“New methods change the experience, and new experiences change man.”
— Karlheinz Stockhausen
Amid the flood of emotional and clichéd narratives in Western media about Azerbaijan hosting the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29), the one-sidedness and superficiality of mainstream Western thought once again became glaringly evident.
Everything has been thrown into one chaotic tangle: Armenians in Karabakh, a peace treaty, separatists in Baku’s prisons, autocracy, human rights, even expensive sandwiches in Baku cafeterias. Topics unrelated to climate dominate the media and social networks, while the central question of the conference remains on the periphery. The difficulty in analyzing this situation lies in the almost insurmountable challenge of making sense of a disorganized stream of rhetorical clichés devoid of intellectual content and logical structure. Nevertheless, we will attempt to unravel it, starting with an example that epitomizes postmodern frivolity and that ultimately compelled us to address this issue.
French Decadence
The decline of France during the Macron era, unfolding right before our eyes, evokes deep regret among Azerbaijani intellectuals. A country that once boasted intellectual and cultural grandeur now finds itself in a state where political life has transformed into a vulgar caricature—one that perhaps even the most caustic cartoonist from Charlie Hebdo could not have imagined. The current reality resembles the grim imagery from the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch. France, as if lost in a simulacrum, can no longer distinguish between authenticity and its imitation. If Azerbaijan has somehow driven France to lower its standards to their current level, this is not a triumph for Baku but rather a tragedy for Paris.
One cannot help but recall the story of Russian performance artist Pyotr Pavlensky, who received political asylum in France after nailing his scrotum to Moscow’s Red Square and setting fire to the doors of the FSB headquarters. Upon gaining asylum, he moved to Paris, where he promptly set fire to the French Central Bank building and ended up in court. This incident forced French society to confront uncomfortable questions: Why did we admire his performances in Russia, calling them acts of creative freedom, but cannot justify the same actions on our own soil? The burning of the French bank building exposed a powerlessness in the face of challenges for which France has no answers. A simple question arises: Why is it unacceptable to burn Paris in the name of art if it was acceptable to disrupt Russia for the same purpose? Why can’t the French be unsettled in the name of art, if it’s permissible in Russia?
In 2017, I had the honor of discussing this then-relevant question with one of Azerbaijan’s leading contemporary composers, Elmir Mirzoev, at the newly inaugurated Pierre Boulez Concert Hall in Berlin. At the time, he remarked that these were the “sounds of approaching crisis,” which would inevitably lead to chaos not only in France but throughout Europe. He believed Europe was destined to confront existential questions and resolve its contradictions.
Has it succeeded?
A Maniac Under Protection
Imagine a person who arrives in France from Azerbaijan, claiming political persecution, yet is entirely unknown in Azerbaijan—no one there has heard of him. But that’s not the point. Once settled in France, this individual didn’t engage in political analysis, write articles, conduct investigations, or participate in debates as many opposition political activists, for example, from Russia, tend to do.
Instead, his sole activity has been—and remains—hosting YouTube livestreams. During these broadcasts, he delivers threats with shocking detail, incorporating references to genitals, bodily fluids, blood, torture devices, and promises of sexual punishment against members of the Azerbaijani leadership, their families—including underage children—and other relatives, if any exist. He vividly describes how and under what conditions acts of violence would be committed against them, all while accusing his male opponents of homosexuality, even as he simultaneously threatens them with homosexual forms of punishment. This torrent of promised sexual perversions is also interspersed with detailed descriptions of execution methods for certain individuals.
Were such behavior to occur in any European (or other) country, the police would have long since broken down this individual’s door. Threats of sexual violence, especially against family members and minors, are criminal offenses that cannot be justified by any political or moral arguments. It is evident that we are not dealing with a dissident but with someone who is either a criminal or profoundly mentally unwell—although mental illness does not absolve one of responsibility.
And yet, this figure, as if straight out of Pasolini’s Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, recently became a central figure in a segment on French television regarding Azerbaijan hosting the COP29 summit. In this coverage, he was portrayed as… a courageous hero, a victim of Azerbaijani authorities.
What’s Happening?
First and foremost, it’s important to clarify: the issue is not with criticism of Azerbaijan as such. No country, including Azerbaijan, is immune to criticism, nor has Azerbaijan been granted any special immunity. Every country, Azerbaijan included, faces challenges and issues that require both short-term and long-term solutions. Fundamental rights such as quality education, accessible healthcare, government services, opportunities for self-realization across various fields, and security are all areas where improvement is always necessary. However, this drive for improvement is not dictated by a desire to appease or report to others but stems from the internal demands of Azerbaijani society itself. Whatever is said externally, Azerbaijani society is highly demanding, and its leadership responds to this societal demand, representing the views and interests of the majority. Like it or not, this remains a fact.
Azerbaijan is a country oriented toward Western values and standards but firmly rejects the left-liberal frivolity that could undermine its national identity. Left-liberal excesses, the so-called woke ideas, may find fertile ground in Europe, particularly in its western regions, but they are entirely alien and unnecessary in a context like Azerbaijan.
