The strong one doesn't take offense. He just draws conclusions from the situation and moves on. And problems only make him stronger.

Speaking to the residents of liberated Aghdam, President Ilham Aliyev devoted a significant part of his speech to the international atmosphere surrounding the Karabakh conflict.

Why is this important? Of course, the conflict is over, sovereignty has been restored and the region is moving towards peace, but the trends that led to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories for almost thirty years persist to this day. Azerbaijan has changed the region, but it cannot change the whole world. Therefore, he must remain strong, always be, as the President said, stronger than his potential enemies. If Azerbaijan had been weaker, if it had pursued less pragmatic diplomacy, if it had not had friends, if it had not been armed with international law, if it had not had a leader like President Ilham Aliyev, the five post-war years would have been a serious test for us. To verify this, just take a look back.

The first years of the conflict were particularly difficult due to the absence of these factors. Everyone who could reach the region was playing with Azerbaijan, throwing it to each other, making plans for its territory and wealth. The country, which suffered from occupation, lost territories, and experienced ethnic cleansing, was left alone with its troubles, while the world continued to pretend that nothing was happening. Today we can see what tools international organizations and powers actually have for such cases, and what the international community's response to military aggression against a sovereign country should actually be. It turns out that there are enough tools and mechanisms for this. But none of them was used to stop the Karabakh conflict, end the Armenian occupation, and restore international law.

Instead of effective measures against the occupier, the Minsk Group was invented with its institute of co-chairs represented by the countries with the largest and most influential Armenian diasporas. Russia, the United States and France were selected precisely on this basis, because initially the international community wanted to close the issue in favor of the Armenians as soon as possible and not return to it. The Azerbaijani leader put it very precisely, noting that everything looked as if Armenia and the Minsk Group co-chairs were sitting at the negotiating table on the one hand, and Azerbaijan on the other.

It was funny to watch how the Minsk Group fussed after the war, trying to somehow squeeze into the new realities. Having ensured that the occupiers maintained the status quo for a quarter of a century, the mediators hoped that they would be able to continue their destructive fuss even after Azerbaijan had rigidly changed this status. The Azerbaijani President immediately made it clear to the MG that it was time for the co-chairs to resign on their own. On December 12, 2020, the head of state received ambassadors from the United States and France, the Russian Ambassador and the personal representative of the OSCE Representative-in-Office. The team, excited by the events, asked for a meeting hoping for something. However, she was met coldly. The President described the situation in detail in a long and detailed speech, and then diplomatically showed the Minsk Group the door. Ilham Aliyev said that he had not invited the MG ambassadors, they had come on their own initiative. Maybe they have something to say? Let's add on our own: maybe they will finally find something constructive to say instead of engaging in verbiage.

The guests clearly did not expect such a turn. That meeting was the beginning of the end of the Minsk Group. In order to somehow stay in the process, the name "co-chairman" was changed in each of the countries to "special representative". But it didn't help. Despite the resistance of Armenia and the mediators themselves, Baku nevertheless forced Yerevan to send a joint appeal to the OSCE regarding this structure. And since December 1, 2025, it has been abolished.

Despite the support of Armenia from the collective West and Russia, Azerbaijan managed to win. And this is why our victory is especially valuable. It is unconditional, complete and solid. As President Ilham Aliyev said at a meeting with Aghdam residents, "Look who we are facing. Look at the background of the support provided to Armenia, we won the Second Karabakh War."

Looking back, we see that Azerbaijan was left virtually alone with the most difficult problems. The atmosphere created by the mediators and other interested actors around the conflict was no less difficult than the occupation itself. It's like there was no occupation at all. One million Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons were invisible to international organizations and the same Minsk Group co-chairs. Azerbaijan was coming out of a severe crisis on its own, without imported "medicines" in the form of resolutions and statements supporting our fair position, in the form of sanctions against the occupier and other measures that are being taken against Russia in connection with the war in Ukraine. Armenia is a small and comprehensively dependent country. Even minor sanctions measures would be very sensitive for her. If Congress had passed a restrictive amendment against Yerevan in 1992, rather than Baku, perhaps Armenia would not have risked open military aggression. The Congress could have stopped the bloodshed and deaths of thousands of innocent Azerbaijanis, but it voted against Azerbaijan.

By the way, many people do not know about this, but at the same time a sanction was adopted against Armenia. This was done simply for diplomatic reasons, as if for balance, and soon it was quietly and imperceptibly canceled. No one objected. But what kind of battles flare up when the question of the 907th Amendment is raised.

