A group of European MEPs has criticized the actions of the European Parliament, which led to the termination of Azerbaijan's cooperation with this organization, Report informs.
On May 21 evening, at the end of the European Parliament plenary hearings in Strasbourg, the issue of the Azerbaijani Parliament's decision to suspend cooperation with the European Parliament and withdraw from Euronest was on the agenda.
In particular, the head of the European Parliament's delegation to Euronest, Sergey Lagodinsky, called on Baku to reconsider its decision to withdraw. He noted that the country remains an important part of the regional dialogue within the Eastern Partnership, and its participation is essential for discussions on the Black Sea Strategy, transport connectivity, energy, digital infrastructure, and cooperation projects in the region.
Some MEPs openly stated in their speeches that the actions of the EU and the European Parliament themselves were one of the causes of the crisis in relations with Baku.
One of the most strident statements was made by Cristian Terhes, an MEP from the European Conservatives and Reformists group.
He stated that the Azerbaijani parliament's decision should be a wake-up call for Brussels. Terhes directly accused the European Parliament of using the April resolution on Armenia as a tool to pressure Baku: "This parliament (the European Parliament – ed.) used the April 2026 resolution on Armenia, which we all supported in terms of Armenia's democratic development, to attack Azerbaijan, which was completely unnecessary, unwise, and counterproductive."
Terhes placed particular emphasis on the fact that Armenia and Azerbaijan are attempting to reach a peace agreement: "After decades of war, they are finally working together and making genuine efforts toward reconciliation and the signing of a peace treaty." Against this backdrop, he believed the European Parliament's actions appeared politically short-sighted.
He also criticized the overall style of European politics: "Constant moralizing and an obsession with ideological condemnation is not foreign policy. It is political immaturity and geopolitical suicide." Terhes warned that such practices are already alienating partners: "We are seeing the same dynamic with Georgia and other states, which are increasingly distancing themselves from the European Union due to double standards and an arrogant approach."
He assessed that the EU risks losing ground precisely at a time when the South Caucasus and Central Asia are becoming strategically important.
"Azerbaijan is not just another EU partner. It is crucial for Europe's energy security and transport connectivity," Terhes added.
He emphasized that Azerbaijan has helped Europe reduce its dependence on Russian gas, supplies fuel, and provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
"Alienating countries like Azerbaijan isn't just irresponsible, it's geopolitically self-defeating," the MEP emphasized. He argued that Europe needs realism, strategic thinking, and a partnership based on mutual respect, not constant lectures and a sense of superiority.
Patriots for Europe member Angeline Furet portrayed the crisis in relations with Baku as a failure of European strategy in the region. "Azerbaijan's decision to leave Euronest cannot be considered a mere procedural step." "This is a strategic punishment for Europe," she noted.
Furet directly linked the crisis to the EU's actions: "We are paying for your interference and for our approach to Armenia."
According to her, Europe was attempting to simultaneously maintain energy cooperation with Baku and increase political pressure. "You thought you would ensure gas supplies, but at the same time you passed all these resolutions," she said, noting that Europe had failed to achieve humanitarian goals and simultaneously worsened relations with Azerbaijan.
Furet also accused European institutions of attempting to replace states: "You have taken on the role of states to lecture them."
She then moved on to geopolitics, stating that while the EU was busy issuing declarations, the region began to rebuild without Europe. According to her, the US administration was able to create a transit corridor by aligning the interests of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Furet placed particular emphasis on the fact that the new route (the Trump Route, TRIPP - ed.) has already acquired an economic dimension: "A new strategic route has emerged – peaceful and, in fact, 'controlled by American capital'."
Geoeconomically, Europe has found itself isolated, and the new face of Central Asia is taking shape without the EU, the MP noted. Meanwhile, Europe should stop watching the world being reshaped before its eyes.
Her final appeal was addressed to European institutions: "Stop lecturing the world. Let countries do their own thing and move on to mature realpolitik."
MP Thierry Mariani, for his part, stated that the South Caucasus is now at a unique point, where, after decades of conflict, Baku and Yerevan have moved closer to peace. He recalled that a settlement was previously considered virtually impossible: "Today, what many considered impossible is happening-the reconciliation process is beginning."
However, in his opinion, the European Parliament is acting in the opposite direction, adopting resolutions that add fuel to the fire. Mariani noted that Azerbaijan wanted to have a constructive relationship with the European Parliament, but closed the door due to its legitimate concerns.
"Peace in the Caucasus will be achieved not through European Parliament intervention, but through regional negotiations," he concluded.
MEP Thomas Fröhlich linked the crisis surrounding Azerbaijan to a broader problem in EU foreign policy: "Bad relations with the US. Bad relations with China. No relations with Russia."
It seems the European Union is gradually being sidelined in global politics, he noted. According to the MEP, Azerbaijan is tired of the European Parliament's moral judgments and acknowledged this.
Fröhlich warned that further conflict with Baku may harm Europe's energy sector: "If we continue to deal with Azerbaijan this way, it may be the final blow to Europe's energy security."
Ultimately, the discussions raised the question of whether European policy itself – the combination of resolutions, pressure, public reproaches, and value-laden rhetoric – had led to the loss of EU influence in a strategically important region precisely at the moment when the South Caucasus was beginning to enter a phase of peaceful settlement.