Does Yerevan's rapprochement with the West threaten Azerbaijan?

Official Baku, through pro-government media, is replicating concern about the West's plans to "destabilize" the situation in the region. This propaganda has noticeably intensified on the eve of the trilateral meeting in Brussels between the Armenian Prime Minister and the US Secretary of State and the head of the European Commission. It is noteworthy that Baku and Moscow's assessments on this issue coincide, as in many other issues related to the West.

The agenda of the upcoming meeting in Brussels on April 5 has been announced as supporting Armenia's stability, security and solving its economic and humanitarian problems. Former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, who has been acting as an outspoken lobbyist for Armenia's interests and the international arena for a couple of years, put it more specifically. The day before, the Network of Friends of Armenia, headed by him, published a report with recommendations to the EU countries.

In particular, it is proposed to liberalize the visa regime with Armenia, take measures to provide economic support to Yerevan, develop healthcare, rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy. It is also recommended to subsidize the import of basic foodstuffs to Armenia. In parallel, the EU should support the development of Armenia's economy and invite it to become a member of the European Energy Community, help in the transition to green energy and diversification of energy sources.

The report says that the European Union should strengthen Armenia in order to "prevent a new war." That is why it is necessary to strengthen cooperation between the EU and Armenia in the field of security and grant Armenia the status of an EU candidate.

The report notes that Armenia finds itself in an extremely unstable security environment, because "Azerbaijan continues to pose a threat and sends a signal that it is preparing to attack Armenia," therefore, there is a need to supply military assistance to Armenia, including modern Western equipment.

The recommendations, especially in the field of security, look serious, but how real are they? It is difficult to imagine that against the background of the war in Ukraine, Europe is able to allocate weapons to Armenia.  But these are only recommendations, not an accepted plan. The fact that security issues at the meeting imply only the protection of Armenia's sovereignty was unequivocally confirmed by representatives of the European Union and the US State Department.

Ensuring security is not only about weapons, but also political support. There should be no doubt about that. The West will support Armenia's security in every possible way, but this is not a manifestation of hostility towards Azerbaijan, but a desire to prevent the destruction of Armenia's independence. Our official propaganda interprets this differently and is full of headlines like: "Pashinyan sold Armenia to the West!", "Armenia, on behalf of the West, undermines Russia's position in the Caucasus!"

It seems that these are publications of Kremlin propaganda, and not the Azerbaijani media.

How beneficial is it for Azerbaijan to return Armenia to Russian control? Suppose Pashinyan is overthrown and pro-Russian forces come to power, what will they say: are we opening the road through Zangezur to Azerbaijan? Or will they stop defending Armenia's borders, demanding that Baku recognize the borders of the two Soviet-era republics?

How will the Kremlin behave if its protege leads Armenia? Will Baku push for a new war or will it demand to calm down and consider Russia's interests?

The bacchanal does not stop on our TV channels, where so-called political scientists and experts, without hiding their joy, and interrupting each other, predict the imminent end of the Pashinyan regime. However, none of them says what will happen next and why is it good for Azerbaijan?

The loss of Armenia's independence and its return to the bosom of Russian interests will cause several fundamental changes:

1. It is more likely that a large part of the Armenians who left Karabakh will want to return. Then the issue of the presence of Russian peacekeepers there will automatically be extended. After some time, the issue of the status of Karabakh becomes relevant and here the positions of the West and Russia will coincide.
2. The negative attitude of the West towards Azerbaijan will only increase because we will be perceived as a tool that allowed Russia to overthrow the democratic regime in Armenia.
3. The road through Zangezur will never be opened because it will be important for Moscow to support the new government, and not force it to take unpopular steps.
4. The new Armenian authorities will be ready to denounce all agreements between Yerevan and Baku, declaring them treacherous and unconstitutional. This will be the beginning of preparations for a new war.
5. 5) Baku's current rhetoric about "Western Azerbaijan", first of all, will be suppressed by Moscow as "provocative and rejecting realities."

Does Azerbaijan need all this? Don't these political scientists and those who instruct them understand this?

Russia is fighting to maintain its position in the region. In the early 90s, we suffered the same way when we wanted to free ourselves from the influence of the Kremlin, and what happened? Since then, Russia's rulers have changed, but its imperial policy has not.

The propaganda noise around the meeting in Brussels, where "The West will arm Armenia" is a slogan that has nothing to do with the reality and interests of Azerbaijan. 

The delimitation of borders with the condition of the return of its legitimate territories to Azerbaijan and the elimination of disputed issues with Armenia, as well as the opening of the Zangezur corridor, are resolved through direct dialogue between the two sides. It would be a mistake not to use this opportunity.