Category: Azer News

Researchers are conducting in-depth studies at the Imarat Historical and Architectural Museum Complex in Aghdam to preserve and document its rich historical and cultural heritage, AzerNEWS reports.

A team of researchers, led by Associate Professor Parviz Gasimov, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (AMEA), carried out a detailed study at the site.

The research involved specialists from the Institute of History and Ethnology named after A.A. Bakikhanov, including Doctor of History, Associate Professor Gntekin Najafli, Associate Professor Shamil Rahmanzade, and Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics, Associate Professor Mehri Khanbabayeva.

The work was carried out within the framework of the project Aghdam Imarat Complex (historical-archaeological-epigraphic research), which won a grant under the Azerbaijan Science Foundation’s “Karabakh is Azerbaijan! – 3” competition.

The investigations focused primarily on studying the epitaphs on headstones and tombstones that had suffered vandalism in the cemetery of the Imarat complex, as well as examining archival materials related to the site. During the fieldwork, researchers also made detailed impressions of the epitaphs for further analysis.

Note that the archaeological research at the complex was conducted in 2023-2024, documenting instances of vandalism and identifying the locations of burial monuments.

Following these efforts, the Imarat Historical and Architectural Museum Complex was officially established on February 20, 2025, by decree of the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.

The Imarat Historical and Architectural Museum Complex in the city of Aghdam is a major cultural heritage site and restored historical landmark that preserves and showcases the legacy of the Karabakh Khanate and its prominent figures.

It centers on the 18th-century palace and estate of Panah Ali Khan, the founder of the Khanate, and includes mausoleums, a historic cemetery, ceremonial buildings, a visitor center, and cultural exhibition spaces that tell the story of the region’s past.

Now, the site is open to visitors and features commemorative elements such as a park for Karabakh horses, interactive displays, and facilities that support educational and cultural engagement with the region’s architectural and historical heritage.

President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has sent a congratulatory letter to President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian, AzerNEWS reports.

“Dear Mr. President,

On the occasion of the national holiday of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Victory of the Islamic Revolution, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to you and your entire people on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Azerbaijan.

The development of relations between our peoples and countries, bound together by common religious-cultural roots and the ties of good-neighborliness, holds special importance for us. The increasing dynamism in Azerbaijan-Iran relations in recent times gives us great satisfaction.

Your official and working visits to Azerbaijan last year opened a new chapter in the history of interstate relations and gave impetus to the development of our mutually beneficial cooperation.

Currently, the scope of issues on our bilateral agenda is expanding and becoming enriched with new content. The intensive nature of visits at various levels, the documents signed, the joint projects implemented, including the effective work of the State Commission, create favorable opportunities for deepening our cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

I am confident that, for the sake of security and prosperity in our region, Azerbaijan-Iran relations and cooperation will continue to strengthen through our joint efforts in line with the interests of our friendly and brotherly peoples.

On this momentous day, I wish you robust health, happiness, and success in your endeavors, as well as enduring peace and prosperity to the friendly and brotherly people of Iran,” the letter reads.

Footage of President Ilham Aliyev’s meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance was posted on his social media accounts, AzerNEWS reports.

The post reads:

“Meeting of President Ilham Aliyev with the U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who is on an official visit to Azerbaijan (10.02.2026)”.

US Vice President JD Vance signed a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev in Baku on Tuesday during a historic visit to the South Caucasus as Washington consolidates its engagement with Armenia and Azerbaijan following their historic peace deal after decades of conflict.

Vance has unveiled an exciting initiative to bolster Azerbaijan’s maritime security by providing new patrol boats to help safeguard its territorial waters. He further highlighted the promise of expanding collaboration in cutting-edge areas like artificial intelligence and critical minerals, especially through the innovative Middle Corridor transit systems.

But the main thrust of the cooperation is connectivity through transport and logistics by developing the major transit corridor dubbed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) which was agreed by Armenia and Azerbaijan in their peace deal brokered by the US last August, integrating the two countries into a new east-west trade route to strengthen wider Eurasian trade routes.

Having visited Armenia before Azerbaijan, Vance commended the leadership of the two former rival countries who fought two wars over the Karabakh region in decades of conflict, adding that their continued cooperation within the ongoing historic peace process will ensure long-term stability in the South Caucasus.

In Armenia, a country that no sitting US vice president or president has visited before, Vance said on Monday that ‘peace is not made by people who are too focused on the past. Peace is made by people who are focused on the future.’

Evaluating J.D. Vance’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan requires considering the US’s geopolitical strategy in the region, according to Dr. Brendan Ziegler, a German-based analyst speaking to AzerNEWS.

