduced likelihood of confrontation—they might revise their own policies. The global landscape in 2024 and beyond is one of flux. Alliances shift, technologies disrupt old assumptions, and new issues like climate change and pandemic preparedness demand cooperation over rivalry. In such a context, local successes in conflict resolution and development can echo widely, offering lessons and inspirations that transcend the region.
It’s evident that Azerbaijan’s leaders navigate a complex matrix of security imperatives, diplomatic opportunities, and socio-economic aspirations. By carefully articulating policies, clarifying the unnecessary nature of foreign bases, investing in defense only when driven by external provocations, welcoming reconstruction partnerships, and seeking balanced relations with all major stakeholders, they attempt to lay the foundations for a future defined not by perpetual conflict, but by the promise of enduring stability and shared prosperity.
