
The Story Of '3 Brothers' And Why Azerbaijan Is Cheering For Pakistan
One has heard of friends with benefits. But in India's case, there are also antagonists with benefits: Azerbaijan and Turkey, two countries whose role in the latest conflict between India and Pakistan has come into sharp focus.
One has heard of friends with benefits. But in India's case, there are also antagonists with benefits. We are talking about Azerbaijan and Turkey — two countries whose role in the latest conflict between India and Pakistan has come into focus. While Turkey has been the centre of attention for the Turkish-made drones that Pakistan was found to be using, the Azerbaijan and the South Caucasian angle merits greater focus.
According to data by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), India was the third-largest destination for Azerbaijan's crude oil in 2023, accounting for 7.6% of its total crude oil export worth $1.227 billion. "India's bilateral trade with Azerbaijan has increased substantially from around $50 million in 2005 to $1.435 billion in 2023, with India becoming Azerbaijan's seventh-largest trading partner. During the year, India's imports from Azerbaijan were $1.235 billion and exports were $ 201 million,' a bilateral brief states. Hence, based on these estimates, Azerbaijan stands to gain far more from bilateral engagement than India does. So, what explains Baku's antagonism since India began its Operation Sindoor?
'In Solidarity'
Curiously, a statement from the country's foreign affairs ministry condemned India's military strikes against Pakistan, conducted in response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22. "We condemn the military attacks on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which have resulted in the deaths and injuries of several civilians. In solidarity with the people of Pakistan, we extend our condolences to the families of the innocent victims and wish a speedy recovery to the injured."
Not only did Azerbaijan express its support for Pakistan, but its state-monitored media has been spewing venom at India since the latter's military response. Here are a few samples: Vyugar Vyugarly, editor-in-chief of Idman TV, authored a piece for Caliber — a publication close to the country's defence ministry — in which he presented a falsified, inaccurate history of the genesis of the Kashmir conflict. 'Unsurprisingly, the fascist symbol of the Swastika could have been borrowed only from Indian culture,' he wrote in the article. In the same article, he goes on to level allegations of 'water terrorism' being perpetrated by India, insinuating that India engineered the Pahalgam attacks as a pretext to do away with the Indus Waters Treaty. In another piece in the same publication, political analyst and head of the South Caucasus Research Center, Farhad Mammadov, said, "The fascist-leaning regime of Prime Minister Modi is consolidating power within the country, and for a rising power, war becomes a key element in its transition into the top tier of global states.'
What The Azeri Version Of The Conflict Is
There is yet another gem from the same site: "India, on the other hand, despite massive investments in its defence sector, found itself in an extremely uncomfortable, even humiliating position. The loss of combat aircraft, the blow to the prestige of its air force, and the failure of its proclaimed strategy to deter Pakistan have all cast serious doubt on New Delhi's entire defence planning framework for the years ahead."
The Azerbaijan media has also been peddling fake news about the conflict over the past three days, parroting the official Pakistani version of the conflict, without even a mention of the official Indian version, if only for the sake of journalistic integrity. The version being driven by Azeri analysts and columnists is that India attacked civilian sites in Pakistan and, as a result, Pakistan responded to the provocation and aggression with its Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos.
Amidst all this, one must remember that the Azerbaijan media is state-controlled.
The History Of India-Azerbaijan Ties
For a country already benefiting from its relations with India, Azerbaijan's response to Operation Sindoor has been perplexing. For years after its emergence as a sovereign state, Azerbaijan kept aloof from India. Instead, it established diplomatic relations with Pakistan and quickly got close to it. However, this need not have been an impediment to building good ties with India. After all, even fellow CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) and culturally close Turkic states, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, enjoy close relations with Pakistan, but that did not did not stop them from developing mutually beneficial ties with India too.