“Ever since the agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on August 8 in Washington, the idea of Baku and Yerevan rapproachment is something ‘surprising’ and plausible. Given the fact that it had been labelled as something symbolic rather than a tangible approach by some, consequent events said something different. Mutually shared statements, disclosures, and Ilham Aliyev’s meeting with Trump at Davos are simple proofs. Perhaps, JD Vance’s trip to both countries even meant something more powerful. The first visit by a U.S. vice president to Armenia, and one to Azerbaijan, occurred after nearly two decades. Looking from a big scope we can say this is a new stance by Washington. This emerging U.S. model is indirect control through trusted regional allies. In this framework, Israel and Trkiye sit at the center, with Saudi Arabia playing a secondary but still important role. Under the Trump administration, this approach has been applied with notable consistency. And with Vance’s statements, calling Azerbaijan a key US ally, as a New Strategic Partnership acts as an extension of this broader architecture.”

Ziegler thinks that this reflects a deliberate shift in U.S. regional management. ‘Washington no longer wants to police the South Caucasus directly,’ he argues.

‘Instead, it is folding Baku into a wider security and connectivity ecosystem overseen indirectly through its most trusted regional partners.’ In this model, Azerbaijan is not sidelined but embedded, managed through alliances rather than mandates.

He explains, TRIPP is often reduced to a trade corridor crossing southern Armenia, unveiled after last August’s White House summit that ended decades of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. ‘That reading misses the point,’ he says.

“This logic also explains the centrality of the ‘Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity’ (TRIPP) to Vance’s visit. TRIPP is often described as a trade corridor across southern Armenia, unveiled after last August’s White House summit that ended the decades-long Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. But its importance is not merely economic. Strategically, it displaces Russia’s long-standing plan to control a similar corridor guarded by Russian forces, thereby striking at the Kremlin’s residual influence in the post-war South Caucasus. Beyond that, TRIPP opens a critical logistical gateway to Central Asia. For Washington, this is about far more than transit fees. The landlocked Central Asian republics sit atop critical mineral reserves vital to future industrial and defense supply chains. The U.S. has already signed memoranda of understanding with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and Vance’s proposal for a critical minerals trading bloc, floated at a ministerial attended by over 50 countries, provides essential context for his subsequent Caucasus trip.”

Commenting on the significance of the U.S. Vice President’s visit to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, Ziegler said the region is no longer as peripheral as it once was.

“What is clear is that the South Caucasus has become a pivot point in a much larger game. Vance’s visit was not about Armenia or Azerbaijan alone. It was about redefining how the U.S. manages regions it no longer wishes to dominate militarily, how it delegates order to allies, and how it reshapes Eurasia’s connective tissue as it prepares for a far more consequential contest in the Far East,” said the expert.

The Central Scientific Library of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS) has hosted a conference dedicated to the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, under the theme “From Idea to Impact: New Horizons for STEM with Gender Equality”, AzerNEWS reports. The event was jointly organized by the ANAS Presidium and the Women’s Council.

Opening the conference, ANAS Vice-President, academician Irada Huseynova, highlighted that this day is celebrated worldwide, including in Azerbaijan, following the UN General Assembly resolution adopted on December 22, 2015. She pointed out that gender equality in science remains a key priority, with efforts focused on promoting women’s active participation in research and innovation.

Irada Huseynova noted that UNESCO’s 2026 theme, “From Vision to Impact: Redefining STEM by Closing the Gender Gap,” aims to encourage women to transform ideas into tangible scientific and technological achievements. This approach emphasizes expanding girls’ access to STEM education from an early age, eliminating stereotypes, and increasing women’s representation in leadership positions in science. She also highlighted Azerbaijan’s rich scientific and cultural traditions, noting that women have historically played an active role in advancing science.

Stressing the importance of gender balance in the ongoing transformation of Azerbaijan’s scientific landscape, Huseynova shared that approximately 58 percent of researchers in the country are women, surpassing the global average. She added that increasing the share of women in STEM education and leadership positions will make future innovation and technological development more inclusive.

Following her, ANAS Acting Vice-President, academician Govhar Bakhshaliyeva, underscored the prominent role of Azerbaijani women in the country’s social, political, and cultural life. She highlighted that the National Leader Heydar Aliyev emphasized expanding women’s societal role, a policy successfully continued by President Ilham Aliyev. Govhar Bakhshaliyeva stressed that Azerbaijani women contribute significantly to nation-building, social and economic development, and the intellectual and cultural potential of the country, exemplified internationally by the work of First Vice-President Mehriban Aliyeva.

