The article sheds light on the recent visit of J. D. Vance to the South Caucasus, which is framed as a gesture of economic cooperation and stabilization. This visit aligns with a troubling trend in contemporary international politics: the normalization of actions taken by force when they suit strategic interests. The author critiques how the West reacted strongly to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and previous conflicts involving Moscow's intervention in Georgia, yet responds differently when it comes to Azerbaijan's actions in the same region, backed by Turkey, a key NATO ally.

In the past, Western voices were clear in condemning aggression and violations of international law, labeling Russia’s actions as unacceptable and citing the need for a solid stance on human rights. However, the article points out a notable inconsistency in the West’s language and action when faced with similar situations involving Azerbaijan, indicating a shift in standards based on political alliances and economic interests. This discrepancy raises questions about the integrity of Western foreign policy and the genuine commitment to human rights.

The implications of this are profound, as the selective application of principles threatens to undermine the credibility of Western powers. There is a call to critically examine not only how countries like Azerbaijan are dealt with but also the broader consequences this has on international law and the perception of the West's commitment to universal human rights. In a world increasingly defined by power dynamics and selective morality, the need for consistency and integrity in foreign policy becomes ever more critical.