Or take Russia. It is no secret that this country was involved in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, albeit not officially, by supporting the occupier with military force and weapons. From the very beginning, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia relied on Moscow's support, and Yerevan had the same support during all the years of the conflict. In an interview with the Turkish A-Haber TV channel at the beginning of the 44-day war, President Ilham Aliyev stated that Armenian weapons worth $2 billion had been destroyed in just 17-18 days of fighting. Where did poor Armenia get it from? So, someone provided it to the Armenians for free.

It doesn't take long to guess who this "someone" is. The Armenian opposition itself recently confirmed that during the time of the Karabakh clan, Armenia received weapons from Russia not only regularly, but also for free. There is nothing new in this revelation for us, because it is well known that in the first years after the First Karabakh War, the outpost began to be pumped with free Russian weapons. And these were not only old and decommissioned Soviet weapons, but also new weapons, sometimes even in factory grease, which were written off at the price of scrap metal. This fraudulent scheme allowed the occupier to successfully maintain the occupation regime.

It is no secret that Russian weapons continued to flow into Armenia during the 44-day war. Since Georgia closed its borders and airspace for the transit of military goods, weapons were sent through Iran. Although all sides deny this today, it is difficult to conceal anything in the age of information technology.

Another co-chair is France, which has always supported Armenia. The Armenians who have accumulated there have become a serious factor of influence, and Paris' policy towards the conflict has always been Armenian-centric. The Armenians dictated how the official authorities and parliamentarians should react to certain nuances. During the Second Karabakh War, the French side ensured the dispatch of mercenaries to the battle zone, and after our victory it tried to defend the interests of Yerevan, bringing relations with Baku to a crisis. This country had no influence in the region like Russia, or in the world like the United States, but it dictated fashion in European politics. And, paradoxically, gradually the responsibility of the two sides for the conflict was equalized, and then the cup of sympathy completely shifted to the side of the occupier. For thirty years, European organizations have not adopted a single resolution condemning Yerevan's occupation policy, and they have never stood up for the disadvantaged Azerbaijanis. And we can't say that anything has changed much in this regard today. Having silently recognized Azerbaijan's victory, Europe has not been able to do so publicly. Except for some countries. 

Looking at what is being done today and how, you can't help but draw parallels. Incredibly, European and American officials (less often Russian ones) allow themselves to talk about the fate of Armenian criminals who are already serving sentences for their crimes or are still on trial in Baku. This is not just interference in the internal affairs and judicial system of a sovereign State. This is an attempt to continue to patronize the destroyers of Azerbaijan even now, when the conflict has come to an end, and Baku has extended a hand of peace to the former occupier. Indeed, Armenian separatist leaders have always enjoyed favor in world capitals and international structures. Bako Sahakyan and Arayik Harutyunyan were private guests in the USA, Russia, and Europe. Visas were calmly issued to these individuals, the doors of parliaments were opened for them, and officials accepted them, explaining that they wanted to be objective and contribute to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Meanwhile, all doors are tightly closed to separatist leaders and leaders of the structures of the occupied territories of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. All these figures are under sanctions and on all kinds of blacklists and cannot set foot in any Western country.

The Armenian separatists, on the other hand, enjoyed all the joys of hospitality in world capitals, traveled calmly, held meetings, and organized telethons where the diaspora raised millions of dollars to support the occupation regime. The Armenians did not have to mask their actions or hide their faces. They were accepted, their hands stained with innocent blood were pressed. For many years, the United States has provided financial "assistance" to the separatists, which can be called an unprecedented fact. These millions were used to buy weapons, fuel the separatist regime, and buy lobbyists. The products of occupied Karabakh were calmly displayed in stores in Russia and Europe, and no one saw any crime in this. And there are especially many complaints about Europe, which has shown how and how it can respond to violations of international law.

Double and triple standards ruin international law because they allow it to be interpreted in two and three ways. It's corrupting. I would really like to hear a clear answer to our questions someday. Why is it possible for some and impossible for others? Why did the West support the Armenian occupiers, but is fighting the Russian ones with all its might? Why is the European Union allocating millions for voluntary migrants from Karabakh, but getting rid of victims of ethnic cleansing and deportation - Azerbaijanis - with the humanitarian aid of the Red Cross? Why does he talk about the return of Armenians to Karabakh, but does not mention the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia?

Until these questions are answered, we will not stop asking them. Because justice cannot be selective.