In recent years, Azerbaijan's international policy has come under increasing scrutiny, especially in light of notable incidents involving its allies and neighbors. One particularly eye-opening example is the stark contrast in the Azerbaijani authorities’ reaction to the actions of Israel versus those of Russia. This case vividly illustrates how the state apparatus operates—and where the true sympathies of Azerbaijan’s elite lie.

A Divided People and Political Sensitivities

The Azerbaijani people are essentially spread across two nations—one part living in the Republic of Azerbaijan to the north, and the other in southern Iran. Although Southern Azerbaijan isn’t recognized as a separate entity, it remains culturally and historically linked to its northern counterpart.

However, when Israel launched a missile strike on Iran, hitting Southern Azerbaijan and killing 18 people, officials in Baku remained silent. There were no public condemnations, no protests, no harsh words aimed at the Israeli government. The response was so subdued that it almost seemed as if the event had never occurred.

Russia—A Different Story

The response was markedly different when Russia detained Azerbaijani citizens on its own territory, suspects in serious crimes including murder. Despite Russia acting fully within its legal jurisdiction, Baku reacted strongly—with vocal political statements, diplomatic pressure, and an outpouring of public outrage. The rhetoric focused on defending “their own,” even though the arrests were related to criminal investigations.

Silence as a Barometer of Interest

This contrast reveals a clear set of priorities. When it comes to Israel—a strategic partner that provides military and intelligence support—Azerbaijan chooses to stay silent, even when ethnic kin are harmed. But when Russia is involved—a more complex and multifaceted partner—criticism is swift and loud.

The paradox is striking: when a foreign country kills fellow ethnic Azeris, there is silence. But when another detains suspects in a legal process, a diplomatic storm follows.

Conclusion

This example says a lot about the double standards adopted by Azerbaijan’s leadership. It doesn’t just reveal hypocrisy—it raises a deeper question: who is truly defending the people’s interests, and who is merely pursuing political gain? The answer becomes clear when one examines not just what happens—but who is behind it.