Azerbaijan's victory upsets political analyst Michael Rubin

By Elkhan Alasgarov

The start of the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh and the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity have worried some political observers, who are haunted by the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the agreement between Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia.

Among such political observers is Michael Rubin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, who has published an article in The National Interest under the intriguing title: "Is this the end of Azerbaijan?" Reading an article by Mr. Rubin, who is known to Azerbaijani experts for his absurd initiative to dispatch American diplomats to Khankendi in order to create a US consulate in this city, cannot be called a pleasant process. Therefore, there is no point to talk about the mistakes he makes in his historical assessment of the origins of the Karabakh conflict.

However, it is impossible to ignore his comments that "Azerbaijanis can celebrate November 10 as the date of their victory over Armenia in the war in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, but when the celebration recede is over, they may simply understand that this marks the beginning of the end of Azerbaijan's real independence." Asserting in The National Interest that the stationing of the peacekeeping contingent of Russian troops in Karabakh may lead to the loss of Azerbaijan's independence, the author not only misunderstands the expediency of the peacekeeping process, but also underestimates Baku’s influence in the regional developments.

It is interesting how the stationing of a 2,000-strong Russian peacekeeping contingent into the region, 400 km from the capital Baku, can lead to the "loss of independence" for Azerbaijan. If it were so simple, then it would be better for Mr. Rubin to speak about the loss of independence of Armenia, in whose capital, the number of US embassy employees exceeds those of Russian peacekeepers - over 2500 people.

He claims that Russian peacekeepers’ role is not merely confined to ensuring the ceasefire regime between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Rubin alleges that the Russian troops’ return to the region has been Putin’s longstanding goal as step-by-step he appears to return all former Soviet states to his fold. Rubin's view of Turkey’s role is similar.

The author writes: " Azerbaijan's war aim was Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent Azerbaijani regions, which Armenia captured during the 1988-1994 war. But Turkey's motivation was different. Erdogan and the military intellectuals ... have long embarced pan-Turkic ambitions to link Turkey culturally, economically and politically with Azerbaijan and the Turkic states of Central Asia ...". The question is - what's wrong with Ankara's desire to establish cultural, economic and political ties with the countries of Central Asia? And why does Mr. Rubin present the normal state aspiration of Turkey as pan-Turkic ambitions?

If you take a close look at Mr. Rubin’s article, you will see interesting points related to the fact that he is inclined not only to pathological Islamophobia, but also to anti-Russian and anti-Turkish assessments of the situation. In the Turkish media, Rubin is a well-known figure. He was repeatedly accused of trying, together with George Soros, to organize riots in various cities of Turkey.

Obviously, in case of Karabakh, the settlement process in conditions when Russia and Turkey were able to reach mutual understanding, caused a wave of jealousy among political scientists, including Mr. Michael Rubin with his latest opus on the pages of The National Interest. Let's answer Mr. Rubin's question - the peace process in Karabakh and the restoration of territorial integrity is not the end of Azerbaijan, but a military-political victory for Baku, which opens the way to prosperity for the entire South Caucasus region.