Interview. Ruslan Aisin: Kremlin hits SOCAR. Zelensky in the white house

Ruslan Aisin – a Tatar activist, publicist, and political scientist, currently residing in Turkey.

 Vitaliy Barvynenko: Good afternoon, dear friends! Today, my guest is the well-known political scientist and Eastern affairs expert, Ruslan Aysin, author of a popular YouTube channel. Ruslan, welcome and thank you for joining us.

 Ruslan Aysin: Hello! I’m glad to participate and I welcome your viewers.

 On Russia’s strikes against SOCAR facilities in Odesa region

 Barvynenko: Let’s start with the hottest topic. Last night, Russia launched another strike on SOCAR infrastructure in the Odesa region. The hub, owned by the Azerbaijani company, was practically destroyed. Yet just recently Moscow and Baku seemed to be moving toward some de-escalation. Why does the Kremlin continue targeting Azerbaijani infrastructure?

 Aysin: This is typical Moscow behavior. It may say one thing publicly, but act in the opposite way. Russia cannot forgive Azerbaijan for pursuing an independent policy, while having no effective levers to influence Baku. These strikes are deliberate. Formally, Moscow will claim it is “only at war with Ukraine,” but everyone understands these were targeted attacks. The Kremlin seeks both to pressure Azerbaijan and to push Armenia back into its sphere of influence.

 On the prospects of a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan

 Barvynenko: Recently in Washington, documents were initialed between Baku and Yerevan that could pave the way for a peace treaty. How do you assess this process, and Russia’s reaction?

 Aysin: The sides are indeed close to signing a treaty, but the final draft is not ready. Armenia would have to amend its constitution, which is politically difficult. Moscow will exploit this by supporting anti-Pashinyan opposition and applying economic pressure. Russia still has leverage in Armenia through membership in the EAEU and CSTO. With Azerbaijan, it is harder — Baku is far less susceptible to Russian pressure — so the main focus of Kremlin’s influence remains Yerevan.

 On the “Alaska summit” and US policy

 Barvynenko: How do you evaluate the meeting in Alaska and the negotiations in Washington? Should they be seen as part of one process?

 Aysin: The Alaska meeting was largely symbolic. It showed Trump’s willingness to make certain concessions to Putin. Trump’s main goal is to use Putin as a tool in his confrontation with China. In this sense, the meeting was a signal to Beijing. It is also symbolic that Alaska was once sold by Russia, and proceeds went into building the empire’s railroads — Moscow clearly plays on such historical associations.

 On the “Sakhalin-1” project and sanctions

 Barvynenko: Reports suggest that Russia has allowed a US company into the Sakhalin-1 project. Could this be interpreted as a corrupt deal between Putin and Trump?

 Aysin: Yes, it looks exactly like that. While the world strengthens sanctions, Russia opens access for Americans to a project traditionally within China’s sphere of influence. For Beijing, this is a blow. Putin is trying to balance by offering Trump economic entry points in exchange for political cover. Essentially, it’s a corrupt scheme: resources traded for support.

 On Trump’s stance toward Ukraine

 Barvynenko: Trump has said Ukraine will have to make concessions, including giving up Donbas and Crimea. What logic is behind his position?

 Aysin: Trump thinks like a businessman: “the deal must be profitable.” He pressures Zelensky by suggesting — either you concede or face Putin alone. This is collusion, comparable to Munich in 1938. Europe is excluded from the process. Trump effectively offers to divide spheres of influence, leaving Eastern Europe at the mercy of the Kremlin. His approach is not about values, but pure pragmatism, bordering on authoritarian logic.

 On Europe’s reaction and Boris Johnson’s article

 Barvynenko: Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the Alaska meeting “a nauseating episode in diplomacy” and asked: “Where is Europe?” How do you assess Europe’s role?

 Aysin: The UK takes a tougher stance than continental Europe. London wants Russia’s defeat but lacks the resources it had a century ago. Continental Europe, meanwhile, remains passive and dependent on the US. I believe the EU does have the resources to counter Russia, especially if Turkey is engaged as a security guarantor. But so far, Europeans have not dared to adopt an independent strategy.

 On security guarantees for Ukraine

 Barvynenko: What kind of security guarantees should Ukraine have to be stronger than the Budapest Memorandum?

 Aysin: Ukraine must, first of all, rely on itself. Still, Turkey could serve as a military guarantor, and France’s nuclear umbrella could be expanded. The key is that guarantees should be European, without reliance on the US, because Trump’s position is unpredictable. Europe must defend itself, and Ukraine is part of Europe. The US has already shown, under Trump, that it is not a reliable ally.

 Barvynenko: Thank you, Ruslan, for this insightful discussion. Dear friends, my guest today was political scientist and Eastern affairs expert Ruslan Aysin.

 Aysin: Thank you for having me.