he paper is dedicated in depth to the exploration of the Eurasianism and the neo-Eurasianism formed in its ideological basis. Works of Russian ideologists representing the Eurasianism idea, such as Danilevsky, Trubetskoy, Lamansky, Savitsky, Panarin and Dugin are critically analyzed. Russian Eurasianism is identified as a doctrine trying to prove the Eurasian hegemony of Russia and a politico-ideological system of Russian fundamentalism. It is implied that Eurasianism platform has been unilateral from its initial emergence striving for justifying the imperial politics of Russia and had not been able to escape from its partiality. However, Russia as a Eurasian state could gain an opportunity of favorable participation in the process of partnership among states in this region by relinquishing its claims to be an absolute dominant power both of Europe in Europe and Asia in Asia.
Keywords: Eurasia, Russian Eurasian Policy, globalization, Turkic states
The victory of the Russians in the Great Northern War and fragmentation of the Golden Horde in the south at the beginning of the XVIII century turned the Eurasia into the massive arena of battle. Announcing itself a state of empire in 1721, Russia took advantage of the weakening of Turkic states and empires in all spheres. After capturing all the strategic flanks along the Black and Caspian Seas, the Russian Empire enlarged towards Iran and China "through” the Caucasus and the Central Asia respectively. In 1905 the territory of the Russian Empire had already been reaching the largest scale in the history following the Turkish-Mongolian and British Empires. Its territory of 22.5 million square meters was lying across the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea in the north, the Baltic Sea - in the west and the Pacific Ocean in the east. This historic process that overlapped with the weakening of Turks and consolidation of Russians during the historical and geopolitical transformations occurring in Eurasia at that time didn’t change the geopolitical balance in favor of Turks and all Asians but changed in favor of Russians. Russia becoming a dominating empire of Eurasia captured not only a large proportion of this continent excluding Turkey but also put an end to the independence of Turkic states located in captured territories by moving Russian nationals to those territories in order them to dominate. Later, change in the political and ideological system of Russia - establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republics made this state known in the Eurasia even in the whole world as a superpower. Moreover, one of the giant poles of the international bipolar system was formed by this particular unitary state.
During its seventy-year existence, the Soviet Union wasn’t able to maintain the balance of "dinosaur vastitude” and collapsed due to the fundamental mistakes made in its domestic, as well as international policies. When the Soviet Union collapsed five of the fourteen republics seceded from it were Turkic states. Containing great traditions of statehood, these republics started nation- building process rapidly and assertively. With the dissolution of the USSR necessity to reform the Eurasian geopolitics on more rational basis had occurred. In such historical period, the eurasianism, which played a great role in the formation of the Russian Empire and was one of the political and ideological pillars of it, started reappearing in the Russian Federation that never broke off the royal pretensions. However, regardless how hard the neo-eurasianism tries to reappear in a new shape it actually doesn’t differ from the classical eurasianism.
Classical eurasianism - is a doctrine trying to corroborate the Eurasian hegemony of Russia. Russian eurasianism is a political and ideological system of Russian fundamentalism. Particularly, the eurasianism settled on Pan-Slavism and Slavophilism frameworks, and later deepened on philosophical and culturological perspectives, worked very hard to eliminate contradictions in the Russian Empire’s policy regarding the Europe and Asia, fix the "crack” in the dichotomy of Europe-oriented and Asia-oriented Russian society, and finally to corroborate its position on Russia’s being more an Asian state rather than a European. It also caused continuous discussions being even on the agenda currently. Consequently, the eurasianism arose in the whirlwind of discordance of opinion had contradictory and challenging evolution as the history of this empire.
