America abandons the policy of isolationism

***

Q: Alakbar bey, the views expressed by the US President in one of his recent interviews have caused tension in US-Russian relations. The Russian President did not leave the US President unanswered. We have even witnessed degrading images and actions against the United States and its President in the media, on television, and on TV shows. At the same time, the interview shed light on the position and policy of the US President towards Russia and its President. Can we now say that we will witness a cold war between these two hegemons during Biden's presidency?

A: On the surface, the scene you describe is indeed reminiscent of the "cold war", however the current situation between Washington and Moscow is more characterized as a "hot peace" in the diplomatic corridors. You are right that the curtains were “lifted”, as they say, by President Biden's infmaous interview, but those who sit in front seats can immediately sense that Putin is the "director" of the play. Just consider this single fact: This is the first time that Russia has recalled its ambassador to Washington since 1999. At that time, Moscow's protest was based on a US airstrike on Iraq. Now consider everything that have happened between the two countries since 1998, under Putin's rule. To name a few: the war in Georgia, the Kosovo issue, the occupation of Crimea, US sanctions, violations of arms agreements, and so on. That being said, I don’t think President Biden calling Putin a “killer” is the most sensational event that has happened during the last 25 years –the White House chief, mosrt likely, wanted to demonstrate that there is a new "sheriff" in town - and Putin, by recalling his ambassador, I think, is just kind of a performing, trying to "troll" Biden at best, and to ignite nationalist voices in his own country at worst.

But I also think that all of these, on the other hand, demonstrate real vulnerability of the Kremlin. It has become clear that no matter how tolerant Putin is when it comes to criticism of Russia's foreign policy, he seems to be much more thin-skinned about criticism of inside of Russia. In other words, the West can say anything about Russia's behavior, for example, in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Syria, and other regions. But once the statements are aimed at Russia's domestic policy – Biden, I think, has called Putin a "killer" because the Kremlin’s owner is trying to get rid of his rivals, and that's a fact! - Putin immediately goes apoplectic. As if it’s Navalny, not Biden, standing in front of him...

So, I think, it sets up an interesting dynamic moving forward, where the Biden people have to charge how often and openly they are hitting this nerve spot around issuing more direct criticism of the Kremlin’s domestic politics - in other words, when and how deeply they will tread on Putin’s corns. But in any case, what is happening today, I repeat, is not a "cold war", but a "hot peace". At the end of the day the US and Russia like are custom to have huge fights about some things, and working together another. Recall that even at the absolute rock bottom of the US-Russian relations after the annexation of Ukraine and the Syrian war, they worked together on a nuclear deal.

In other words, when it comes to the attitude of the superpowers, it is possible to "walk and chew gum at the same time," as a famous phrase often quoted by diplomats. As you already know, President Biden has invited Putin to a virtual Climate Summit that will be held in Washington on May 22. However, this does not mean that it is Biden's duty to normalize relations with Russia. If so, why shouldn't it be Putin's duty too?

Q: How can the cold relations between the United States and Russia affect Azerbaijan and the region? Recently, relations between Azerbaijan and Russia have been very close due to the Karabakh war. At the same time, there is a tendency for relations with the United States to warm up. Will the cooling of relations between the United States and Russia now put Azerbaijan in a dilemma?

A:  Like I mentioned earlier, even in the tensest moments of US-Russian relations, they managed to act together on certain issues - for example, the Iran nuclear deal, Afghanistan, Karabakh... That being said, in the interests of major powers, when it comes to the “strife of the little ones”, no one - at least the West - has left Azerbaijan with the dilemma of choosing between "the big ones". It also means that officials in Baku are mistaken in turning to Moscow and following the course of "no matter what, we only need to have good relations with the Kremlin" in their own world. Just as in diplomacy, the course of "treating someone badly no matter what" is not chosen as a target either...

It is another matter that the Kremlin leadership is often interested in creating tensions in the neighborhood from time to time to divert attention from Russia's own domestic political problems - in the present case, the forthcoming Duma elections, growing economic discontent, and so on. For example, it is enough to look at what is happening around Ukraine ... On the other hand, the recent "Iskander" scandal between Baku and Moscow raises additional questions about  Russia's view of Azerbaijan as a "friend".

As for the Karabakh issue, so long as Azerbaijan does not sit down and share and formalize its achivements from the last year's war with the Armenian people under the auspices of the democratic world -  not on the basis of Putin's regional ambitions - “this dough will continue to consume a lot of water”, as we say in Azerbaijan. We must refrain from repeating the mistakes made by Armenia over the past 30 years - that is, to win alone and to gnash our teeth at the other side - live with the approach of "winner takes all". There is a saying: wars are usually won by the losing parties... In recent months, Azerbaijan has managed to liberate part of its territory; however, the hostility has not disappeared but has gone deeper. And as long as Russia uses this issue to try to return both Azerbaijan and Armenia itto its orbit of influence, this will continue like that. As a result, the losers will be both people - both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Q: The letter of the President of the United States to the President of Azerbaijan on the occasion of the Novruz holiday "excited" many people here. His views such as "My administration will work with Azerbaijan to address common security concerns and regional reconciliation" and "We also support your efforts to diversify your economy and develop energy opportunities in the Caspian Sea. The United States wants to explore new opportunities for economic cooperation" in his letter were interpreted as the hand extended across the ocean to Azerbaijan for reconciliation. But at the same time, a report released last week by the Department of State notes that there are serious problems in Azerbaijan in this area. Do you really think that the United States intends to open a new page with Azerbaijan? If so, what is the purpose?

