Azerbaijani government sources confirmed this to Euronews, and given their strict “information discipline,” there’s little reason to doubt the validity of this claim.
Horrific details have also emerged. The stricken plane was denied landing at three Russian airports, despite aviation protocol—both written and unwritten—dictating that an emergency aircraft must be accommodated at the nearest airport capable of handling it without hesitation. Especially since this was an Embraer aircraft, not a wide-body Dreamliner or Airbus. Instead, the damaged plane, with failed navigation systems, was directed to Aktau, across the Caspian Sea, while flying without a GPS signal.
While it’s possible the GPS disruption was a standard anti-drone measure and unrelated to Russia’s history of “GPS warfare,” such as disabling signals near Norway during NATO’s “Trident Juncture” drills, flying over open water without GPS on a damaged aircraft is a life-threatening challenge. This underscores the extraordinary professionalism displayed by the now-deceased AZAL pilots. Though not yet proven in court, directing the flight over the sea might seem like a deliberate act to “bury the evidence.” At the very least, the actions of Russian air traffic controllers demand urgent explanation.
There are far too many unanswered questions, and the Azerbaijani public deserves clear and official responses. Most crucially: why was Grozny airport not closed amidst a drone attack and active air defense operations? Yes, Ukrainian drones have exposed vulnerabilities in Russian air defenses, but if Grozny’s missile systems were activated, why weren’t pilots warned as they approached the airport? According to passengers, the Embraer 190 made three—yes, three—attempts to land in Grozny, yet the pilots were allegedly not informed of active air defense operations below. Was this sheer negligence?
Why, during an active drone attack, was Grozny airport still open to civilian aircraft? Why wasn’t the airspace closed? How could Russian air defenses be engaged while air traffic controllers failed to alert pilots?
Most importantly, why has Moscow, despite irrefutable evidence that an Azerbaijani civilian plane was struck by a Russian missile, neither expressed regret nor issued an apology?
Mistakes in air defense operations are not unheard of, but as the saying goes, a system is judged not by its errors but by its response to them. Russian aviation authorities likely knew first that the Azerbaijani plane was shot down by their missile. Yet “Rosaviatsia” hastily introduced the narrative of a bird strike. This echoes November 20, 1991, when claims were made that an Mi-8 helicopter carrying senior Azerbaijani officials crashed into a tree in fog, despite it being shot down by Armenian militants near the village of Karakend.
Then, pro-Russian sources, including so-called “Z-bloggers,” began spreading increasingly implausible theories: the plane crashed due to technical failure, a supposed explosion of an oxygen tank on board, and more. Once it emerged that Ukrainian drone attacks coincided with the crash, a new theory surfaced: the plane was allegedly downed by a Ukrainian drone. However, this is highly questionable since Ukraine does not possess drones capable of targeting airborne aircraft.
Today, with the plane reaching Aktau despite its damage, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence, the narrative has shifted. After Azerbaijani government sources confirmed that the aircraft was downed by a Russian missile, the situation has dramatically changed. Moscow’s prolonged silence on the matter now appears even more alarming.
A Matter of Politics and Responsibility
Azerbaijan and Russia are not hostile nations. A Declaration on Allied Interaction exists between the two countries, suggesting a level of mutual understanding and accountability, especially in critical situations. How, then, can Moscow explain the downing of an Azerbaijani civilian plane with a Russian missile without offering a response?
Moreover, international norms suggest that in such incidents, the best course of action is to acknowledge responsibility, express regret, or issue an apology.
Azerbaijan has set a commendable precedent in this regard. During the final hours of the 44-day war, a Russian military helicopter was mistakenly shot down near the Nakhchivan region. Despite the complexity of the situation, Baku immediately accepted responsibility, apologized, launched a criminal investigation, and provided compensation to the families of the deceased pilots.
Now, we face a situation where a Russian missile mistakenly shot down a civilian aircraft, killing 38 people. Over 24 hours have passed, yet Moscow has neither accepted responsibility, apologized, nor expressed genuine regret. Offering condolences alone is insufficient.
Given the close bilateral relations, Moscow’s silence is hard to justify. It would be tragic if flight J28243 were to become another MH17.
