Opinion: EU-Azerbaijan Relations Intensify: Pragmatism Wins Out Over Politics

This is an op-ed prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr. Vasif Huseynov, Head of Department at the Center for Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) in Baku and Adjunct Professor at Khazar University.

The tone out of Brussels has changed since the new European Commission took office in late 2024. Where the previous College, under the diplomatic stewardship of Josep Borrell, treated Azerbaijan largely as a subject of political conditionality, the current Commission has steadily repositioned Baku as a strategic partner — in energy, in connectivity, and now in the region's fragile peace process. That shift became unmistakable when Ursula von der Leyen touched down in Baku on July 1, her first visit since 2022, becoming the third senior EU official to travel to the Azerbaijani capital within a matter of months, following European Council President António Costa in March and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas in May. She did not lead with the language of conditionality that so often defined the relationship in years past. She led with peace, energy and money — and that sequencing tells its own story.

At a  joint press conference with the Azerbaijani president, von der Leyen described Azerbaijan's initialing of the peace agreement with Armenia as the most consequential regional development in decades, and pledged EU support in turning "peace on paper" into practice. She then turned to energy, calling Azerbaijan a reliable and trustworthy partner that Europe has not forgotten stepped in when Russia weaponized gas supplies. She credited the Southern Gas Corridor with reinforcing European energy security and welcomed Baku's ambitions in offshore wind and green hydrogen as complementary to the EU's own transition.

The substance matched the tone. Von der Leyen proposed a formal EU-Azerbaijan Connectivity Partnership spanning transport, energy and digital infrastructure, backed by a High-Level Connectivity Dialogue and a Regional Connectivity Investment Conference to be hosted in Baku by the end of 2026. Under the Global Gateway initiative she announced up to €200 million in grants for South Caucasus connectivity, with the potential to mobilize €2 billion in combined public and private financing — funds earmarked in part for a rail link to Nakhchivan and the expansion of the Port of Baku. A separate €20 million programme was unveiled to support demining, healthcare and rural development tied to the peace process.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Europe is heading into a winter with gas storage levels at their lowest since at least 2011, a shortfall traced largely to the disruption of Gulf LNG flows during the recent US-Israel-Iran war. At the same time, the EU's own REPowerEU Gas Regulation locks in a permanent phase-out of Russian gas contracts by the end of 2027. That combination of vulnerability and self-imposed deadline is precisely what keeps Brussels' attention fixed on Azerbaijan and Central Asia, and explains why von der Leyen used her visit to press for the long-term contracts Azerbaijan says it needs to justify the investment required to expand Southern Gas Corridor capacity further.

President Ilham Aliyev, addressing the question directly at the Shusha Global Media Forum on July 13, described the frequency of these high-level visits — European Council President António Costa in March, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas in May, and von der Leyen in July — as unprecedented, and said both sides consider themselves satisfied with the current level of cooperation. He also confirmed that talks on a new bilateral framework agreement, intended to replace the outdated 1999 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, have resumed in earnest, with Partnership Priorities for 2026-2030 provisionally agreed in Baku on June 2-3.

This is, by any measure, a genuine recalibration. But it would be incomplete to describe EU-Azerbaijan relations today without acknowledging the other track running in parallel – one considerably less pragmatic and considerably more political.

The European Parliament has adopted more than a dozen resolutions critical of Azerbaijan since the 2020 Karabakh war, culminating in another one on April 30, 2026, that prompted Azerbaijan's Parliament to suspend all cooperation with the chamber and begin withdrawing from the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has followed a similar trajectory: since Azerbaijan's September 2023 anti-terror operation restored its sovereignty over the remaining parts of Karabakh, PACE has questioned the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation and stripped it of voting rights, prompting Baku to stop attending altogether. As Aliyev noted at the Shusha forum, Azerbaijan was never sanctioned by PACE during three decades of actual occupation, only after it ended the occupation by force — a sequencing that speaks for itself about the real motivation behind the punitive measures. He also pointed to the toxic legacy of the previous European Commission's diplomacy chief, Josep Borrell, whose adversarial approach to Baku was later shown to have been compromised by corrupt influence networks.

These resolutions have also had a counterproductive effect beyond the EU-Azerbaijan bilateral track. By repeatedly casting doubt on Baku’s intentions and legitimacy, they have inadvertently strengthened the hand of the Russia-backed opposition in Armenia, which seizes on every such vote to undermine and de-legitimize Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s peace efforts. It is with Pashinyan that the Azerbaijani leadership has achieved historic breakthroughs toward lasting peace and reconciliation. A European Parliament that claims to champion peace in the South Caucasus would do well to consider whose hand it is actually strengthening each time it reaches for another resolution.

Overall, the result of such standing of different EU institutions is an EU-Azerbaijan relationship that runs on two visibly different tracks. The Commission — the institution that actually negotiates energy contracts, structures investment packages and administers Global Gateway financing — has moved decisively toward treating Azerbaijan as an indispensable strategic partner. The Parliament and PACE, whose leverage is reputational and declaratory rather than transactional, remain locked in a cycle of resolutions and counter-suspensions that neither side seems able, or perhaps willing, to break.

Despite periods of political disagreement, the trajectory of EU-Azerbaijan relations is increasingly being shaped by shared strategic interests rather than ideological differences. Energy security, transport connectivity, green transition, and support for lasting peace in the South Caucasus have emerged as durable pillars of cooperation, creating strong incentives for deeper engagement. As negotiations on a new bilateral agreement advance and joint initiatives continue to expand, both sides have an opportunity to build a more resilient and forward-looking partnership grounded in mutual benefit, regional stability, and long-term strategic cooperation.

source: This is an op-ed prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr. Vasif Huseynov, Head of Department at the Center for Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) in Baku and Adjunct Professor at Khazar University.

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)