This very agenda permeates the rhetoric of Western media, politicians, and NGOs today. Orientalist attitudes and arrogance prevent Western commentators and politicians from adequately perceiving the part of the world they so confidently discuss. A lack of understanding of cultural nuances, compounded by Orientalist condescension, creates a distorted picture of reality. The expectation of encountering backward amateurs is shattered when confronted by intellectually equipped professionals—whether in diplomacy, politics, or economics. This is always an unpleasant surprise.
I dare suggest that fundamental changes in European history have always been accompanied by philosophical reflection. However, today, it seems that tradition has been lost. The challenges we face now are not being analyzed even at the level of thinkers like Baudrillard or Foucault, who not only examined the underlying causes but also predicted their development. Today, discussing such figures is out of fashion; they are deemed outdated. But where are the alternatives? Everything that remains is, in one way or another, subordinated to the woke agenda, which has taken over academic chairs, publishing houses, and virtually all platforms for discourse.
These forces have powerful resources at their disposal—media, NGOs, parliamentary mandates. With the advent of the internet, their influence has only grown. Yet hatred, fear, and harassment as tools of influence were not invented by the masses. These were devised by those who spent years embedding the woke agenda, imposing their values, and promoting unrestrained chaos under the guise of progress. Their primary goal has been to erode national sovereignties, undermine family values, and replace traditional norms with postmodern surrogates. It is they who have introduced an aggressive, one-sided language that renders constructive dialogue impossible.
What Does Lobbying Have to Do with It?
The hysteria surrounding Azerbaijan is far more than just the result of pressure from the Armenian diaspora, as it is often portrayed within Azerbaijan. With all due respect to the Armenian diaspora, its actual capabilities are vastly overestimated. Undoubtedly, the support Armenia enjoys from Western left-liberal circles is evident today. These circles have effectively become allies of the Armenian nationalist movement within the diaspora. For them, the Armenian issue is part of the woke agenda.
Support for Armenia, motivated by historical, cultural, religious, geopolitical, or other factors, is entirely understandable. There is nothing inherently wrong with it—so long as this support does not conflict with Armenia’s own real interests. However, no matter how much its supporters wish otherwise, Armenia will still have to sign a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. It simply has no alternative. And despite external pressures, Armenia’s leadership today recognizes this inevitability.
Azerbaijan understands that Armenia needs to be shielded from external interference, including from the West, which offers it false promises and creates illusions. These illusions prevent Armenia from recognizing its true interests and acting accordingly. However difficult it may be, Armenia—its politicians and expert circles—is beginning to realize that a lack of agency is devastating for the country.
Azerbaijan is invested in helping Armenia achieve this agency—despite resistance from the Armenian diaspora and Western “curators.” But this is not an act of magnanimity or altruism. It is a pragmatic effort to ensure stable and lasting peace in the region. We understand that genuine stability is only possible when Armenia becomes a fully-fledged actor in international politics, with a clear state vision and an independent position.
In this process, Azerbaijan is arguably more interested in Armenia’s agency than Armenia itself. We are prepared to patiently wait for Armenia to shed its “victim” mentality, break free from the cycle of accusations and justifications, and adopt mature, rational state thinking. Only then can it begin to act as a truly independent state.
What Comes Next?
In a world where changes occur at an incredible pace, making predictions becomes increasingly difficult, if not entirely futile. The only certainty lies in the continuation of complex geopolitical games, including those in the South Caucasus. France, with all its ambitions and Orientalist tendencies, will likely remain a long-term player we must contend with. The historical rivalry between France and the United Kingdom in this region is expected to intensify. However, one pattern is clear: Britain has consistently emerged victorious from such rivalries. Competing with London, especially in this region, is futile—history and current realities affirm this.
Donald Trump is a paradoxical and multi-layered figure. It’s quite possible that he is not a hero or counter-elite at all but rather a tool in the hands of those same elites. If he truly represents a segment of the deep state and has reached an understanding with his “opponents” on the need to curtail certain globalist projects, this is not necessarily a bad thing. His return could bring about overdue changes. If he manages to halt the cultural experiments that are eroding Western civilization—be it transgender experiments or the pervasive infantilism of woke culture—it might justify the transitional inconveniences. The fight against chaos and cultural degradation could restore the long-lost balance between tradition and modernity in the West. This balance is essential if the West intends to remain a center of influence and attraction in history.
The old world, as we once knew it, is indeed a thing of the past. With Trump’s return to the presidency, this dynamic becomes even more apparent: the European Union will neither compete with nor seriously resist the United States. Instead, Europe, as before, will seek ways to adapt to the new reality. We are already witnessing how it is quickly “changing its shoes” to accommodate Trump and his administration.
This, frankly, is entirely expected and justified. Adaptation is not a sign of weakness but a pragmatic necessity for Europe.