Bakhshaliyeva also discussed the growing impact of women in science and education, mentioning notable Azerbaijani women scientists who pioneered new ideas and founded their own schools of thought.

Later, Professor Rena Mirzazade, Chair of the ANAS Women’s Council, emphasized the importance of celebrating the International Day of Women and Girls in Science.

She noted that women occupy numerous leadership positions in Azerbaijan and are active in scientific management within ANAS, highlighting that the academy currently employs 1,977 female staff members, including 385 doctors of science and 269 PhDs.

Other speakers highlighted the importance of gender equality in science and technology in the context of rapid innovation, noting that emerging tools such as artificial intelligence and digital platforms play a key role in enhancing research efficiency and expanding opportunities for women in STEM fields.

The ‘World Defence Show 2026,’ currently underway in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, continues to serve as a key platform for international defense cooperation.

AzerNEWS reports that Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense Industry, Minister Vugar Mustafayev, who is attending the exhibition, held a series of high-level meetings on February 10 with prominent officials and industry leaders from several countries.

During the event, Mustafayev met with Ahmad bin Abdulaziz Al-Ohali, Governor of Saudi Arabia’s General Authority for Military Industries, and Khalid bin Hussein Al-Biyari, Deputy Minister of Defense for Executive Affairs. He also held discussions with Mansurjon Ibodullayev, Director of the Defense Industry Agency under Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Defense, and Muhammad Chiragh Haider, Secretary of Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence Production.

In addition, the Azerbaijani minister met with senior representatives of leading U.S. defense companies, including General Dynamics, Teledyne FLIR, and Ansys.

The meetings focused on reviewing existing cooperation in the defense industry and exploring prospects for further development. The sides discussed potential avenues for collaboration in manufacturing, technology transfer, and innovation-driven growth.

During the talks, participants emphasized that in today’s rapidly evolving security environment, the defense industry is shaped not only by production capacity but also by strong scientific foundations, cutting-edge technologies, and agile management models. Strengthening ties between industry and academia was described as a strategic priority.

The importance of closely monitoring technological advancements, studying best practices, and adapting them to national contexts was highlighted as essential for ensuring the sector’s dynamic development. International exhibitions and forums such as the World Defence Show were noted as playing a vital role in facilitating dialogue and cooperation.

The discussions also underscored the value of institutionalizing experience-sharing mechanisms to ensure sustainable and structured collaboration.

All parties stressed the importance of maintaining active communication and continuing dialogue to advance mutually beneficial partnerships.

The World Defence Show 2026 is scheduled to conclude on February 12.

Turkish Airlines will launch regular flights to Yerevan starting from March 11, Armenia International Airports CJSC has announced, Azernews reports.

The Istanbul-Yerevan-Istanbul route will initially be operated on a daily basis.

According to the operator, the frequency of flights will increase in the coming months, reaching ten flights per week from mid-May and further expanding to fourteen flights per week from mid-June.

In the world of politics, much like on a chessboard, the pieces and the logic by which they operate vary widely. This is particularly evident among certain members of Russia’s State Duma who have gained notoriety for political rhetoric driven not by reasoned argument, but by ideological theses. One such figure is Konstantin Zatulin, who at times appears to be attempting to assume the role once played by Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Yet the absurdities he routinely utters end up damaging not only his own credibility, but also the public image of Russia’s political elite as a whole.

The recent speech by Mr Zatulin, a Russian politician and deputy in the State Duma, delivered at the Armenian Apostolic Church’s main cathedral in Moscow, deserves close attention. At first glance, one might dismiss his remarks as mere rhetoric. Yet those familiar with Russia’s political machinery know that figures like Zatulin often serve as unofficial mouthpieces for the Kremlin-saying aloud what Moscow itself prefers to keep between the lines. When convenient, the Russian state embraces their words; when not, it dismisses them as ‘personal opinions.’ That is precisely why Zatulin’s speech should be read carefully, especially its subtext.

The message was clear: Russia does not want peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Kremlin, bogged down in Ukraine, lacks the capacity to halt the peace process outright, but it hopes to reignite the long-buried Karabakh conflict. Its strategy hinges on the 2026 Armenian elections, where Moscow aims to restore the so-called ‘Karabakh clique’ to power-at any cost. Zatulin’s attack on Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was not accidental; it was part of a broader campaign to undermine him and reassert Russia’s grip on Yerevan.

I will honestly admit that Armenia’s defeat in 2020 was more than a reality as it demonstrated Azerbaijan’s transformation into a modern military power. Technologically and tactically, Azerbaijan’s armed forces outmatched Armenia many times over, and in several areas rivalled larger regional actors, such as Iran, Turkiye, and even Russia.

