European policy in the South Caucasus is increasingly caught between proclaimed values and pragmatic interests.
To say Azerbaijan is “Cutting ties with the EU” is, in many ways, misleading. Baku is not distancing itself from Europe as a whole, nor is it abandoning cooperation with the European Commission, which remains essential for Azerbaijan’s growing role as an energy supplier to the continent. Relations with key EU member states such as Italy and Hungary also remain strategically important, particularly in the fields of energy security, trade, and infrastructure.
What Azerbaijan is increasingly rejecting are the political and ideological mechanisms of certain European institutions — namely the European Parliament, PACE, and to some extent the OSCE — institutions that Baku views as selective, politicized, and detached from geopolitical realities.
This distinction matters because it exposes one of the central contradictions of contemporary EU foreign policy. While European institutions continue to lecture states like Azerbaijan and its neighbour Georgia, on democracy, governance, and human rights, Europe itself has become increasingly dependent on Azerbaijani gas and regional stability following the war in Ukraine and the collapse of Europe’s long-standing energy assumptions. Brussels condemns Baku politically while simultaneously relying on it strategically.
At the same time, Azerbaijan’s reaction reveals a broader clash of political cultures. The confrontational, and highly ideological, style of the European Parliament operates very differently from the pragmatic, centralized, and state-driven political system in Azerbaijan. What Brussels often presents as democratic scrutiny, Baku interprets as interference in internal matters and political theater. Consequently, Azerbaijan’s decision is less about severing relations with Europe and more about redefining the terms on which those relations will continue.
Far from signalling a complete rupture, this moment illustrates the emergence of a more transactional and realist phase in EU–Azerbaijan relations — one where energy security, regional influence, and strategic necessity increasingly outweigh the moral rhetoric that once dominated Europe’s approach to the South Caucasus
The title in point, Azerbaijan cuts ties with European Parliament as Brussels’ energy realism holds — Brussels Signal, is rather superficial at best; however, that is what makes it a most intriguing topic. Not that this recent decision on the part of Baku has any real impact, but it does shed light on the contradictions of EU policy and its barefaced double standards.
Meanwhile, the reaction from Baku reflects the difference in political culture between Azerbaijan and the EU. The way the European Parliament functions is pointedly not the way the parliament of Azerbaijan pragmatically works.
Having Your Cake and Eating it too!
The EU is willing in its rhetoric to be self-righteous, always wanting to point the finger and vocalizing recriminations. Meanwhile, business goes on as usual. The above-mentioned article is significant because it highlights a growing contradiction at the heart of the European Union’s South Caucasus policy: the EU is publicly committed to human rights, international law, and minority protections, and at the same time it is strategically dependent on Azerbaijan for energy.
But this does not lend well to regional stability in light of the Israeli-US-led attack on Iran and the ensuing destabilization of international oil markets. What is also not being reported but should be is the role that Azerbaijan plays in air attacks against Iranian territory and being, for all practical purposes, an FOB (Forward Operating Base) for both Israel and the US.
But what does this actually mean, as if the signs are not unmistakable? Powerful outsiders are once again stirring the regional pot. With Azerbaijan as a long-time staging ground for attacks on Iran, including Iranian ports on the Caspian, the question is now “Why is Azerbaijan not more in the news, not only in Europe but the West as a whole?”
Like with Israel and its dependence on Azeri oil, Baku being its strategic supplier, with the help of Turkish and Black Sea logistics, Azerbaijan has since emerged as an important alternative supplier, with energy agreements and infrastructure discussions placing Baku at the center of the EU’s external diversification strategy.
It is one thing not to know who you are, but another to preach from the moral high ground, as is the standard practice of Europeans, claiming the merit or superiority of their values. Despite the rhetoric, the European Parliament’s position remains largely declaratory, with limited prospects of being translated into concrete EU policy against Azerbaijan or Israel over human rights.
Obviously, Azerbaijan believes the European Parliament is acting more like a political supporter of Armenia while trying to give the impression of being a neutral institution. Baku is essentially saying, “If you treat us as the bad guy, we won’t participate in your parliamentary forums anymore.”
What changes in real life? Much less than the rhetoric suggests.
Despite the dramatic language about “suspending relations,” this is not a genuine rupture between Azerbaijan and Europe. Energy will still flow westward, trade will continue, diplomats will pretend to be diplomatic, and European officials will go on balancing criticism of Baku’s political system and dismal human rights record, and not only against Armenians, but also against Europe’s own strategic needs.
The real story is that both sides are speaking to different audiences while carefully protecting the relationship that matters most: energy, transit routes, and regional stability.
For Azerbaijan, the move is politically useful because it allows the government to present itself as standing up to the European Parliament and rejecting what it sees as selective moralizing from Europe. After the Karabakh conflict, Baku increasingly portrays itself as a country that no longer feels pressured to come crawling for Western approval.
For the European Union, meanwhile, the dispute is uncomfortable but far from catastrophic. The institution criticizing Azerbaijan most aggressively is the European Parliament, which has symbolic influence and little direct control over energy policy, or major foreign-policy decisions. Nonetheless, the more powerful parts of the EU still have practical reasons to maintain working ties with Azerbaijan.
That is the contradiction at the center of this love-hate relationship.
Europe has been trying to reduce dependence on Russian energy as quickly as possible. Azerbaijan became valuable in that effort through its gas exports and its role in regional transport corridors, the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, often abbreviated as TRIPP.
As a result, European and US governments often separate their public rhetoric about democracy and human rights from the strategic realities guiding policy behind closed doors. This is where real deals are made, and more pragmatic minds decide the reality on the ground.
It is ironic that all the while European institutions continue to condemn democratic backsliding, restrictions on media, arrests of opposition figures, and Azerbaijan’s treatment of Armenians after the NK conflict, during which Azerbaijan reestablished its territorial integrity, at the expense of ethnic Armenians and their cultural sites, the EU remains quiet about the collapse of democracy under Pashinyan in Armenia.
Europe values stable energy supplies over moral principles, and any talk of human rights and higher principles is just lip service. European policymakers also understand that completely alienating Azerbaijan could push it further toward alternative alliances: Russia, China, and Iran, which is the case.
Bad Marriage of Convenience!
From Baku’s perspective, this exposes European hypocrisy: Europe likes to criticize authoritarian behavior while continuing to buy Azeri energy and maintain strategic cooperation. From Europe’s perspective, it is simply realpolitik in the purest form. Governments rarely conduct foreign policy based on values, especially during wars, periods of acute energy insecurity, and times of never-ending geopolitical competition.
Baku also claims that members of the European Parliament act as though they want to “sabotage” the peace process with Armenia brokered by the US last year, setting a diplomatic and economic framework after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This may be true, especially as the US and Donald Trump (family business) have made some side deals with Armenia and Azerbaijan behind closed doors.
For ordinary people, however, very little changes. Flights continue, business goes on as usual, and official diplomatic channels remain open.
Henry Kamens, columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
