The director of the STEM Center, Orkhan Yolchuyev, gave an interview to the Vesti.az news agency, where he discussed recent developments in global politics. In particular, he touched on the rift between Europe and the United States, the negotiation process between Washington and Moscow, and the post-war developments in our region. We present to you the full text of the interview.
The confrontation between Russia and Ukraine continues, and no one dares to predict its outcome. Each side is pursuing its own objectives, which have significantly evolved over the course of the conflict. To understand what has been achieved and what plans had to be adjusted, it is necessary to examine the dynamics of events: how strategic priorities have changed, what factors have influenced the course of hostilities, and where the parties stand at present.
An additional intrigue is the return of Donald Trump to the forefront of American politics. His stance on Ukraine and Europe is prompting Western allies to reconsider their security policies and to think about increasing military aid to Kyiv. Statements made at the Munich Security Conference have made it clear that Europe recognizes new threats and appears ready to adjust its strategy for supporting Ukraine.
How might the situation develop further? Vesti.az spoke with the director of the STEM analytical center, Orkhan Yolchuyev.
Who Will Emerge as the Winner in the Russia-Ukraine War?
— That depends on how we define "victory." Let's recall how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began. At the time, Russia declared three main objectives: denazification, demilitarization, and securing control over the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
However, as the war progressed, these objectives shifted. By 2023, Russia stated that its primary goal had become the complete "liberation" of Ukraine from "Western occupation." Today, Russia controls nearly a fifth of Ukraine’s territory—approximately 18%—which includes about 3,000 settlements in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. In essence, the third objective has been partially achieved, and the occupation of these territories has allowed Russia to establish a land corridor connecting its mainland to Crimea, which was annexed in 2014.
However, the goal of defeating the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) remains unfulfilled. Ukraine’s military has proven highly capable. In fact, Ukraine is now one of the most militarized countries in the world that does not possess nuclear weapons. Moreover, Ukraine not only produces its own weaponry but also continues to receive substantial military aid from Western nations—a trend that, in my view, will persist. This is especially likely given that, following Trump’s resurgence and the statements made by U.S. representatives at the Munich Security Conference, Europe has come to recognize the magnitude of the threats it faces.
Currently, around 500 enterprises in Ukraine’s defense-industrial complex employ nearly 300,000 people. Additionally, NATO has expanded further eastward, incorporating Sweden and Finland into the alliance.
As for denazification, Russia has never clearly defined what it means by the term. Historically, denazification took place after World War II through a comprehensive set of measures aimed at purging post-war German and Austrian society, culture, media, economy, education, law, and politics of Nazi ideology. However, in the 21st century, it is impossible to eradicate an entire nation based on vague ideological narratives.
Russia’s interpretation of denazification included making Russian the second official language in Ukraine, stopping alleged persecution of the Russian-speaking population, and preventing the removal of monuments commemorating shared Russian-Ukrainian history and culture. It is evident that Russia used these justifications to mask its real objective—the occupation of Ukraine. In the end, however, this has led to more than 15,000 sanctions being imposed on Russia.
Ukraine deserves recognition: it has been defending itself against one of the world’s most powerful nuclear states for three years. Russia could achieve a tactical victory if both sides agree to a ceasefire, but even then, it would be incorrect to define the outcome in simplistic terms of "winner" and "loser."
From the outset, this war was doomed because Moscow lacked a legitimate reason to start it—Ukraine posed no real threat to the world’s largest nuclear power.
Ultimately, we are witnessing the fragmentation of the Eastern Slavic world. Europe, too, will emerge significantly weakened from this war. The Western liberal order has run its course. In many ways, European bureaucrats were key instigators of this conflict, using Ukraine as a tool against Russia. We saw false promises of NATO membership; we saw how, over the past three years, Ukraine repeatedly failed to receive military aid in the necessary quantities or at the right time—leading to territorial losses.
Europe has been overly dependent on the United States, but as J.D. Vance put it, there is a "new sheriff in town." A different leadership with a different worldview has taken charge, signaling major changes ahead for Europe. Clearly, a new phase of geopolitical struggle is beginning, with Ukraine at its center.
Is It Possible to Restore the Previous Relationship Between Russia and Europe After Sanctions and Mutual Accusations, or Is the Rift Final?
At this stage, discussing the restoration of relations between Europe and Russia is pointless. As long as left-liberal forces remain in power across European countries, any discussions on this topic are futile. If conservatives come to power, Europe may gradually begin seeking ways to normalize relations with Moscow. However, for now, its priority remains defense and establishing sovereignty independent of the United States.
The German philosopher Oswald Spengler predicted Europe’s decline as early as the 1920s in his work The Decline of the West, foreseeing its downfall by the beginning of the third millennium. When Emmanuel Macron spoke about NATO’s "brain death" a few years ago, he likely did not anticipate that this process would soon engulf Europe itself. The only remaining strategy for European countries today is achieving victory over Russia under U.S. leadership—a decision that has proven disastrous for them.