Reviewing the process of formation of the Russian Empire the prominent Russian philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev links the so-called "ambivalence” of Russia ever hesitating between Europe and Asia, to the "dualism” which is very distinctive to the Russians and had appeared as a manifestation of these characteristics in the reforms of the Peter the First [Berdyayev, 2011, p.18]. Peter Chaadayev trying to clarify Russia’s "self-seeking” wrote in 1829: "We do not belong to any great families of the mankind. We are neither East nor West. We do not own any of their traditions either” [Chaadayev, 1989, p.508]. At the last quarter of the XIX century when the Russian Empire became hegemonic, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a great Russian thinker had joined the debates on Russian identity with a strongly-worded thought: "We are Tatars in Europe and Europeans in the Asia” [Dostoevskiy N, 2008, pg.509]. This particular acknowledgment proves that the ethnos "Tatar” (called by Europeans following the name from Slavic nations), etc. Turks were perceived as the essence of Eurasia. Therefore, starting from the second half of the XIX century, Russian intellectuals and ideologists were thinking that this empire that was facing the dilemma of acknowledging itself as a European or Asian state, eventually should have to put the "Eurasian dress” on "shaped” properly to its geopolitical "status”.
Later, as Vladimir Ilich Lenin ironically stated "Russia wearing the old hats thrown by Europe” was, in fact, longing to become a Europe-oriented state since the times of the Peter the First, as well as trying to imitate the Europe in all manners – from political to cultural. Pursuant to the process of Russia’s growing into a hegemonic state while the ideological battle between Russian westernism and easternism, certainly Russia’s self-assertion was gradually prioritizing the easternism (asianism) due to the geopolitical "weightiness”. Based on the originality of the Slavic world, the Pan-Slavists, in general, were inclined to the position of denial of Europe. In his work "Russia and Europe”, 1862, Nikolay Danilevsky author of a specific theory of Pan-Slavism, was trying to justify the necessity for Russia to view the relations with Europe from a new paradigm. Nikolay Danilevsky was identifying "the Europeanism as the illness of Russian life” and was considering the "struggle with the west as the only way of salvation” [Danilevskiy, 2008, p. 323, 529]. Danilevsky was admitting that "Europe belongs to Aryan nations, but Asia to Semitic, Turan (Turkic) etc. nations”. [Danilevskiy, 2008, p.370]. The author was also informing that in fact, the Europe considered Slavonians as its enemies, not Muslims and Turks, and the Europe constantly attempted to embroil Turkey, the leader of the Turkic world with Russia, the leader of the Slavic world [Danilevskiy, 2008, p-s. 400-401]. Finally, the main purpose of Pan-Slavism that could be a basis for the idea of eurasianism was articulated in N.Danilevsky’s views as follows: "… Seizure of Constantinople (Istanbul), the center of Orthodoxy as well as the junction of great historical memories could ensure Russia’s vast superiority over the entire Eastern countries.” Calling Constantinople as "Tsargrad” (City of tsar) the Russian visionary was describing it not only Russia’s but also "Common-Slavic Union’s capital” [Danilevskiy, 2008, p-s.467-470].
To resuscitate Byzantium, to make Constantinople (Istanbul) a center of Slovenian world – were no doubt an absurd utopia as a revival of Roman Empire. The imperialistic ideology in Russia reached such an immoderate bound in that period that Russians were looking at Europe in the west and Turkic world in the east and south as their competitors in their struggle to rule the entire world.
The eurasianism, having decisively settled on this very position, approaches the relationships with Asia with the new dimensions of Russian fundamentalism, in a manner differing from its ideological predecessor’s – Pan-Slavism, and driven by the Russia’s imperialistic geopolitics (necessity to bound to the east and south). Vladimir Lamansky in his work "Three worlds of the Asia-Europe continent”, published in 1892, for the first time, assessed Russia as a Eurasian state. In addition, his position indicated that Europe and Asia are not two continents divided by the Ural Mountains, in fact, it is comprised of Europe, Eurasia and Asia: and Russia discovers its identity on this site that "connects these three worlds”. Konstantin Leontyev, Vladimir Lamansky’s contemporary follower analyzing further links the future of Russia, as a state, to Asia. His consideration was that denial from Europe should be accepted by Russia as a foothold and Russia must recognize the fact that "it belongs more to Turan world rather than the Slavonian” [Laruelle, 2012, p.3]. Hence, "Turan world” was perceived in Russian mentality as an area equal to Eurasia.