India established diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan in February 1992, yet the Indian diplomatic mission in Baku was opened only in March 1999. Azerbaijan took much longer to open its diplomatic mission in Delhi — in 2004. It took even longer to appoint an Ambassador. Twenty years later, there have been no major high-profile official bilateral visits between the two sides at the level of heads of state or government.
Armenia, The Thorn In The Flesh
Strangely, as trade and tourism between the two countries began to take off, indifference turned to antagonism. At the heart of this lie India's relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan's arch-rival. The 2020 war between the two South Caucasian nations over the contested territory of Nagorno-Karabakh — which lies geographically within the borders of Azerbaijan but has an ethnic Armenian population — changed the equation. With military help and support from Turkey, Azerbaijan wrested the conclave after almost two decades of attempts. In this war, not only did Pakistan unequivocally support Azerbaijan, but reports suggest that its mercenaries fought for Azerbaijan.
Post Baku's victory, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Turkey forged a closer bloc as 'Three Brothers'. They also promised to support each other over their respective positions on Karabakh, Kashmir, and Northern Cyprus. No doubt, during Operation Sindoor, Baku, which had condemned the Pahalgam terror attacks earlier, saw itself as returning the favour it had received from Islamabad in 2020. No doubt also that Azerbaijan saw in Pakistan a parallel with its own war over Karabakh. India, though, unlike Azerbaijan now, had taken a neutral stand in that war.
By the time the Nagorno-Karabakh war began in 2020, India had already inked its first agreement with Armenia for the delivery of Swathi weapon locating radars. Soon, tensions began in Baku. Since then, India has increased sales of military hardware to Armenia, which include Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers and the Akash-1S missile defence system. Simultaneously, Baku has continued arms purchases from both Turkey and Pakistan, but it has been upping the ante about Armenia's arms buys from India.
'We Won't Sit And Wait'
Exactly a year ago, the Azeri President, Ilham Aliyev, had asked India to stay away from supplying defence equipment to Armenia. Citing concerns over Azerbaijan's national security, Aliyev had said, 'It is a matter of our national security. We cannot sit and wait, seeing how France, India, and Greece are weaponising Armenia against us and doing it openly, demonstratively.' These warnings and alarms have continued to plague the Azerbaijan strategic community.
But here's the paradox: in every opinion or analytical piece, Azerbaijan's analysts do not refrain from trashing India's defence products. So, then, why the angst and the fear-mongering? Why would supposedly 'ineffective' defence systems rattle a country that claims it is far wealthier, and militarily superior? Here, we're not even raising the embarrassing question about why Azerbaijan itself had late last year evinced interest in procuring arms from India.
Why Akash Missiles Have Raised Alarm
Moreover, suspicion about Yerevan's motives in its defence deals with India is imputed even to defensive systems like the Akash-1S. "The fact that Armenia is investing heavily in a system that India itself is preparing to replace raises strategic questions about both the efficacy of the Akash-1S and the motives behind Yerevan's procurement," said a piece in Azernews yesterday as news came in that Armenia was preparing to receive the second batch of the Akash-1S surface-to-air missile systems from India soon. The irony here is that the article quotes Retired Brigadier General Yücel Karauz, an ex-Turkish military attache who had been posted in Baku, as saying that the procurement sends a 'problematic signal during sensitive peace talks'. Says Karauz, "It [the Akash-1S system] reinforces and strengthens the military balance not in an offensive sense but in a defensive sense, in terms of defending its country. This situation, of course, renders the peace process carried out with Azerbaijan ineffective with this and similar armament activities." But, the question is, under exactly what conditions would a 'defence' system — and not an 'offensive' one, as Karauz himself stresses — installed by Armenia 'render the peace process' ineffective?
There's also the fact that Azerbaijan has for long been demanding the right of passage to its landlocked Nakhchivan exclave, separated from it by Armenian territory. Could it then be that Azerbaijan is preparing for another confrontation with its neighbour and is dismayed at the weapons exports from India?