However, being honest, I must say that Pashinyan was not the architect of Armenia’s defeat in the 44-day war. That responsibility lies squarely with the Karabakh clique, whose thirty-year rule crippled the Armenian state, hollowed out its economy, and isolated the country regionally. Their legacy includes corruption so brazen that even railway tracks and sleepers along the Araz River were dismantled and sold.

The reality today is stark: the Karabakh conflict is over, and new regional dynamics have emerged. Russia, however, refuses to accept them. Moscow fears that a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan would spell the end of its influence in the South Caucasus-and beyond.

In detail, Russia offers no real opportunities to countries in the region under its ‘sphere of influence,’ only fear and coercion. History proves that those who defy this sphere of influence thrive. Thirty years ago, Azerbaijan showed Russia the door. Despite initial hardships, the Azerbaijani economy has since grown 140-fold, rebuilding its infrastructure to a standard that now surpasses Russia’s own. Similarly, Poland and the Baltic states enjoy a per capita income nearly double that of Russia. Conversely, nations that remain tethered to Moscow-like Armenia under the Karabakh clique-are left with nothing.

Zatulin cannot conceal the truth, though he works tirelessly to obscure it. He knows the realities all too well, yet cloaks them in diplomatic varnish. Russia’s failure to intervene during the 44-Day War was not simply a tactical calculation-it was an admission of weakness. With the Ukraine conflict draining its resources, Moscow recognized that it lacked the capacity to confront a state as militarily advanced as Azerbaijan.

In his speech, Zatulin repeatedly credited Turkiye for Azerbaijan’s battlefield success, portraying Russia’s passivity as a gesture of goodwill toward Ankara. This is a deliberate misdirection. The Kremlin’s silence was not about preserving ties with Turkey; it was about avoiding a direct clash with Azerbaijan’s modernised war machine. To acknowledge this would be to concede that Azerbaijan has become a model of defiance-proof that resistance to Moscow’s dominance is not only possible but effective. Zatulin’s rhetorical contortions are designed precisely to prevent such an admission, even as the facts speak for themselves.

True to tradition, Russia now resorts to threats. Zatulin warned that Armenians in Russia would be branded traitors if Pashinyan remains in power, and hinted that once the war in Ukraine ends, Moscow will ‘settle accounts’ with its neighbours. This is intimidation, pure and simple.

The choice before Armenians is stark. In 2026, they can vote for progress, show resolve, and shut the door on Russia-or they can return the Karabakh clique to power and sink deeper into decline. Russia is not a rising star but a fading one, unable to help itself, let alone its neighbours. The only chains Armenians risk losing are those fastened by the Karabakh clique itself.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday that Moscow would respond if Greenland is militarized in a way that threatens Russia’s security interests, AzerNEWS reports, citing foreign media.

Speaking to reporters, Lavrov warned that if the island’s military infrastructure is expanded or directed against Russia, Moscow would take countermeasures, potentially including what he described as ‘military-technical’ steps. He did not provide further details.

Security in Greenland has been reinforced in recent months amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the Arctic. The United States has raised concerns that the Danish autonomous territory could face strategic pressure from both Russia and China.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently confirmed that the alliance plans to increase its involvement in safeguarding Greenland and the broader Arctic region, citing growing security challenges in the High North.

The Arctic has become an increasingly contested area as melting ice opens new shipping routes and access to natural resources, drawing greater military and strategic attention from global powers.

Energy security has long been one of the core priorities of states. Simply put, energy equals life: modern economies, national security, and social stability all depend on uninterrupted access to power. As history shows, the sources of that energy evolve – coal gave way to oil and gas, and today renewable and low-carbon technologies are increasingly part of the mix.

Yet a critical question remains unresolved: can clean energy fully replace fossil fuels, and – perhaps more importantly – will political systems allow it to do so?

This question reveals a deeper truth. Clean energy is not merely a technological or environmental issue; it is profoundly political. Its rise, pace, and limits are shaped less by engineering constraints than by government priorities, market design, and geopolitical rivalry.

For decades, clean energy has advanced primarily where public policy created the conditions for it to do so. Beginning in the 1960s, environmental progress was often driven by strong regulatory intervention – what some critics call the ‘regulatory sledgehammer.’ Over time, this approach expanded into climate and energy policy. Solar power, for example, did not emerge organically from markets alone; it was pushed into existence through mandates, subsidies, and long-term policy signals that reduced risk for investors. The same pattern applies to electric vehicles, batteries, heat pumps, and other core technologies of the low-emissions economy.