The more systematic concept regarding the classical eurasianism was proposed by Duke Nikolay Trubetskoy: "The history of Russia should be overviewed from the East rather from the West" [Turbetskoy 2007]. He introduces Eurasia as an area of custom civilization established by various nations inhabiting there. In addition, he also points out that 700 years back "Genghis Khan, who was not only the great conqueror but also the greatorganizer" already laid the geopolitical foundation of what was ensuring the integrity of Eurasia: "This modernstate called Russia or USSR inthis historical perspective (the 1920s)is a part of the Great Turk-Mongol Empire established by Genghis Khan... Russia's geographical territory coincides with the core area of this empire. "Russian statehood within the territory of Eurasia is also a heritor and successor of Genghis Khan's state" "...like Duke of Moscow is a heritor of Golden Horde". Nikolay Trubetskoy even reveals the genetic basis of this inheritance: "As the Ugro-Finnic and all Slavic nations,the Turkic blood is running through the veins of Russians. The fact thatour brothers(not due to the language or religion, but due to the blood, character and culture)are not only Slavonians but also Turaniansis usually disregarded" [Turbetskoy, 2007, p.14, 15-17, 31-36]. According to the Russian ideologist, the Eurasian state of Russia will find its historical self only when it conceives it is heritor and successor of great Genghis Khan! The aim is evident: in an effort to become hegemonic in Eurasia, Russia even claims its "blood brotherhood" with Turks whose territories it occupied, to neutralize the challenges regarding the "Turkish component" of Russian Empire.
Since 1917 - soon after the Russian Empire collapsed and the Soviet Union was established, the eurasianism was developed as a specific political and ideological framework within the movement of Russian emigrants: in 1932, the Eurasian party was established overseas. Peter Savitsky, one of theorganizers of this party elaborated theeurasianism theoretically and developed its political platform. Remaining loyal to the ideas of eurasianism until the end of his life,Peter Savitsky, along with improving the Eurasian version of Russian geopolitics, shifted the eurasianism movement from a theoretical surface to the surface of practical activities. Similar to his ideological predecessors, Savitsky also ties Russia's destiny with Asia and considers that "continental sense" of Russian ethnos owned from Asians stipulates its domination in Eurasia [Savitskiy, 1997, p.155].
Doubtless, no conditions for visibility of eurasianism existed during the soviet period since the Soviet Union was officially following the communist ideology. It could only occur, in the best case, "between the lines" of certain ideas. Regardless thefact, the "concealed" expansion policy persisted by the SovietUnion was more pretentious and widespread than eurasianism. The idea of eurasianism commenced recovering in an openly and doctrinal manner only after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This tendency is called "neo-eurasianism" [Laruelle, 2012, p-s.3-6] in the theoretical and analytical literature. The complex of new qualities of neo-eurasianism, which does not substantially differs from the classical eurasianism means it has outlined itself pursuant to the political realities of the modern era. However, more serious and dangerous difference occurs while comparing the historical situations: Nowadays, Russia, that "lets allied republics slip through its fingers”, was not able to endure this "loss" and, for the first time in its history, initiates to bring the idea of eurasianismto the center ofnational policythat earlier was only going around this policy.
As of today, eurasianism process is developing in four evidently linked with each other directions: (1) in the scientific and theoretical, humanitarian and culturological concepts; (2) in thestandingsof public and political movements; (3) in the ideological platforms of political parties; (4) within the principal peripheries of Putin's national policy.
Challenges faced by the Russian state on the ways to keep and develop its geopolitical power within the progressive historical and political realities are introduced as a fundamental problem that "modern" eurasianists arefocused on.
Alexander Sergeyevich Panarin, head of the Social and Philosophical Researches Center within the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Science of the Russian Federation, introduces the Russian "Eurasianism" as an alternative and global idea versus the Western "Atlanticism" in his works such as "Russia in the cycles of world history", "Global political prognostication", and "Temptation by globalism" [Panarin;2000a,b,c]. The aim of introducing the issue in this manner is to justify the intentions of the current Russian state, inheritor of Russian Empire and USSR, to become a dominant political power again first in Eurasia and then in the whole planet. Panarin admits that "Russia is getting destructed" [Panarin, 2000, p.78]and talks with a sophistic logic from an unreal perspective for Russia. He explains the processes establishing frameworks for Russia's returned revenge as follows: "We are observing rivalry of Eurasia project: northern project (Russia), Muslim project (re Pan-Turkism intentions) and Chinese project (re-revival of Great Silk Way). Last two projects were thought out as an attempt tolinkAtlantic and Pacific oceans avoiding Russia... The characteristic point is that both projects are oriented to the Caspian open oil resources [Panarin. 2000, p.163]. According to the author's points of view, if just the first - Eurasian "Russian project" was able to manage the processes, it would have all the chances to win. Panarin's version of "neo-eurasianism" seems to seek an ally for Russia "that was left alone in the desert." Although he was predicting the upraise of the new global alliances due to his state's dominance, [Panarin, p.1999], it becomes clearly visible every day how far it is from the political pragmatics:the fact is that stronger areas of interest that are not balanced with the "Russian project" of the global rivalry in are being formed in the Eurasian arena.
