Azernews.Az

By Farman Aydin | AzerNEWS

Although it is claimed that hostility exists based on national and ethnic identities, there is no doubt that political views are the main driving force behind this ideology. Historically, anti-Turkish sentiment, as well as Armenian, Russian, and Persian national antagonisms, have been the result of political thought, which has contributed to the formation of interstate conflicts.

In his latest interview on an Armenian social network, Konstantin Fyodorovich Zatulin, the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma’s Committee on CIS Countries and Relations with Russian Citizens Abroad, expressed a strong hostile stance against Azerbaijan. Once again, he demonstrated that the presence of several politicians like him is enough to fuel conflicts in the region.

Zatulin, a proponent of Armenia’s EU Integration, yet unwavering in his bias against Azerbaijan.

He claims to support Armenia's integration into the European Union, but his unrelenting accusations and anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric are unmistakable. His pro-Armenian stance only intensifies his disdain for Azerbaijan. Sometimes, I ask myself – if Azerbaijan were in Armenia's position, or more specifically, if Baku had made the same efforts to integrate into the EU as Yerevan, how would Zatulin and his ilk react? Would they continue to mask their hostility with diplomatic rhetoric, or would their true colors show?

Zatulin interprets Armenia’s exit from the Eurasian Economic Union as a bold step toward EU integration, claiming that Moscow has somehow abandoned the South Caucasus. In reality, Russia, which has always treated Armenia as an ally, would never tolerate the EU flag flying in Yerevan—something that harkens back to a project Russia had crafted a century ago. How would the situation unfold if the Kremlin saw its most loyal partner, Armenia, aligning itself with the West?

It is no secret that Russia's political strategy is built on the principles of hegemony and divide-and-rule. Yet, figures like Zatulin and other political pundits continue to describe Russia in an innocent, angelic light, much like the heroes in fairy tales. This portrayal is as misleading as it is dangerous.

Accident or act of vengeance?

When Zatulin commented on the crash of the AZAL flight, he slyly avoided admitting Russia's responsibility. Instead, his comments were laced with revenge and malice, distorting the truth behind the incident. A pro-Armenian Russian politician, distorting the motives of the incident under various pretexts, accuses Azerbaijan of shooting down a Russian plane in foggy weather during the Patriotic War. Zatulin seems to view this tragedy as part of some larger Russian vendetta, a twisted justification for an act of vengeance. Yet, the facts—such as the downing of the plane by a Russian-made Pantsir missile and the injuries sustained by passengers—firmly place the blame on Russia. To this day, Russia has refused to apologize for its actions, embodying a brand of arrogance that has historically led it into humiliating situations.

Zatulin’s biased stance extends to Turkiye-Azerbaijan relations and their military cooperation. He has falsely claimed that the Turkish military fought in “Nagorno-Karabakh” during the Patriotic War. As a provocateur, Zatulin attempts to adopt the role of his predecessor, Zhirinovsky, and promote an anti-Azerbaijan agenda. His continued use of the fabricated name "Nagorno-Karabakh" and his distortion of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity expose his separatist leanings. Zatulin’s defense of the criminal activities of separatist elements in the region marks him as a supporter of the very forces destabilizing the region.

Perhaps Zatulin is unaware of the political games he is playing with Azerbaijani journalism, but one thing is clear: he is stirring up trouble. After the revelations surrounding the Russian House, Russia’s provocative and threatening media stance likely did not escape his notice. Yet, Zatulin’s portrayal of Russia as the innocent party in these affairs shows his apparent indifference to the realities of the situation. History speaks for itself—Azerbaijan has long been subjected to Russia’s unjust aggression and has always faced full support for the occupation of its lands by Armenia. It is worth reminding Zatulin that the territories of Garabagh and Zangazur have always been Azerbaijani. These territories were given to Armenia as a "gift" by Russia in the 1920s. Aggression was, and continues to be, a central pillar of the Russian-Armenian alliance. Even former Armenian leaders have acknowledged this truth.

Zatulin’s current animosity toward Turkiye-Azerbaijan unity and his rejection of Azerbaijan’s military victories in Garabagh show that he refuses to accept Azerbaijan as a powerful and sovereign state. His incessant distortion of facts regarding the region’s history and his refusal to acknowledge Azerbaijan’s rightful control over its territories speak volumes about his agenda.

A man who claims to champion ethics and culture has, in reality, violated not just ethical norms but international law. Zatulin’s characterization of liberated Garabagh as “Artsakh” and his deliberate misrepresentation of Armenian monuments as Albanian temples further expose his malicious intent. You know full well, Mr. Zatulin, that there are no Armenian historical monuments in Garabagh dating back to the 9th to 11th centuries. So, it is clear that your hesitation in answering this question reflects your deep uncertainty in facing the truth. Distorting facts is challenging, but presenting lies in a palatable manner requires a special skill. We do not doubt your talent in this regard, and we have encountered many politicians like you, who harbor a deep-seated hatred for Azerbaijan.