Azerbaijan’s “Western Azerbaijan” Stance

Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of Armenia, and Ilham Aliyev, the President of Azerbaijan.

Summary

Azerbaijan is pushing a state-led effort called the “Western Azerbaijan” stance. This reinterprets parts of Armenia as historically and rightfully belonging to Azerbaijan. This effort combines rewriting history, taking cultural elements, changing education, working with those abroad, doing public outreach, and sending specific messages internationally. It aims to gain more power in negotiations with Armenia. It also tries to weaken support for international protections for Armenians, including in Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. The goal is to make claims on Armenian territory seem normal within Azerbaijan and the region. Independent reports and leaked papers point to high-level coordination and funding from Baku's government.

This stance clashes with Azerbaijan's public calls for talks and peace. While it talks about getting along with Armenia, many messages within Azerbaijan (like textbooks and state media) promote the idea of expanding its territory. This inconsistency makes lasting peace difficult. It increases the chance of mistakes, makes Armenians feel less safe, and makes it harder for others to help mediate.

1. What It Is and How It Started

What it is: “Western Azerbaijan” is a term used in Azerbaijan to refer to Armenia (and specific areas like Syunik/Zangazur and Lake Sevan/Göyçə). It's used it to say that Armenia should be part of Azerbaijan. This idea has become more common since the 2020 war. Government officials and media have used it. It presents Armenian territory as Azerbaijani by picking and choosing historical facts and using symbolic actions.

How it's coordinated: In 2025, investigations showed leaked papers and patterns that point to coordination and funding from Azerbaijan's presidential office to push the “Western Azerbaijan” idea internationally. This is often disguised as cultural projects. These materials suggest a planned communication strategy rather than just people genuinely feeling this way.

2. What It's Trying to Achieve

This stance has several connected goals:

Stronger position in talks: By saying Armenian land is Azerbaijani, Baku wants to weaken Armenia's position in negotiations. It also wants to decrease international support for special status for Armenians and push Armenia to make concessions (like giving Azerbaijan corridors or agreeing to border terms set by Azerbaijan).

Support at home and nationalism: This stance increases political support within Azerbaijan by using nationalism after the military gains of 2020–2023. It helps create a common enemy. It also backs up the government's reasons for recent military and political actions.

Making territorial claims normal: By slowly making these claims seem normal through education, monuments, and cultural programs, the aim is to have the population accept that these territories are part of Azerbaijan. This lowers the political cost if Azerbaijan decides to take territorial action later.

Sending political messages: The effort shows regional players (Turkey, Russia, Iran) and Azerbaijanis abroad that Azerbaijan is serious. It tries to convince the international community to accept Azerbaijan’s version of historical events.

3. How It's Promoted

A mix of methods is used, including public outreach, symbolic actions, and information efforts:

Within Azerbaijan

Textbooks and education: School programs push specific historical stories that show Armenian lands being Azerbaijani in the past. This changes how younger people remember history and see their identity.

Monuments and museums: The government creates monuments and heritage projects that take over cultural sites. These projects show the public that Azerbaijan owns these places.

State media: Media inside Azerbaijan spreads claims and sometimes uses harsh words, portraying Armenians as enemies and justifying actions against them.

Internationally

Public outreach and fake organizations: Leaked papers show funding and coordination to present “Western Azerbaijan” efforts abroad as humanitarian or cultural. This includes conferences and research centers meant to give the idea outside support.

Groups abroad and lobbying: Groups of Azerbaijanis abroad, paid speakers, and supportive think tanks are used to write articles, attend conferences, or influence decision-makers in other countries.

Online campaigns: Organized content spreads certain keywords, maps, and stories to influence journalists, experts, and officials around the world. There is evidence of both genuine and paid distribution.

4. How It Affects Regional Stability

Immediate effects

More suspicion and worry: The stance increases political and social worry in Armenia. It makes it harder to build trust and agree on borders.

Unequal negotiation: By changing what is seen as open for negotiation, Azerbaijan can push for unequal concessions that are easier to accept at home.

Risks in the future

Acceptance of territorial claims: If this stance becomes accepted, it could make borders more open to dispute. This raises the chance of Azerbaijan trying to change things on the ground in the future.

Regional security issues: Other countries (Turkey, Russia, Iran) might change their policies based on these power changes. Neighboring countries could be pulled into security agreements.

Less space for mediation: International mediators might find it harder to be trusted if Azerbaijan's messaging goes against compromise.

5. How Peace Talks and Internal Messages Contradict Each Other

There is a clear difference between Azerbaijan's public talk of talks and stability and its internal messages that frame Armenia as “Western Azerbaijan.”

Public outreach vs. internal education: While officials talk about negotiation, schools and monuments spread historical claims that disagree with recognized borders. This creates two different messages. This makes it harder to trust Azerbaijan because making concessions in talks becomes politically difficult at home.

International openness vs. internal focus on security: While telling international audiences that it is open to peace, Azerbaijan's media continues to portray Armenians as a security risk. This suggests that its international promises may be just for show.

Fake support: Reports of funding for “Western Azerbaijan” efforts presented as cultural contradict the openness expected in genuine community engagement. This makes outside partners unknowingly support state narratives.

These differences create uncertainty. Foreign partners can't be sure if concessions will last, and Armenians see peace offers as potential traps.

6. What This Means for Policy and Mediation

Verification and transparency: Any agreement must include clear, verifiable guarantees and monitoring to reduce the risk that internal narratives will be used to justify future claims.

Information and open dialogue: International players should support independent historical research and cultural exchanges to counter government-led revisionism. These programs should be designed to prevent them from being used for political purposes.

Careful examination of groups: Institutions should be careful when dealing with organizations pushing biased narratives abroad. They should demand transparency of funding and connections to state actors.

Focused trust-building: Focus on practical steps that reduce fear and the political usefulness of territorial claims.

Regional handling: Encourage coordinated responses from third parties to avoid accidentally supporting biased narratives.

7. Quick Recommendations

Require groups to fully share funding and organization links for international “Western Azerbaijan” events before allowing them to proceed.

Base support for peace agreements on legal guarantees that respect Armenian rights.

Fund joint research projects with conflict-sensitivity guidelines to reduce the misuse of education.

Strengthen media knowledge and support independent press to investigate messaging.

Protect local rights during border talks to reduce issues that territorial narratives use.

8. Limits and Sources

This report combines public reporting, analysis, and media coverage found between 2024 and 2025. It relies on leaked documents, international press, and analysis. Some claims are based on evidence and official statements. When citing documents, readers should consider them current as of the date above and subject to verification.

"