The results have been striking. Global investment in low-carbon technologies rose from around $50 billion in 2005 to more than $2 trillion in 2024. Policy-created markets attracted private capital, which in turn accelerated innovation and drove down costs. This feedback loop – policy enabling markets, markets rewarding innovation – helped avert the most catastrophic climate scenarios projected in the 1990s, when warming of five to six degrees Celsius by 2100 was widely feared.

Yet this model now shows signs of strain. Political polarization, fiscal pressure, and geopolitical competition are undermining the policy stability that clean energy depends on. As a result, clean energy is increasingly shaped not by global consensus but by national political systems, each organizing its transition in fundamentally different ways.

The United States: Markets vs. politics

The United States offers a paradoxical case. Clean energy has become deeply politicized at the federal level, yet it continues to expand rapidly at the state and market level. In 2023, wind and solar met 22% of electricity demand in Democratic-leaning states and 17% in Republican-leaning states, according to the US Energy Information Administration. In 2024, wind and solar generated more electricity than coal for the first time in US history – a symbolic and structural turning point.

This shift is driven less by ideology than by economics. Over the past decade, the cost of wind and solar has fallen by 70-90%, making them cheaper than coal and, in many cases, natural gas. In competitive power markets such as Texas, Iowa, and South Dakota, renewables thrive precisely because they are the lowest-cost option. Texas now generates around 35% of its electricity from renewables, saving consumers an estimated $20 million per day compared to fossil-fuel alternatives.

At the same time, federal policy volatility has injected uncertainty. The Trump administration’s 2025 decisions to cancel offshore wind permits – including projects already near completion – sent a chilling signal to investors that contracts may not be politically secure. Trade tariffs, onshoring mandates, and stalled permitting reform have further complicated investment decisions. The message from Washington has been inconsistent: clean energy may be economically attractive, but politically unreliable.

Despite this, investment continues. Firms increasingly hedge against political risk by relying on market fundamentals rather than federal mandates. Clean energy in the US, therefore, is political not because it depends on one party’s ideology, but because policy instability itself has become a risk factor.

China: Clean energy as state strategy

China represents the opposite extreme: a system where clean energy is deeply political by design. Today, around 40% of global clean technology investment takes place in China. The country dominates global production of electric vehicles (over 70%), batteries (77%), and solar panels (more than 80% across the supply chain). Clean energy is embedded in successive five-year plans and treated as a pillar of national industrial strategy.

State-owned utilities and planners play a decisive role, guaranteeing customers for clean power and building massive transmission infrastructure to link renewable-rich regions with industrial centers. China’s ability to mobilize capital and coordinate infrastructure – such as ultra-high-voltage power lines – has enabled scale unmatched elsewhere.

Yet this model carries risks. Provincial competition and heavy subsidies have created overcapacity in EVs, batteries, and solar manufacturing, driving prices down and triggering trade tensions with Europe and the United States. Central planning excels when it backs the right technologies – but when it does not, it can entrench inefficiencies and distort global markets. Still, China’s approach demonstrates how clean energy can function as a tool of geopolitical and economic power, not merely environmental policy.

Europe: Regulation without deep pockets

Europe occupies a middle ground, relying on regulation and market orchestration rather than massive public spending. Governments design markets so that consumers and companies have little choice but to go green. This approach has enabled Europe to lead in sectors like clean steel and carbon capture, where coordination between buyers and suppliers is essential.

However, this model depends heavily on investor confidence and consumer willingness to absorb higher costs. As economic pressures rise, political support for expensive green policies is softening. Germany’s new government, for example, has signaled a more cautious approach to climate regulation in the name of competitiveness. When political priorities shift, investor confidence follows – and often retreats.

Europe’s experience highlights a key vulnerability of clean energy transitions: they are only as durable as the political coalitions that sustain them.

So, is clean energy political?

The evidence points to a clear answer: yes, inherently so. Clean energy challenges existing economic structures, redistributes power between industries and countries, and reshapes energy security. It creates winners and losers – and wherever that happens, politics follows.

Yet clean energy is not political in a single way. In the United States, it advances through markets despite political conflict. In China, it is an extension of state power. In Europe, it is a regulated social contract now under strain. What unites these models is not ideology, but the fact that energy transitions are inseparable from governance.

Ultimately, clean energy’s future will depend less on technological feasibility than on whether political systems can provide stability, credibility, and long-term vision. The transition is no longer a question of if clean energy can work, but how politics will shape who controls it, who benefits from it, and how fast it moves.

In that sense, clean energy is not just political, it is one of the defining political battlegrounds of the 21st century.