Azernews.Az

By Farman Aydin | AzerNEWS

In an era of deepening polarization, where global politics increasingly revolve around rigid alliances and adversarial blocs, the space for neutrality has grown dangerously narrow. Yet amid this landscape, Azerbaijan stands out as a country steadfast in its pursuit of balanced diplomacy and independent foreign policy.

As the world fractures into opposing geopolitical, economic, and ideological poles, Azerbaijan has managed to uphold a position that resists being pulled into rival camps. Its regional and international posture remains notably measured and pragmatic.

This is no accident. Azerbaijan has long been a key voice in the Non-Aligned Movement, even chairing the organization in recent years. Through this role, it has positioned itself as a vital bridge between the Global South and the Global North — a mediator rather than a participant in zero-sum rivalries. That mission continues today with renewed resolve.

Major powers in the international system often seek to co-opt neutral actors like Azerbaijan into their spheres of influence, attempting to erode their independence. But Baku’s resistance to such pressure is a testament to its diplomatic discipline. For instance, the tension between Washington and Beijing has not derailed Azerbaijan’s balanced relations with either country. Likewise, the war in Ukraine has not undermined Azerbaijan’s ability to maintain productive ties with both Kyiv and Moscow.

Diplomatic relations between sovereign states should not be interpreted through the lens of third-party rivalries. When Ukraine’s Foreign Minister visits Azerbaijan, this is consistent with international diplomatic norms — a routine exchange focused on mutual interests. Any concern or speculation surrounding such visits is unwarranted.

The warm relations between Azerbaijan and Ukraine are not new; they date back to the post-Soviet era and have remained steady. These ties, built on mutual respect and cooperation, continue to thrive today — without any elements that would reasonably provoke concern from outside actors.

The former Soviet republics share deep-rooted political, economic, and cultural connections. The bonds between peoples, common values, and long-standing traditions of collaboration endure — both in diplomacy and in public sentiment. If Baku takes cooperative steps with Kyiv in any domain, it should not be seen as a threat by countries currently in conflict with Ukraine.

Consider the past: during the nearly 30-year occupation of Azerbaijani territories, Russia and Armenia maintained a close alliance under both the Collective Security Treaty Organization and bilateral agreements. Moscow played a direct role in arming Armenia, guarding its borders, and providing security guarantees. Yet, Azerbaijan did not allow this relationship to derail its broader diplomatic calculus.

If Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov can visit Yerevan, and Armenian officials can regularly travel to Moscow, then Ukrainian officials visiting Baku should be viewed as equally routine. Such visits must be assessed solely within the context of bilateral Azerbaijan–Ukraine relations, without slipping into speculative narratives.

Azerbaijan does not shape its foreign policy according to the will of others. It does not operate under external dictation. Its agenda is sovereign. Baku has consistently supported peace negotiations and stands by all parties engaged in dialogue. It does not take sides in conflicts but rather supports a framework in which peaceful solutions are possible.

Let us also not forget that when Azerbaijan signed a declaration of strategic partnership with Russia in Moscow three years ago, Kyiv did not object. Ukraine respected Azerbaijan’s sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy. This is how international diplomacy should work: with mutual respect, understanding, and the acknowledgment that each nation has the right to define its own course.

In short, the growing cultural, economic, and political relations between Azerbaijan and Ukraine should not be interpreted as a threat by any third party. Independent states must be free to pursue their interests, and such engagements should be welcomed, not politicized.