Of course, Europe will eventually rebuild relations with Russia, but only after right-wing elites come to power. We can already see this potential emerging, considering the current outlook of the Washington administration. When U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference criticizing European policies, it was a wake-up call for Europe. He condemned the fight against "disinformation," comparing it to a war on democracy, and criticized media censorship, equating it to a rejection of democratic principles.
His statements made it clear that the lines between democracy and autocracy are increasingly blurred. We are now at a zero-balance point in the global order—an era of international disorder, where rules exist without rights.
The U.S. administration is attempting to reshape Europe in its own interests, transplanting the MAGA (Make America Great Again) ideology onto the European continent in the form of MEGA—Make Europe Great Again.
The strategic reality is that in countries where nationalist and far-right forces come to power, imperial states—such as the U.S., Russia, and China—find it much easier to impose their will. We live in an era dominated by leaders with imperial ambitions, and their worldview is directly reflected in the situation in Ukraine. This is classical colonial politics.
Everything happening today in Ukraine and the Middle East is part of a broader neocolonial strategy. In some ways, the current situation in Ukraine resembles the Yalta Conference at the end of World War II, which effectively cemented the division of the world into two opposing blocs and marked the beginning of the Cold War.
Trump’s approach to Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Greenland suggests that he, in many ways, shares Putin’s worldview. They are united by imperial ambitions and a desire to redraw the global map.
However, it is already evident that Ukraine, European nations, and even the European Union will not play a decisive role in resolving this conflict. Unlike during the Yalta Conference, where European countries still had a seat at the table in discussions on global governance, today their influence on world affairs has significantly diminished.
We now live in a world where international courts face sanctions, and global institutions—already ineffective—are increasingly obstructed by major powers. The global system has essentially reached a breaking point, and this must be acknowledged.
When a journalist asks Trump, "On what basis do you plan to relocate the Palestinians?" and he responds, "On the authority of the United States," it becomes clear that international law no longer exists. It is not merely being violated—it has been effectively abolished. The only rule that remains is the rule of force. The strongest will survive.
In this context, Azerbaijan is acting rationally by increasing its defense spending and strengthening its military capabilities.
How Will the Situation in the South Caucasus Change When Russia Is No Longer Preoccupied with Ukraine? How Will This Affect Georgia and Armenia? Can We Assume That the End of the War Is Disadvantageous for Armenia, Given Its Pro-Western Course and Azerbaijan’s Interests?
Armenia is entirely dependent on Russia and cannot break away from it, regardless of Prime Minister Pashinyan’s statements about a "pro-Western" course. The economic reality is that Armenia’s imports and exports are largely tied to the Russian market. Following the imposition of thousands of Western sanctions, the Kremlin was forced to reorient its economy toward the East and seek access to southern markets. In this context, Armenia remains a key instrument for facilitating shadow imports, and these ties will likely only deepen.
Armenia plays a crucial role in the development of so-called parallel imports—a mechanism through which Russia obtains strategically important goods from Europe while also exporting its resources to global markets. Notably, Armenia remains a primary channel for exporting Russian diamonds despite Western sanctions. Russian gold also continues to reach international markets via Armenian transit, despite the embargo imposed in 2022.
It is evident that Armenia will retain its role as a "window" for circumventing sanctions, a function that Moscow will continue to exploit.
Given that, after a potential ceasefire, Russia will refocus its attention on the post-Soviet space, regional countries face certain risks. It is not surprising that after Ukraine, Moscow will intensify its efforts in this direction, seeking to reinforce its influence through support for loyal political forces and the use of "soft power" tools. This will enable Russia to intervene in domestic political processes and attempt to regain lost positions.
The entire war in Ukraine was part of a broader strategy to restore control over the post-Soviet space. However, in the case of Azerbaijan, this calculation proved unsuccessful. Following the successful resolution of the Karabakh conflict and the restoration of its territorial integrity, Azerbaijan has only grown stronger. Today, Azerbaijan is a powerful state capable of addressing any regional challenges. We are a fully independent actor in international politics, determining both our foreign and domestic strategies on our own terms.
Notably, in early February, Azerbaijani intelligence services neutralized a radical group on the border with Russia that was linked to international terrorist organizations. This further underscores Azerbaijan’s ability to independently ensure its security and defend itself against both external and internal threats.
How do you assess the current state of Azerbaijani-Russian relations, considering their obvious deterioration? What do you think the future holds — will this trend continue?
The current tension in Azerbaijani-Russian relations stems from Moscow's refusal to meet Baku's demands regarding the crash of an Azerbaijani aircraft.
