A recent RT interview with Russian Presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who managed to draw a parallel between Azerbaijan’s 2020 liberation war, the 2023 counter-terrorist operation, and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, has become a widely discussed topic. Especially since the ill-fated aide referred to Karabakh as a “disputed territory.”
To be frank, a wise leader would have shown Medinsky the door without hesitation, because his statement practically implied that throughout all of the Kremlin’s so-called “mediation efforts” in resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, it was simply being hypocritical. In the eyes of the Russian establishment, Karabakh was considered a “disputed territory.” The swift response from Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, voiced by spokesperson Aykhan Hajizade, demonstrated within the bounds of diplomatic protocol that Medinsky’s degree in history does not equate to a profound knowledge of history. This response, however, provoked hysteria among Russia’s political establishment. Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, rushed to Medinsky’s defense, urging people (attention!) “not to take words out of context.” A classic case of an apology being worse than the original offense.
But the “hornet’s nest” of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment had already been stirred up, and against this backdrop, the familiar Armenophile and State Duma deputy Konstantin Zatulin stepped into the spotlight. In an interview about Russian-Azerbaijani relations, he, as expected, mainly focused on the “unbearable suffering of the Karabakh Armenians.” But before exposing the lies of the Russian MP, it’s worth drawing attention to the “preliminary caresses” of the interviewer, who sins not only against truth but also against conscience.
“It turns out that Ukraine never occupied the Kursk region, but Armenians who lived in Nagorno-Karabakh from the 7th century BC until 2023 occupied it for over 2,700 years,” wrote journalist Mikhail Zubov in Svobodnaya Pressa, clearly steering the discussion toward an anti-Azerbaijani tone.
Well, people are free to be mistaken. But we would recommend this journalist read Alexander Griboyedov’s letters to the Russian Emperor about the resettlement of Armenians to the South Caucasus. And not even specifically to Karabakh. But let’s return to the main topic and move on to Zatulin’s interview.
According to Zatulin, there is nothing unusual about Medinsky’s comments referring to Karabakh as a “disputed territory.” In trying to defend the Russian President’s aide, Zatulin ends up implicating not only Medinsky, but also Putin. Does this mean the Kremlin is full of liars? The question is more rhetorical than not.
The conversation between the journalist—clearly “well-versed in history”—and Zatulin focuses exclusively on Karabakh.
“Azerbaijan works itself into a frenzy demanding that everyone not only recognize the current state of affairs unconditionally but also forget what led to it. Twice—in 2020 and in 2023—Azerbaijan took military action that resulted in the territory of ‘Nagorno-Karabakh’ (quotation marks here and below are from Minval) falling completely under its control. The consequence was the mass exodus of the Armenian population from the lands they previously occupied,” the MP said.
We understand that making a fool of himself is nothing new for Zatulin. Yes, Azerbaijan demands recognition of the current reality, while not forgetting the Armenian armed occupation of 20 percent of our lands—carried out with the direct involvement of Russian armed forces. So no, we have forgotten nothing and have drawn the right conclusions, which led us to victory.
But that’s not all. Perhaps Mr. Zatulin has some kind of fetish for verbal punishment, because his inclinations are evident from a mile away.
“Azerbaijan now presents things as if nothing happened in Karabakh before 2020. Meanwhile, there was a functioning negotiation group, and Baku itself acknowledged that a peaceful resolution was needed. Ultimately, it was Azerbaijan that disrupted these talks and chose war, even though the sides were close to a peaceful settlement,” the Russian MP continued.
Yet he conveniently forgets that it was Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s pompous declaration—”Karabakh is Armenia!”—that nullified all peace negotiations. And the statement by Armenia’s then-defense minister David Tonoyan—“peace in exchange for new territories”—clearly points to the initiator of the 44-day war.
Zatulin then attempts to extract a “tear of pity” from someone—though it’s unclear who—by focusing on the “suffering of the Karabakh Armenians.”
“Baku wants to forget the suffering of the population of ‘Nagorno-Karabakh.’ Therefore, from a substantive standpoint, Medinsky had the right to say that a situation where hostilities end but a final settlement is not reached—as happened in Karabakh in 1994—contains risks and may lead to renewed warfare. As for Azerbaijan, it lashes out at anyone who even mentions the name ‘Nagorno-Karabakh.’ In Baku, they are free to forget and pretend no one remembers anything,” he said.
As noted above, Baku remembers everything: the occupation of Azerbaijani lands, the Khojaly genocide—where “brave Russian soldiers” slaughtered peaceful Azerbaijanis, sparing neither women, nor the elderly, nor children. We have not forgotten the Russian-made shells that Armenians used during the 44-day war to bomb the peaceful residents of Ganja, Barda, Tartar, and Mingachevir. Nor have we forgotten how, under the cover of so-called Russian peacekeepers, Armenia supplied weapons to Karabakh separatists via the Lachin corridor.
And finally: since a Russian MP refers to Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region as “Nagorno-Karabakh,” we have a personal request to Azerbaijani politicians, MPs, and experts—when giving interviews or making comments, refer to Kaliningrad as Königsberg, Chechnya as Ichkeria, and the Kurils and the Primorsky Krai as, of course, not part of Russia.
Fakhri Akifoglu
Translated from minval.az