Whatever the reasons, the popular Azeri frustration with India is clear as day.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
Share
Sign up to read this article FREE!
Exclusive Stories:
Dive into content reserved just for members.
Fewer Ads:
A cleaner, more enjoyable reading experience.
Enhanced Interface:
Tailored just for you.
Join Now – It's Free!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Smelling cash in the space race
Space has an odour. Visitors to the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, US, can smell it by pressing a button to inhale a puff of air that smells of space. Space is airless by definition, but the workaround is essential because we can't inhale 'space' without fatal consequences. Despite this logical complication, the experience is evocative and surprising. Space smells of long-distance travel. It smells of Indian highways far from big cities. It smells like the world did long ago on the railways, when almost everyone travelled without air conditioning. But hereafter, space could smell a little different. From the beginning of the space race, it has smelled of Cold War rivalry, military-industrial complexes and technology-based diplomacy. These metallic notes will remain; but from here on, space will also smell overwhelmingly of commerce, of paper money. Gold is economically and chemically stable. It has no smell, unlike space. The countdown of the Axiom-4 mission to the International Space station has been aborted twice but soon, astronauts from India, Poland and Hungary could be back in space after 40 years and more. In anticipation, their national media have already declared it to be a turning point for their domestic space programmes. But the composition of the Axiom-4 mission also indicates that the whole world has passed a turning point. The crew led by American Peggy Whitson will be taken to orbit on Elon Musk's commercial Dragon launch vehicle, and the project is a collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency, ISRO and the Houston firm Axiom Space, whose most ambitious project is the first commercial space station. The purpose of the collaboration is to facilitate a range of commercial activities in space, from scientific research to space tourism. Space is about to be opened up commercially, just like the world was opened like an oyster by the European Age of Exploration. About 40 years ago, when India, Poland and Hungary last sent their citizens into space, it was a domain where national governments showed off their technological prowess to compete for geopolitical gains. These three countries made a place for themselves in space under the aegis of Interkosmos, a Russian state programme launched in 1967 to help satellite nations of the USSR and other socialist nations like Afghanistan and Cuba reach space. Non-aligned nations Syria and India were also under its umbrella.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
PM Modi to begin 3-nation tour from Cyprus today
File photo: PM Modi (Photo: ANI) NEW DELHI: PM Narendra Modi will travel to Cyprus on Sunday for the first leg of his three-nation tour that will see him participating in the G7 Summit in Canada and also visiting Croatia on his way back. Modi is also expected to have several bilateral meetings on the margins of the summit in Kananaskis. While the PM will have a meeting with his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney, his other bilateral engagements are still being worked out, official sources said. Modi will also come face to face with US President Donald Trump for the first time since their meeting in Feb. The ministry of external affairs said in a statement that the visit to Cyprus - the first by an Indian PM since AB Vajpayee visited the country in 2002 - will reaffirm the shared commitment of the two countries to deepen bilateral ties and strengthen India's engagement with the Mediterranean region and the European Union. The visit to Cyprus is significant also as it comes in the middle of India's tensions with Turkiye over the latter's support to Pakistan. Ankara's recognition of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the northern region that was seized by Turkish forces in 1974 and differences over gas exploration rights in the Eastern Mediterranean remain a constant source of tensions between Turkiye and Cyprus. Modi is expected to reach Canada on June 16, a day after the opening of the G7 Summit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo This would be his sixth consecutive participation in the G7 Summit. "At the summit, the PM will exchange views with leaders of G7 countries, other invited outreach countries and heads of international organisations on crucial global issues, including energy security, technology and innovation, particularly the AI-energy nexus and Quantum-related issues," said the government in its announcement. For the final leg of his tour, Modi will undertake an official visit to Croatia on June 18. This will be the first ever visit by an Indian PM to Croatia, marking an important milestone in the bilateral relationship. "The visit to Croatia will also underscore India's commitment to further strengthening its engagement with partners in the European Union," said the government.