Componentization of eurasianism within the ideological platform of the political parties clearly illustrates that these parties are instrumenting this ideology to gain popularity among the conservative class of the Russian society, particularly the USSR-biased communists and the nationalists supporting radicalization of Russia's super statehood policy, as well as the cosmopolitans impersonatingthe universalistimage of poly-ethnic Russia.
Alexander Dugin, who introduced the eurasianism to theattention of public and political movements in Russia, sets forth the "main principles of doctrinal Eurasia platform" in his book "Eurasian View". In general, Alexander Dugin's (currently a member of the Expert Council at the Russian Federation’s State Duma) public and political activities are focused on restoring the Russia’s "Eurasian super state” status within the Russia’s integration into the former soviet republics. This particular book is comprised of the main provisions of the Action Plan of the All-Russian Political and Public Movement "Eurasia”. The core paradigm of the platform is suggested byAlexander Dugin, the ideologist of neo-eurasianism could briefly be designed as follows: neo-eurasianism is getting formed based on the ideology of the classical Eurasianism. The fundamental thesis of the classical eurasianism is that "the west is against the mankind" [Dugin, 2002, p.6]. For this particular reason, none of the nations and states imitating the West was able to determine its own policy. They always were in leading stringsof the Westand underitsinfluence. Russia experienced the similar situation as well - the western oriented policy triggered its regression and loss of everything gained. "The crisis of idea in modern Russia" originates exactly from it. Nowadays, the westernism appears in the model of theglobalism. Due to this reason, a resistance against this threat exists worldwide: according to the author, there is only one source of a mindset that can be an alternative to the unipolar world model in the form of globalism and it is Eurasianism. Priorities of the eurasianism movement are to "establish the Eurasian Union" on the basis of CIS by strengthening the idea of "Eurasia federalism" and to materialize "the axis of ally states" by extending strategic integration of CIS' internal space in the direction of Moscow-Tehran-Delhi-Beijing[Dugin, 2002, p-s.14-15]. As it happened in the past, today the "Veliko-Russians" are capable of guaranteeing "formation of a single nation" undera unique circumstance manifested from the "intersection" of Slavonians, Turks and Finno-Ugric ethnos. Confident in its significance, the eurasianism, which may become "a consolidated core of the extended spectrum of mindset, philosophy, geopolitical project, economic theory, moral movement and political forces", announces - "Eurasia is a planet" [Dugin, 2002, p-s. 34-35].
However, in his "project" Alexander Dugin goes backwards from the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS practice and views that the "Eurasian Union" is supposed to originate in Eurasia, not within the ally of the sovereign states, but within the current Russian Federation's formation - in the form of the unitary state merged on the federal basis [Dugin, 2002, p.62-69]. Dugin introduces his "Common Eurasian Home" project with a certainty of an idealist and invites other Asian states - Mongolia, China, Japan, Iran, Afghanistan and India to join this "union" [Dugin, 2002, pgs.70-76]. Mr. Dugin, who wholeheartedly believes in "universal importance" of his job, decides to place Charter of the All-Russian Political and Public Movement "Eurasia” in the last pages of his books with an intention Eurasians would read the Charter and become a member of this organization. It is not acoincidence that in thepantheonof these beliefs, the Russianideologist "adjusts" the tendencies of eurasianism in his country with the state policy: the author states "Eurasianists hopefully accept the President Putin's policy on strengthening the Russian statehood and on reviving the geopolitical power of the Russian government" [Dugin, 2002, p.88].
