Ukraine's Call to Boycott SOCAR: Reflections on Complex Dual Loyalties

The Ukrainian blogosphere has sparked a call to boycott the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) after Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Baku, followed by an agreement between SOCAR and Gazprom on cooperation in the gas business. This reaction reflects a complex web of emotions and political calculations in Ukraine, a country deeply scarred by Russia's ongoing aggression. Ukrainian authorities remain silent on the matter, and there seems to be a general sense of indifference in society, although the prevailing sentiments are far from straightforward.

Ukrainian Discontent: A Reaction to War and Losses

The discontent expressed by Ukrainians, especially in the blogosphere, stems from deep losses and hardships caused by Russia's invasion. Ukraine has suffered enormous human and material losses, leaving the country in a state of exhaustion and, in some respects, hopelessness. This emotional background makes any perceived cooperation with Russia extremely sensitive and potentially incendiary.

While it is important to understand these motives, it is also crucial to note that SOCAR and Azerbaijan have played a role in providing political and humanitarian support to Ukraine. However, the focus here is not on these contributions but on the broader context of Azerbaijan's actions and the Ukrainian reaction.

Azerbaijan's Long Journey to Restoring Territorial Integrity

Azerbaijan's history of attempting to restore its territorial integrity provides a useful lens through which to understand its current diplomatic and economic strategies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan was unwavering in its goal of reclaiming territories occupied by Armenia, amounting to 20% of its lands. Unlike today's Ukraine, Azerbaijan did not demand that other countries recognize Armenia as an occupier, except for international bodies like the United Nations, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. Notably, no state in the post-Soviet space recognized the occupation of Azerbaijan's territory, nor did the UN Security Council member states demand an unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces.

This restrained approach often led to frustration in Azerbaijan, but the country remained committed to diplomatic negotiations and international engagement while simultaneously preparing for the possibility of a military solution.

The Agonizing Reality of Diplomacy

The Azerbaijani blogosphere, which has engaged in debates with Ukrainian critics of SOCAR, often recalls the handshakes between Ukrainian leaders and Armenian presidents responsible for the occupation and atrocities committed against Azerbaijanis. However, the fact remains that Presidents Heydar and Ilham Aliyev also met and regularly negotiated with Armenian Presidents Kocharyan and Sargsyan, who were accused of the Khojaly genocide. These meetings, marked by tension and a deep sense of injustice, required immense courage and strategic patience from the Azerbaijani side.

These negotiations were driven by a desire to avoid further conflict and human losses. This is evidenced by Azerbaijan's willingness to invest oil revenues in the Armenian economy and the Armenian-populated part of Karabakh, as demonstrated by the $5 billion initiative discussed by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who acted as a mediator between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The 2020 war, which ultimately led to the restoration of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, was seen as a last resort after decades of unsuccessful diplomacy.

Parallels Between Ukraine and Azerbaijan

Ukraine's current predicament with Russia bears similarities to Azerbaijan's past struggles with Armenia. Despite the occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donetsk region, Ukrainian Presidents Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky continued to negotiate with Putin, which closely mirrors Azerbaijan's experience in negotiating with Armenia.

However, unlike Azerbaijan, Ukraine has not severed all ties with its occupier. It has continued to allow the transit of Russian oil and gas through its territory and has negotiated grain exports even amidst the ongoing conflict. Zelensky's willingness to negotiate with Putin, expressed in his interview with the BBC in July 2024, reflects a pragmatic approach similar to that of the Aliyevs. Zelensky stated that if peace talks resumed, he would be ready to negotiate with whoever was in power in Russia, including Putin, if it meant ending the war. His words underscore the difficult choices leaders face in such conflicts, where the ultimate goal of ending the war often requires engagement with those responsible for it.

And so,

the calls to boycott SOCAR in the Ukrainian blogosphere can be seen as an emotional reaction rooted in the deep wounds inflicted by Russia's war. However, understanding Azerbaijan's diplomatic history and its long-standing quest for territorial integrity provides valuable context. Just as Ukraine today must navigate the complex realities of war and diplomacy, Azerbaijan faced similar challenges in its past. The parallels between the two countries highlight the difficult choices leaders must make in the pursuit of peace, even if those choices involve engaging with adversaries responsible for great suffering.

*Dual loyalty is an ethical and political term that means simultaneous loyalty to two separate, often opposite interests, the result of which is a conflict of interests.