In July 1974, the 10,000-strong Turkish army, choosing the name of the gang leader Attila the Hun as the operation motto, invaded Cyprus and occupied almost half of the country. The Turks were going to occupy the island. The plan did not take place thanks to the “threatening warnings from the Soviet Union and the US President Lyndon Johnson’s explicit threats.”
The fact that Moscow had taken a similar position by unanimous decision of the country’s leadership is beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first line of this leadership was the USSR Supreme Council Deputy Chairman Heydar Aliyev. This is a hint, not far from the historical past.
And when in January 2018, the same Turkey attacked Syria under a more lyrical “Olive Branch” slogan, Aliyev-Junior, forgetting his father’s communist position on the Turkish aggression unlike the international community openly said to the world that he stands by Erdogan.”Baku understands Ankara’s concern over terrorism,” declares the Foreign Ministry, not forgetting, of course, to link the Turkish “sacred” war with its “liberation” struggle against the Armenian armed forces illegally operating in Karabakh, interconnected with terrorist groups”.
The aggression of Turkey against Afrin has caused a great turmoil among Azerpop scribblers. Here is a whole set of military and diplomatic prescriptions. Azeri general Jusar Aytamirov, for example, threatens. “Military operations in Karabakh can begin every second. The war will be fast, accurate, and strong. ”
In this regard, the dreaded general advises “to neutralize Russia” so that he silently agrees with such operation as it was in the case of Syria. Former Foreign Minister Tovik Zulfigarov, referring to Sergei Lavrov’s Russian Foreign Ministry’s “pro-Armenian”, thinks that “the Armenian leadership will do everything to engage Russia in possible military operations.”
In the context of Syrian events, Azerbaijan’s political line is divided into two vectors. “Treacherous” and “pro-Armenian” Moscow in the first one, in the other “fraternal Turkey”, with the “Turkish people”, who are bravely fighting against the terrorists. Most importantly, they are entitled to put their experience and their military potential to serve for the benefit of their brother  Azerbaijan’s justified struggle for liberation against the “aggressor and occupier” Armenians.
And this is where the idyllic paradigm of “One State, Two People” ends yielding place to Turkish plans on cold political and military calculations. And these are clear and non-profitable, if not dangerous for Azeris. Politics is a two-way traffic; I am for you, you for me. This is a fairly justified position by Ankara, given that 25,000 pro-Turkish militants from the Free Syrian Army are taking part in the Afrin operations, while the “pure” Turkish soldiers who provide artillery and air defense are only 6,400.Turks are skilled at pulling the chestnuts out of the fire at the hands of someone else. So, in some way, making Azerbaijan a participant of Syrian venture is not an imaginary one. Turkey is gradually being drawn into the Syrian-Kurdish swamp, with its unpredictable consequences to be expected. Then, Erdogan would be delighted to share the “mission” with Aliyev, conveying the nature of the “international” invasion against Kurds in its kind. It is a different matter whether the latter will take such step or not. Here he may face a dilemma.
First, if he enters the Syrian crater, he will have two fronts – the Middle East and Nagorno-Karabakh, will strain the relationship with Washington, will have problems with Moscow and Tehran and it is also possible with Er-Riyadh and Tel Aviv. On the other hand, if Erdogan puts pressure on Aliyev in the given situation and the latter resists, the fraternal alliance will crack. Erdogan will take a cold and passive position on the Karabakh issue, especially because there are objective reasons -Turkey’s problems in Syria. And finally, The Middle East policy of Turkey also poses a threat to Azerbaijan.Erdogan’s new -ottoman and islamist policies may also include Azerbaijan. Adding it to the turbulent situation in the region and the possible return of bashi-bazouk Islamists to Azerbaijan, who have great ambitions for Baku’s oil. Diplomat Aliyev is unlikely to be able to sleep tight  having this even hypothetical picture of the prospect. And in our opinion, in the case of Islamization of Azerbaijan, he will either rise to the echelon or change his faith and become a hectic. And will do that just as easily as his father changed Marxism with Islam.