Fragments of double standards From Kyiv to Isfahan

Damage to the Russian Consulate General in Isfahan, Iran, prompted an expected reaction from Russia’s foreign policy establishment, voiced by its official spokesperson, Maria Zakharova. The wording was harsh: she described the incident as a “flagrant violation of the fundamental documents of international law,” calling for the “strict observance of the inviolability of diplomatic premises” and referring to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

According to Zakharova, the explosion’s shockwave threw consulate employees off their feet, while windows in offices and diplomats’ residences were shattered. The strike reportedly targeted the nearby administration building of the governor of Isfahan Province as part of the ongoing US-Israeli military operation against Iran.

Moscow called for an end to the military confrontation and urged a return to negotiations.

All of this sounds entirely correct—both according to the letter of the law and the spirit of diplomatic practice. The Vienna Convention does indeed obligate states to ensure the inviolability of foreign diplomatic missions, and any damage to a diplomatic facility—regardless of whose missile or bomb caused it—deserves condemnation.

The problem lies elsewhere: specifically, in how this principled stance looks in the context of one’s own actions.

In July 2025, Russian forces struck buildings adjacent to the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Kyiv. A month later, on the night of August 28, the embassy itself was damaged by a shockwave during another attack on the Ukrainian capital: windows were shattered, and cracks appeared on the roof of the consular section. A third strike occurred on the night of November 14, when one of the missiles landed on the embassy grounds.

Three strikes on a single embassy—and this despite the fact that after the first incident, the Azerbaijani side had provided Russian colleagues with the exact coordinates of the diplomatic mission in Kyiv, including the embassy, consular section, and cultural centre. As President Ilham Aliyev later stated at the Munich Security Conference in February 2026: the first strike could have been considered accidental, but the two subsequent strikes, carried out with full knowledge of the coordinates, could not have been.

At that time, Moscow’s reaction was fundamentally different from what we see today in connection with Isfahan. There was neither talk of a “flagrant violation of international law” nor references to the Vienna Conventions.

“The Russian side expresses sincere regret over the incident. At the same time, based on the available information, it has been determined that the damage to the Azerbaijani diplomatic complex in Kyiv most likely occurred due to a malfunction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ air defence systems, presumably the fall of a Patriot missile,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Galuzin to the Azerbaijani Ambassador Mustafayev on November 21.

The wording was elegant: at once expressing regret while shifting blame to a third party. When Ilham Aliyev publicly described the strikes as deliberate, the Russian Foreign Ministry responded that these statements were “not true” and that the coordinates of diplomatic missions are “taken into account” when planning strikes.

A similar incident occurred on the night of January 9, 2026, at the Embassy of Qatar. During a massive overnight attack on Kyiv, the diplomatic complex of the country—which, according to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, had played a significant role in mediating the release of prisoners of war—was damaged.

Once again, the Russian reaction was predictable. The Foreign Ministry called the accusations “false,” stated that no designated targets were located near the Qatari diplomatic mission, and again attributed the damage to a “malfunction of the Ukrainian air defence system.”

A clear pattern emerges in which the same legal norm—the inviolability of diplomatic missions—is applied selectively. When a Russian facility in Isfahan is damaged, it is deemed a “flagrant violation,” demanding the immediate cessation of military actions. When foreign embassies in Kyiv are struck, the blame falls on Ukrainian air defences, and the accusations are said to “not correspond to reality.”

The Vienna Convention is uniform; it contains no clauses stating that the inviolability of diplomatic missions depends on who delivered the strike or what the “designated targets” nearby were. The windows shattered by a blast in Isfahan are no different from those broken at the Azerbaijani embassy in Kyiv. Diplomats who were “thrown by the explosion” in Iran could have been, and indeed were, similarly thrown in the Ukrainian capital, judging by the scale of the damage.

For Baku, there is nothing new in this story. Azerbaijan consistently upholds the principle of respecting international law and the inviolability of diplomatic missions, regardless of which side is affected by the attacks. At the Munich Security Conference, President Ilham Aliyev made this perfectly clear, noting: “We issued special statements, and the ambassador was invited and a diplomatic note was submitted. We act only in a diplomatic way.”

In other words, Azerbaijan did not stage public outbursts or resort to ultimatums—but it also did not remain silent. Consistency of position is what distinguishes serious diplomacy from situational statements.

This is precisely why Zakharova’s statement on Isfahan, despite being formally correct, carries the taste of double standards. It is difficult to demand from others what one is not prepared to uphold oneself. It is hard to cite the Vienna Conventions when your own missiles have damaged a foreign embassy three times, and the official response is to attribute the damage to a “malfunction of the enemy’s air defence.” Perhaps a similar explanation could be offered for Isfahan as well—debris from Iranian air defences, for example. But when strikes hit your own facilities, such explanations are seemingly unnecessary.

Azerbaijan stands for international law. For the Vienna Convention to apply equally in Kyiv, in Isfahan, and anywhere else in the world. For condemnation of violations of diplomatic inviolability to be consistent, not merely convenient. Consistency is not a weakness—it is a hallmark of mature foreign policy. One can only hope to see the same consistency from our partners.