The eurasianism is already a political policy pursued in the Russian Federation on the level of the public policy: Russia being not satisfied with the Commonwealth of Independent States isn’t very likely to rely on this formal union very much and, in addition, not very sure about its perspectives, has seriously started working on the realization of "Eurasian Union” idea . On November 12, 2011, Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan signed the Declaration on the establishment of Eurasian Union (EAU), and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan approved their candidacy to membership. The Eurasian Union should be structured based on the phases of integration similar to the Free Trade Zone, Eurasian Economic Union, Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Community etc. This Union looks quite "attractive”: the architects of the project think that if the idea is materialized, the territory of the Eurasian Union will be the largest in the world – 20,030,748 square kilometers, population – the seventh with 169,315,689 people, gross domestic product (GDP) – the sixth with 2.720 trillion USD. According to the authors of the project, "post soviets states (?!) having announced their independence”, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Trans-Dniester or Nagorno-Karabakh Republics (1) can be admitted to the membership of the Eurasian Union. However, the Russian ideologists miss that it is a serious act of violation of the international law to provoke a piece of land belonging to the sovereign UN member state, which has undergone separatism, to join the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian Union is intended to be a confederative union of sovereign states allied under the joint – political, economic, military, and customs expansion. It is clearly articulated here that the process of conversion "of the Soviet Union into the Eurasian Union and of the communist ideology into Eurasian ideology” necessitates the establishment of the Union of this kind. The state-level architects of the Eurasian Union project are Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, and Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan. The Declaration on the establishment of the Eurasian Union (EUA) was signed within 40 days after Putin’s article "The new integration project for Eurasia – the future which is born today” was published in the fall of 2011 when Putin yet was the Russian prime minister. Vladimir Putin, head of the Russian state believes that a power "capable of representing one of the poles of the modern world” would be formed following the establishment of this Union, which would be a historical step forward in the geopolitics of Eurasia. The Eurasian Union, absolute establishment of which was planned to be completed prior to 2015 ("supranational” Eurasian Parliament supposed to inaugurate by this time), in the successive stages – in more extended and global integration plan , would grow into "Greater Eurasian Union” embracing China, India, Iran and even European countries!.. Will the modern international policy really allow Russia’s worldwide hegemony centered at such pretenses?!
Apparently, while having a general review over the opinions and approaches of the Russian ideologists speaking for classic and new eurasianism such as Nikolay Trubetskoy, Vladimir Lamansky, Konstantin Leontyev, Peter Savitsky, Alexander Panarin, Alexander Dugin, as well as, the architects of the Eurasian Union project, it becomes obvious that neo-eurasianism platform that tries to justify Russia’s imperialistic policy, like the orthodox eurasianism, wasn’t able to get rid of evident delusions, extremity and de-constructiveness. Even the most skillful sophistry would not be able to conceal these shortcomings since the eurasianism, which became a doctrine of imperialistic ideology – is the continuance of the politics granting Russia an explicit predominance over the Eurasian nations primarily.
Initially, the Eurasianists anticipated the truth – the position they enthusiastically were defending would not be accepted in Eurasia. The reason is that Russia has always demonstrated unfairness towards not only the other nations, as well as the Slavonians who share the same roots with them but Russia hindered their independence and development. Russia even continually attempted to suppress Ukraine and Poland who own great traditions of statehood. Consequently, Russian Pan-Slavism has always remained as a dream. Russian Empire has permanently used both Pan-Slavism and eurasianism as an ideological tool.
The attitude of the Western European part of Eurasia towards Russia is the manifestation of the position of higher civilization. The west cannot find any rationale to equate Russia and itself or doesn’t really wish to find it. The eastern part of the Eurasia (mainly the Central Asia) is not willing to get easily digested inside the abdomen of Russia. Therefore, the Asian opposition to Russia was and will be as severe as the European opposition. Consequently, Russia being pushed by both Europe and Asia always generates hesitancy and confusion in Russia’s geopolitics and geo-civilization. Witnessing the irritated pushback from Europe, a more packed and compacted area, the Russian Eurasianist intellectuals cannot find another remedy than strengthening within a rarer and looser Asia. The eurasianists, reluctantly coming back from Europe and finding a shelter in Asia, are dragging the geopolitical support towards the Asia. However, in fact, what they witnessed was that the part of Asia that is closer to them is the residence of Turkic civilization- those Turks who for many centuries (mostly during the Golden Horde period) established states in Slavonian lands and who actively took part in the development of ethno-genesis. Thus, the eurasianists nearly equalize the Turkic world with the Asian one. They are very well aware of the truth that to conquer the Turkic world means to conquer the Asian world [Laruelle, 2012, p-s.171-201; 202-204]. Indeed, the true authors of Eurasia’s geopolitical history are Turks.