A: It looks like the official propaganda machine in Baku reads “too much” from the protocol letter issued by President Biden to the President and people of Azerbaijan on the occasion of the Novruz holiday. In fact, it would be the news if the White House did not send such a letter to Baku on the eve of Novruz. Therefore, presenting the text of the holiday congratulations as almost in the form of the White House's "Azerbaijan Doctrine" promises pretty much nothing. Similarely, the human rights report published last week should be taken as a collection of facts reflecting serious violations in the country over the past year, not as a bias against Azerbaijan....

The solution to the problems in this and other areas must be through mutual discussion and contacts. So far, neither the new leadership of the White House nor the Secretary of State himself has attempted direct contact with the President of Azerbaijan. (Such contact with Armenia have taken place at the level of Secretary of State). The oil country Azerbaijan has not been invited to this month's Global Climate Summit. (Among the post-Soviet countries, Russia and Poland are among the invitees).

For some reason, Azerbaijani officials seem to be ready to exaggerate only a portion of the message – the ones that they find interesting - from Washington for the sake of their internal propaganda, to open a discussion around it, while avoiding direct dialogue on problematic issues or try to gain time. Politicians in Baku must finally understand that the world is not revolving around them and that no one is preparing reports day and night to harm Azerbaijan. If the two countries extend a hand to each other - no matter where the first step comes from - this gesture should be taken as it is: a diplomatic means to reach a concrete result. Conducting "pleasant talks" without results on energy, human rights, and security issue is a failed policy. Similarly, tough talk with no real outcomes is a failed policy.

Q: Can we feel here the policy of Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, that "the United States refrains from forcibly introducing democracy by overthrowing regimes and military intervention in other countries"? In other words, can we witness in this warming of relations that democracy and human rights - or rather, in the words of our officials, intervention in the internal affairs of the country - will be kept in the background and The United States will pursue security, economic, and energy cooperation with Azerbaijan for its own purposes?

A: Thanks for this question. Let's start with the fact that human rights are not an internal affair of any country, and those who claim otherwise are seriously mistaken... I too read the statement of the Secretary of State you mentioned, and the first thought came to my mind was that the quote seems to have been a good opportunity for some to downplay the importance of the new political course the administration was trying to display at the time when Washington is pondering over what kind of foreign policy is possible after 4 years of American isolationism. The point is that in the last few weeks of its tenure, the current White House leadership has been working hard to explain its new political course, “America's return”, to audiences at home and abroad after four years of “American isolation”. With the allies the early days of Biden foreign policy, has been be pretty much a “welcome back home” festival - high-level contacts with NATO and EU leaders, the restoration of old agreements, a return to the organizations Trump once walked away from, etc. As for the adversaries amd non-aligned countries, for some reason, they are trying to satisfy themselves by singling out a “useful” quote from the infamous statement of the Secretary Blinken - as if they are looking for difference between what he and the President are saying - and the main message is left out. It may seem more plausible to do so under previous administrations but it should be noted that secretary Blinken has been a key spokesman for President Biden in foreign policy for 20 years, who can finish his sentence.

What does the US administration really say? The secretary of State believes that former President Trump has isolated America from the world, and it has become clear that the world tends not to organize itself and what that means is that is the U.S. is gonna have to step in and play that role  Af the US doesn’t do a lot of that organizing in terms of shaping the world's norms and institutions to which countries relate to one another, then one of two things happen: either someone else is doing it - and probably to advance their own interests and values - or maybe just as bad, no one is.

Blinken believes the Trump administration has left NATO and East Asia halfway and prevented to form a common response to China. But at the same time, he recognizes that at least half of Americans support Trump's approach on these issues, and it seems they also have their own reasons. The phrase "we will not spread democracy by force" emerged, in fact, in this context. In other words, the demand must come from the countries themselves, of course, if they care about their future...

So, the tension in the coming months is to see whether US diplomacy can convince both Americans at home and abroad that involvement in the world is in their interest and to convince the world that America is back and once again, it will be the organizing center of global diplomacy. It is no coincidence that President Biden also said at a recent press conference that the intensification of international competition is part of the ideological struggle between democracy and autocracy.

The United States says its allies, especially those who claim to belong to the democratic camp, need to behave better. Not only in foreign policy but also in energy and security issues, as well as in domestic politics - they must refrain from stifling democratic values characterized by the letter "d" (the big "D" means the political party of the same name – ed.) and independent voices. The same approach will be preferred in relations with Azerbaijan too.