The investigation has already confirmed that the plane was shot down by a Russian air defense missile over Chechnya. Russia should officially acknowledge its responsibility and provide compensation. It is unclear why Moscow is attempting to avoid accountability, putting its relationship with an ally at risk. However, instead of acknowledging the facts, we are witnessing an alternative narrative surrounding the tragedy.
Nonetheless, Baku is taking a wait-and-see approach and remains open to resolving the situation.
Recently, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev approved the "Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Government of the Russian Federation" to develop transit cargo transportation along the international "North-South" transport corridor.
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy strategy does not imply hostility with its neighbors, with the exception of Armenia — but that was a choice made by Yerevan. For 30 years, Azerbaijan has proposed a reasonable peace, but the Armenian authorities, through their own folly, missed this opportunity. The outcome is well known. Even after the return and deoccupation of its lands, Azerbaijan was the first to offer Armenia peace negotiations.
Azerbaijan is working to create a stable environment in the region, preventing any provocations and destabilization. Its goal is to establish mutually acceptable bilateral relations with all neighbors and develop economic and political ties. For example, despite an effectively cold war with France, France's flagship oil and gas company, Total, faces no problems in Azerbaijan. This is another confirmation that Baku is always open to normalizing and developing relations.
However, Azerbaijan will not tolerate condescending treatment. The Kremlin must understand that further escalation will lead to negative consequences. At the same time, much of the tension is being exacerbated through the information field, which is skillfully exploited by the Armenian lobby embedded in the Russian government circles. Its aim is to further divide relations between the countries. However, official Russian representatives, such as Maria Zakharova and Dmitry Peskov, maintain a restrained stance.
This is because Azerbaijan is a key player in the broader geopolitical context — within the Caspian and South Caucasus regions. Moscow recognizes this. Russia has large-scale plans to shift its trade and industrial sector eastward and to participate actively in BRICS and the SCO, which requires developed logistics. If you look at the map, the shortest and most convenient route for cargo from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean passes through Azerbaijan. This route connects two world oceans through just three countries — Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran.
For the development of new transit routes and Russia's aspiration to reach warm seas, balanced and mutually beneficial relations with Azerbaijan are critically important. Therefore, a rational approach is necessary. Azerbaijan is important to Russia, but as an independent state and a sovereign subject of international politics, Azerbaijan demands respect in resolving crisis issues, as well as equal relations and partnership on equal terms.
Could Azerbaijan find itself in a difficult position after the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, given its strained relations with Moscow and Iran, their strategic partnership, and its ongoing confrontation with Armenia?
Since gaining independence, Azerbaijan has found itself in a complex geopolitical situation. On one side, there is Russia, seeking to restore its influence in the post-Soviet space; on the other, Iran, which has long viewed Azerbaijan as an existential threat to its foreign and domestic political interests, attempting to spread its influence through Shiite ideology. Both countries have supported Armenia’s expansionist ambitions against Azerbaijan.
However, while we have managed to balance these complex dynamics over the past 35 years, today, we are much stronger than we were 10 or even 5 years ago, and we have no reason to fear. Azerbaijan is closely monitoring all developments in the region, strengthening its defense capabilities and military. We are forming new alliances and partnerships, and this is changing the overall picture of the region.
Russia is actively strengthening its ties with Iran — just look at the strategic agreement signed in mid-January of this year. This document holds great significance as it affects the interests of the entire South Caucasus. Both countries, holding an imperial view of their sphere of influence, see the region as a zone of strategic interest, and this is naturally a concern for Azerbaijan.
We also have our own allies: we are in alliance with Turkey, and the Shusha Declaration has established a new status quo in the South Caucasus. Many global powers are wary of the growing influence of Azerbaijan and the Turkey-Azerbaijan tandem in the region, as its reach is already extending beyond the South Caucasus, encompassing Central Asia and the entire Turkic world.
While Russia and Iran are attempting to divide our region into spheres of influence, a similar situation exists in Central Asia, where the five post-Soviet countries find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place — with China on one side and Russia on the other. In these circumstances, it is essential to diversify foreign relations, and strengthening the Organization of Turkic States could serve as a guarantee of stability in these new geopolitical realities.
What about the negotiations in Riyadh? You mentioned that the fate of Ukraine is being decided by the US and Russia. But surely Europe, which has invested 135 billion euros in Ukraine, will not simply let it go? Does this mean that the negotiation process will be solely between the US and Russia? What role does Ukraine play in this, and will it be able to influence its own destiny?
As I mentioned, Europe will have to reconsider its policy, and it will strive to do so. For Europe, the "moment of truth" has arrived — the time to rethink the processes of the past 30 years. The left-liberal order in Europe is in decline. Meanwhile, Trump is trying to accelerate this process, shaking up the entire system of left-liberalism, which remains the last stronghold of globalists.