The peak of the Eurasian domination of Russia lasted from the end of the World War II to the 80s (around 40 years): it changed the political regime of European countries where it could create "satellite countries" for itself, it even was able to split a giant state like Germany into two parts. It yet moved forward over the Kuril Islands hit by the waters of the Pacific and abutted the costs of Japan. It involved a number of Far East countries of Asia (or part of some of them) including China, into its "socialist camp” like it happened with Eastern Europe. Therefore, the USSR, a dictatorship at the bottom, became a dominating state of one of the poles in the bipolar world model. As a result, disintegration processes started happening upon collapse of this state, which could not "incubate” a rational practice except applying the violent political policy resembling the "reforms of the Peter the First” to the international life: the republics forcibly allied under the Soviet Union, as well as the countries representing "the loyal socialist camp” assertively departed from it and joined the process of world building required long ago by the historical and political logics.
The times have changed: nowadays it is not possible to persuade and entice independent states, as well as sovereign Turkic republics in Eurasia into the Eurasian Union by any means. Furthermore, Russia is not as powerful as before to forcibly perform this action. In his researches ("Post-Imperium. A Eurasian story”, "The End of Eurasia: Russia on the border between geopolitics and globalization”) dedicated to Russia’s real role in the modern international life, Dmitry Trenin, Russian political analyst, director of Moscow Carnegie Center describes ineffective prospects of Russia’s neo-expansionist policy distinctly and credibly: "Twenty-first century: Russia is strikingly different from the Russia of old. The collapse of communism ushered in an era free of ideologies and values… With its five-hundred-year-old (I think three hundred-year-old, JF) empire a piece of history and its superpower ambitions put to rest, Russia is now looking inward rather than outward [Trenin, 2011, p. 9]. It is impossible Russia becomes an empire again since the international political environment "prepares the national states and confides in them” [Trenin, p.13]. Analyzing the historical realities of Eurasian geopolitics and current situation Dmitry Trenin concludes that the eurasianists, who were eager to "Russify” this land, did not take the right approach from the very initial period: they have definitely made a historical mistake by concentrating from Europe to Asia on the absolute denial road. Meanwhile, "Russia is primarily not an Asian but a European country.” For this reason, Russia’s European prospects would provide it with more convenient opportunities: it would become a part of the Western civilization. On the contrary, Russia was lost in endless Asian lands and could not find a way to discover itself. In current historical circumstances, "Russia’s role in establishing a center of attraction has come to an end.” "Eurasianism is dead and it is no longer capable of strengthening Russia’s standpoint either in Europe or in Asia” [Trenin 2001, pgs.94-99, 138-147].
Doubtlessly, Russia’s new revenge in the post-empire politics may initiate more drastic consequences: it is either moderate or coercive manipulation would distance the states that had already experienced the most important, challenging and crucial stages of independence. Russia’s continuing aggressiveness due to these "losses” might turn it into the "large-scale” and "rabid” North Korea. Ultimately, inevitable disintegration processes might commence inwards – this time in its new phase.
Here is the reason why Russia should not sway from "Slavonian Union” to "Eurasian Union” by deceiving itself with the illusions of "neo-eurasianism”. In any case, Russia remains, as the largest state in the world by area and it has no need to extend its territories by "new unions” or "federations”. It already has a number of unresolved problems within its huge territory. Therefore, Russia should end its ambitions to dominate over Europe in Europe and Asia in Asia since it is obvious in advance that none of the European or Asian states would agree with these pretenses. Modern Russia, after all, should implement its mission within the process of cooperation of normal transnational relations and should make its contributions to the development of this cooperation.
About the Author
Author is the PhD in Philosophy, Science doctoral student of the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Member of the National Assembly (Parliament) of the Republic of Azerbaijan