ASSESSING THE WESTERN EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSE TO AZERBAIJAN’S COUNTERTERRORISM ACTIONS IN KHANKENDI
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This article analyzes Western European reactions to Azerbaijan’s counterterrorism operation in Khankendi on 19–20 September 2023, situating them within the broader transformation of EU foreign policy from normative ideals toward strategic pragmatism. The study argues that Europe’s response was shaped primarily by energy interdependence, regional stability, and the strategic impact of the war in Ukraine, rather than moral or humanitarian considerations. France pursued an ideologically driven, pro-Armenian stance, resulting in diplomatic isolation, while Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom emphasized pragmatic engagement, prioritizing energy security, dialogue with Baku, and regional predictability. EU institutions revealed internal inconsistencies, with declarative rhetoric often lacking operational follow- through, underscoring the limits of the normative power paradigm in peripheral regions. The Khankendi case illustrates the consolidation of realism as the guiding principle in European policy toward the South Caucasus. For Azerbaijan, this shift reinforced its sovereignty, strategic role, and capacity to act as a stabilizing actor in the post- conflict region, highlighting the growing recognition of its importance in Europe’s energy and security architecture.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Azerbaijan, European Union, Western Europe, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Khankendi, Counterterrorism Operation, Strategic Pragmatism, Energy Security, South Caucasus, Ukraine War, EU Foreign Policy, Realism, Geopolitical Transformation
2. Cornell S. Small Nations, Big Conflicts: The South Caucasus and Regional Security, Washington, Woodrow Wilson Center, 2021, p. 120–159.
3. De Waal T. The Caucasus: An Introduction, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University, 2022, p. 90–140.
4. Hill C., Smith M. International Relations and European Realism, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University, 2021, p. 88–134.
5. Kalyvas S., Balcells L. Modern Conflict Resolution and Post-Soviet Transitions, Cambridge, Cambridge University, 2024, p. 55–99.
6. Larrabee F., Thompson G. Energy Politics in the South Caucasus, London, Routledge, 2022, p. 33–71.
7. Smith J., Roberts D. Energy, Security, and the EU: Caspian Corridor Politics, London, Routledge, 2022, p. 44–88.
8. Smith M., Timmins G. EU Foreign Policy in Peripheral Regions, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2023, p. 67–95.
9. Borrell J. EU Strategic Compass: Priorities and Realities, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol.26, №3, 2023, p. 210–233.
10. Chivvis C., Smith B. Realism Resurgent: EU Strategic Behavior Post-Ukraine, International Affairs, Vol.100, №4, 2024, p. 567–590.
11. Manners I. Normative Power Europe Reconsidered, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.9, №2, 2002, p. 182–206.
12. Keohane R., Nye J. Power and Interdependence, 5th Edition, Boston, Pearson, 2021, p. 45–102.
13. Chatham House. Europe’s Strategic Rebalancing after Ukraine War, London, Chatham House Report, 2023, p. 1–36.
14. European Commission. Southern Gas Corridor and EU Energy Security: Annual Report 2023, Brussels, EC Publication, 2023, p. 1–22.
15. European Council on Foreign Relations. EU External Action Post-2022: Ukraine and Beyond, ECFR Policy Brief, 2024, p. 12–29.
16. Michel C. Brussels Format Mediation: Lessons Learned and Challenges, Brussels, European Institute for Security Studies, 2023, p. 15–38.
17. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). Azerbaijan and EU Energy Security: Strategic Assessment, Berlin, SWP Research Paper, 2023, p. 5–48.
18. Ursula von der Leyen U., Aliyev I. Memorandum of Understanding on Energy Partnership, Brussels– Baku, 2022, p. 1–15.