The decline of Europe is largely due to its departure from values such as justice and respect for international law. Now it is reaping the consequences of its policies. Take, for example, the double standards in relation to smaller countries, which we have witnessed all these years. The EU has failed to establish normal relations even with those countries with which it planned strategic cooperation — the participants of the Eastern Partnership program, which includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Even among these countries, there was selective privilege.
Azerbaijan, despite its occupied territories and millions of refugees, faced obstruction, while the expansionist regime in Armenia received support from the EU and its institutions. Dubious EU initiatives, without real assistance to governments, led to crises and wars in Ukraine and Georgia.
But we can proudly state that today Azerbaijan is the first and only country in the Eastern Partnership where there are no foreign military contingents on its territory. And Europe needs to realize this.
I am confident that now Europe will need Azerbaijan even more, especially its energy resources. In fact, it may find itself fully dependent either on the US or the countries of the Middle East in terms of energy. However, Europe has entered a new phase, where it must rethink its relations with the rest of the world.
As for the US, Trump, being a businessman, views all issues through the lens of economic interests. He evaluates countries based on their trade balance with America, much like a business owner evaluates the profitability of a deal. For him, it is important that trade relations are equal. Just recently, he complained that American cars cannot enter the European market, while the Old World depends on imports of many goods from China, and US markets are filled with European and Chinese products.
Trump’s strategy is simple: if you want support, pay. Washington’s friendly relations with any country depend on how much the US can earn from it or, at the very least, how balanced the trade is. In other words, the US trade deficit with that country must be eliminated. He applies the same approach to Europe, which will inevitably affect intra-NATO relations. This is why his demand for increased defense spending by NATO members to 5% of GDP is so significant.
During his first term, Trump demanded that NATO countries allocate 2% of their GDP for defense. Now he has raised this threshold to 5%. Essentially, he is sending Europe a clear signal: either guarantee your own security, or pay for it.
Moreover, the military-political center of Europe is gradually shifting eastward, toward the countries of Eastern Europe. For Poland, this process is of paramount importance. Warsaw views the situation as an existential threat, fearing that after Ukraine, Russia might make new territorial claims against countries in the region. This is why Poland became the first and, so far, the only NATO country to increase its military spending to 5% of GDP.
Poland is actively boosting its military potential, purchasing modern equipment — fighter jets, tanks, missile defense systems — from the US and South Korea.
Does this mean Ukraine will remain excluded from the negotiations?
For Ukraine, 2025 will be a difficult year. At present, Russian forces are not capable of making deep breakthroughs into Ukrainian territory, so the crisis on the front does not yet pose a critical threat to the Ukrainian government. However, given the overall situation, such breakthroughs could become possible in the second half of the year.
As for the negotiations, Ukraine is excluded because its fate is being decided without its involvement. US officials have stated that the discussions in Saudi Arabia are not about Ukraine but about US-Russia relations. But can one talk about US-Russia relations without addressing Ukraine? It is clear that the issue at hand is how to ease the sanctions regime against Russia — which is directly linked to Ukraine.
Over the past three years, the support from Europe and the West in general has not been as colossal as it might have seemed. Recall how President Zelensky himself stated last year that due to delays in arms deliveries by 3 to 4 months, Ukraine lost around 4,000 square kilometers of territory.
In effect, Zelensky blamed the US. A similar situation arose with Europe — European bureaucrats pushed the entire system to the brink. Although after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the US and Western countries guaranteed Ukraine’s security, in reality, these guarantees turned out to be empty words. All promises regarding Ukraine's future NATO membership turned out to be a fiction. In the end, the country was destroyed, and it paid a high price for the false assurances of the West.
In essence, this war is a Russian-American conflict in which Ukraine became embroiled due to its geopolitical position. Moscow's rhetoric about Russian identity and condemnation of Nazism is no more than an ideological tool for mobilizing society in support of Russia’s strategic goals. These goals include preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership, limiting US influence by halting the deployment of missile defense systems, and securing Russia as a key player in the multipolar world order.
Under Trump, the US clearly identified China as its main rival. Their priority is to maintain global supremacy, and for that, they must subordinate Europe technologically, economically, and militarily.
The emerging reality is not about dividing the world but restructuring it for the next century. In the battle for global dominance, two main competitors remain — the US and China. Both are vying for leadership, and for their goals to be achieved, they both need Russia, one way or another.
However, a significant influence in this process could come from Turkey. In recent years, it has been pursuing a much more independent policy than the rest of NATO. This is evident in its diplomatic activity: Zelensky recently visited Ankara, and before that, he met with Ilham Aliyev in Davos.
The world has already become multipolar, and the new power centers that have formed over the past 20 years cannot be ignored. Sustainable peace in Europe is impossible without taking into account the interests of the new alliances, including the Turkic countries, which include Azerbaijan.