The recent article in the Financial Times regarding the results of Armenia's recent elections rightly captures a shifting geopolitical reality: Russia’s global and regional influence is on a steep decline. The author aptly illustrates how Moscow’s reliance on brute physical force to reclaim its imperial nostalgia, rather than implementing internal reforms, has backfired spectacularly. It is a textbook case of the remedy proving far worse than the disease. The unnecessary war of conquest in Ukraine has indeed dealt Moscow consecutive global blows, severely deteriorating its strategic standing.

However, as one reads the article to the end, the biased and flawed commentary regarding Azerbaijan triggers a sense of deep disappointment. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact motives behind this bias, the text suffers from a fundamental paradox. On one hand, the author celebrates the weakening of Russian influence in the South Caucasus. On the other hand, they paradoxically adopt the exact rhetoric of the puppet separatist regimes that Russia created to maintain that very influence. This is a glaring contradiction that completely undermines the analytical credibility of the piece.

The contradictions concerning Azerbaijan are so profound that they leave the reader bewildered. For instance, the author correctly acknowledges that a Moscow-linked, corrupt kleptocracy had occupied Karabakh, and that the Kremlin used this proxy regime for decades to maintain its grip on the South Caucasus. This is an accurate historical fact. As the Soviet Union collapsed, Moscow deliberately engineered frozen conflicts, such as in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Karabakh, as part of a classic "divide and rule" strategy........

© AzerNews