After the collapse of the USSR, the world consisted of one pole. The United States openly hegemonized, and NATO appeared as a military power. Especially with the Russia-Ukraine war, it became evident that NATO was an inflated bubble. NATO has activated its Article 5 only once in its history, after the terrorist attacks in the US, and conducted military operations in Afghanistan in 2001. Its Article 4, which is less influential than Article 5, has been invoked five times.
The biggest problem of NATO and similar organizations is their decision-making mechanism; decisions are made after long procedures and consultations. Although NATO was created as a threat against the USSR, after the USSR's collapse, it took Russia as its target and converted eastward expansion into its main objective. Processes indicate that one of NATO's biggest mistakes was precisely expanding eastward. Instead of keeping buffer states, NATO came directly to the border with Russia. Most recently, Finland and Sweden became NATO members. While NATO's territory has expanded with the new members, it cannot be said that this led to an increase in military power. Incidentally, US President Donald Trump also said that NATO's eastward expansion was a wrong move.
Russia is openly considered a target of NATO. Under current conditions and disregarding nuclear weapons, comparing Russia and NATO would be laughable. NATO’s expenditures amount to approximately 1.036 trillion dollars. Russia’s defense spending is far lower than this. Therefore, both we and NATO are obliged to consider nuclear weapons. Russia’s current strength does not allow it to act as a second pole. I believe that currently China has emerged as the second pole. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the subsequent military parade served as a kind of formalization of China's status as the second pole.
During the days when the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting was held, US President Donald Trump stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin disappointed him. Naturally, this can be interpreted in various ways. It is also possible to say that this is related to the Ukraine war and the Alaska meeting. I believe Trump’s statement is directly related to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting. Because after the Alaska meeting, Trump mentioned in an interview that China and Russia are natural enemies. One has a large population, the other a large territory. If we say that what disappointed Trump was Putin’s rapprochement with China, we would not be mistaken.
The Russians are the most vocal globally about "we would use nuclear weapons," while China exhibited its nuclear warheads during a military parade. Donald Trump mentions that he ended the clash between India and Pakistan. I believe it was not Trump but the arms supplied by China to Pakistan that ended that conflict. The Indian Prime Minister’s trip to China, in fact, increased China's already high influence further. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran were already partners, and each of these states was targeted by NATO. There is a high possibility that India and Pakistan may join this partnership. At least, the steps taken by the US against India forced India to take refuge in China. One of the interesting points is that China is directing the wave of wars towards the American continent. China’s military cooperation with Mexico is a matter worthy of attention. Could China’s response to the US "Taiwan card" be the "Mexico card"? It is a possible scenario.
India vetoed Azerbaijan’s membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. However, it is inevitable that Azerbaijan will closely cooperate with this organization. Azerbaijan has declarations with members of the organization such as China, Pakistan, and Russia. Currently, ignoring the cold relations with Russia, Azerbaijan has close relations with all members of the organization except India. Azerbaijan and Armenia, both of which wish to become members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, signed a declaration jointly with the US in Washington on August 8. A question may arise: can two South Caucasus countries simultaneously be represented in both the US and the China-dominated front? I don't think so.
It is more realistic for Azerbaijan to turn eastward both politically and economically. The warm relations with the US are seasonal in nature. The duration of Trump’s remaining in power is known. Whether Trump can or will change the political and electoral system in the US is still uncertain. One of the main issues is that the rapprochement between the US and Azerbaijan is not a rapprochement between states. There will always be a Russian threat against Azerbaijan. Official Baku sees the way to insure against Russia in China and we will witness the strengthening of relations between the two countries. The example of Ukraine is before our eyes. The West’s insurance is like Azerbaijan’s insurance companies: there are those who receive, but no one gives.
Processes show that neither the Western nor the Eastern front is fully formed, there are disagreements. Therefore, states are more interested in increasing their own power than that of their partners. Accordingly, it is expected that the pace of armament will continue to increase.
Səxavət Məmməd
