On the eve of this date, Azerbaijan marked the first anniversary of the catastrophe involving an AZAL aircraft that was shot down by Russian air defense while approaching the city of Grozny. Moscow also chose to comment on the issue on the occasion of the anniversary. The official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, stated that the crash of the AZAL aircraft was a “shared tragedy” for several countries, that a year has passed since the disaster, and that a memorial to the victims has been opened in Grozny. Then came the apotheosis.
Ms. Zakharova described attacks by drones of the “Kyiv regime” on Russia’s civilian infrastructure as the root cause of the catastrophe. After that, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed hope that Kazakhstan’s commission would soon complete its investigation into the tragedy near Aktau, after which Russia and Azerbaijan would allegedly be able to “close all remaining questions.”
The investigation will, of course, be completed. Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Transport published an interim report to coincide with the anniversary of the catastrophe. This release, naturally, leaves many questions open, including the ownership of the very “damaging elements” that struck the aircraft. But it confirms the main point: the cause of the catastrophe was external impact. Simply put, the aircraft was shot down. There could be no other air defense system in the vicinity of Grozny except the Russian one.
In the first days after the tragedy in Aktau, we already heard a range of Russian versions about a “bird strike,” an “onboard explosion,” and a “collision with a Ukrainian drone.” Today, a year later, it has been established that the aircraft was hit by missiles from a Pantsir air defense system. Prior to that, the airliner’s communications were jammed using electronic warfare. The fact that the aircraft was attacked by Russian air defense was confirmed by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the meeting in Dushanbe. In other words, these were not “drones of the Kyiv regime,” but Russian surface-to-air missiles. As has been noted repeatedly, there are simply no drones in the world that function like anti-aircraft missiles. A collision with a flying object leaves entirely different traces on an aircraft than a surface-to-air missile does.
As for the verbal acrobatics regarding the “root cause,” if Ms. Zakharova is unaware, let us try to explain.
First of all, there is no clarity as to whether there were any Ukrainian drones at all in the skies over Grozny on that day. Yes, attacks were reportedly being repelled in southern Russia, but whether drones actually reached Grozny on December 25, 2024, remains unclear. And most importantly, if air defense systems are operating on the ground—regardless of whether this involves exercises or the repelling of drone attacks—the airspace must be CLOSED to civilian aviation. This is standard procedure. Yet nothing of the sort was done by the Russian authorities. Closing a dozen airports in southern Russia because of the war with Ukraine is always easy. But informing the pilots of an Azerbaijani civilian airliner that electronic warfare and air defense systems were operating on the ground—and ensuring the professionalism of that air defense—was apparently either overlooked or deemed a lower priority. And it is precisely for this that the Russian authorities must bear responsibility. Here, it will no longer be possible to hide behind “Ukrainian drones,” “CIA operations,” “NATO soldiers,” or anything else of that kind.
So what is it? Was Ms. Zakharova simply unprepared for the briefing? Is she unaware of what is already known about the circumstances of the catastrophe? Was the official spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry improvising in front of journalists? Or did she articulate the official position of the Kremlin and Smolenskaya Square? And if so, let us recall one thing. Already in the first weeks after the catastrophe, Azerbaijan spoke about the possibility of appealing to international judicial bodies. Later, after Dushanbe, hopes emerged that Russia would conduct a full-fledged investigation and hold those responsible for the tragedy accountable.
But now, after Zakharova’s statements, there can be no hope for the Kremlin’s goodwill on this matter. It turns out that Moscow has no intention of fulfilling the agreements reached in Dushanbe, of conducting an adequate investigation into the catastrophe, and is instead repeating narratives from a year ago. With all the ensuing consequences—for bilateral relations between Russia and Azerbaijan, and for Russia’s own image, of which, frankly speaking, very little remains.
