Category: Blogs and Tweets

By Tural Heybatov

The black boxes of the AZAL aircraft, downed by a Russian missile, have been decoded and are currently under investigation. As the investigation nears its conclusion, Russian propaganda appears increasingly agitated.

In recent days, Russian media have launched an aggressive campaign aimed at diverting attention away from Russia’s responsibility for the tragedy and shifting the blame onto Azerbaijan. Select excerpts from the pilots’ communications with air traffic control have been selectively published, speculative conclusions drawn, and “expert” opinions shared. This effort is accompanied by disparaging remarks and outright insults targeting Azerbaijan and its leadership. The goal seems to be to obscure the root cause of the tragedy, an effort that appears neither spontaneous nor isolated, but rather coordinated and systematic.

A key role in this campaign was played by the Telegram channel “Baza”, which has access to classified information and, by implication, to the structures that control it. “Baza” published a post claiming:

“Baza publishes the full transcript of the AZAL pilots’ communications with dispatchers. It shows that all decisions—choosing not to land in Grozny or Makhachkala, and instead flying back to Baku before heading to Aktau—were made by the crew of Azerbaijan Airlines independently. Dispatchers suggested landing in Grozny and later in Makhachkala, providing the crew with data on other Russian airports, but the crew decided not to land there.”

This narrative quickly spread to other Russian channels and media outlets. Adding to the furor, the Telegram channel “Svarshchik” propagated a fake claim that blamed the crash on a six-month-long operation by U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence agencies. The blogger behind this claim at least acknowledged that the plane was indeed struck by a Russian Pantsir air defense system located in the Visaitovsky district. According to this version, the system had targeted a Ukrainian drone but instead hit a civilian aircraft.

Russian blogs and media platforms erupted in an uproar. Various controversial commentators and journalists expressed their opinions in hysterical tones, resorting to insults and unfounded accusations. Some even suggested that Baku had colluded with NATO and was aware of the impending “provocation” to further discredit Russia.

While social media provides a platform for anyone to voice their opinion, the involvement of major media outlets raises serious concerns about the role of propaganda. Russian outlets emphasize the theory that the pilots themselves mentioned “birds” and an “oxygen tank” as potential causes, effectively echoing initial Russian attempts to deflect blame. However, these remarks by the pilots were made in the heat of the moment—they could not have imagined that their plane had been targeted by a Russian air defense system.

The facts remain clear: the airspace was not closed, and ground services failed to warn the civilian crew of any potential threats. This oversight points to a deliberate attempt to conceal the risks from the local population. Only after the AZAL crash did Russia start publicly declaring certain zones as restricted airspace. Before that, civilian flights operated in dangerous zones, setting the stage for tragedy.

As a result, many international airlines have since ceased flying over Russian territory, and Russian citizens are now acutely aware that the war, once fought on foreign soil, has reached their homes.

The “U.S. and Ukraine conspiracy” narrative mirrors the kind of disinformation Russia often accuses the West of spreading. Both sides engage in such exchanges to discredit one another. However, in this case, Russian propaganda is clearly aimed at deflecting attention from its own failures.

The circumstances of the AZAL crash are relatively clear. Visual inspections and preliminary data already provide enough evidence to draw conclusions. The sequence of events can be summarized as follows:

1. The aircraft’s navigation systems were disrupted by electronic warfare (EW) systems, preventing a safe landing.
2. While the crew attempted to land or return to Baku, the aircraft was mistakenly targeted by a Pantsir system, which identified it as a Ukrainian drone.
3. Throughout these events, no ground warnings were issued to the crew.

The Russian side’s much-touted Operation “Cover,” which coincided with the crash, was not communicated to the Azerbaijani crew. Instead of instructing the plane to leave the operational zone, ground control merely tried to guide it to land.

This was not a case of technical malfunction but a series of deliberate failures: the disabling of navigation systems via EW, the missile strike, and the subsequent loss of control. The decision by the pilots to divert to Aktau was not the cause of the disaster but a reaction to the dire circumstances. The ultimate cause was the Russian Pantsir system.

On December 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin called Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to apologize, three days after the December 25 tragedy. During this period of silence, Russia’s allies in Azerbaijan expressed confusion over Moscow’s lack of response, while relations between the two countries deteriorated rapidly. The question remains: why did Moscow remain silent for so long, and does Russia truly believe it can afford to lose Azerbaijan as an ally?

News.Az