Strike on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Kyiv What lies behind the night attack?

As a result of airstrikes by the Russian armed forces on Kyiv during the night of November 14, the building of the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Ukraine suffered significant damage: the walls were heavily damaged, windows were shattered, and diplomats’ vehicles were affected.

During a phone conversation with President Zelenskyy, President Ilham Aliyev condemned yet another missile strike on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Ukraine and expressed serious concern, emphasising that, according to the norms and principles of international law, such attacks on diplomatic missions are unacceptable.

Following the incident, the Russian Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Mikhail Yevdokimov, was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was presented with a note of protest. The document, in particular, highlights that the repeated damage to the Azerbaijani diplomatic mission in Ukraine and to Azerbaijani-owned facilities as a result of Russian missile strikes raises questions about the deliberate nature of these attacks.

“The coordinates of the buildings housing our diplomatic missions in Ukraine had been submitted to the Russian side as early as April 2022, when the Russian side had assured that the coordinates would be taken into account by the Ministry of Defence of Russia,” the note reads.

Meanwhile, the Russian side has not officially commented on the strike against the Azerbaijani diplomatic mission. However, according to TASS, citing its own military source, “numerous photos and videos published on Ukrainian platforms indicate that a Patriot surface-to-air missile, rather than an Iskander missile, struck the territory of the Azerbaijani Embassy.”

So, what lies behind the shelling of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Kyiv – a provocation or an accidental strike? Caliber.Az sought analysis of the situation from Ukrainian and Israeli military experts.

Ukrainian Armed Forces officer and military‑political commentator Taras Berezovets believes that the Russian claims of a Ukrainian trace do not withstand scrutiny, and that the version of a deliberate strike appears the most plausible.

“Yes, the Shevchenkivskyi district, where the embassy is located, does indeed lead in the number of strikes in Kyiv. But this is not a case of an accidental hit — this is not the first time a missile has struck directly in the vicinity of the Azerbaijani Embassy; similar incidents have been recorded before,” he noted.

Berezovets stressed that repeated strikes in the same sector rule out the possibility of coincidence, and reminded that the facility the Russian military might try to reference has long since lost any industrial significance.

“One must understand that Russian missiles — both ballistic and cruise — detonated literally next to the embassy. Yes, the territory of the former Artem plant is nearby, but nothing has been there for a long time: only residential complexes and offices. And Russian targeting crews know this perfectly well. As for the missile that exploded this time, it is difficult to say for certain whether it was ballistic or cruise. But the most likely scenario is that it was an Iskander‑K — a cruise missile of a new modification, created in 2017 with a range of around 2,500 kilometres. It is designed for planned airburst detonation, exploding in the air at an altitude of roughly up to seven metres. Such technology rules out any notion of an accidental strike,” Berezovets explained.

According to him, the characteristics of the warhead and the pattern of debris confirm a deliberate detonation over the target: “The strike landed directly in the area of the embassy, and the building suffered serious damage. The former Artem plant is several hundred metres away — a significant distance. If that territory had been the actual target, an airburst with cluster dispersion would have looked different.”

He emphasised that arguments about a “random trajectory” do not hold up to technical logic: “Not far from the embassy, roughly 800 metres away, is Ukraine’s only specialised children’s hospital — it was previously hit by Russian Kh-101 missiles. At that time, Moscow also tried to claim it was supposedly ‘Ukrainian air-defence missiles,’ but expert analysis confirmed these were Kh-101s.”

The expert noted that systematic strikes in the same zone are not coincidences, but a clear pattern.

“The President of Ukraine did not arbitrarily single out the Azerbaijani Embassy strike for attention. Another important point: the centre of Kyiv hosts a large number of other embassies. Why has there never been a strike, for example, on the US or UK embassies? Yes, the EU delegation in Kyiv was damaged after a strike — also in the Shevchenkivskyi district. But the vast majority of EU and NATO embassies have never been hit. This also clearly indicates that we are not dealing with an accident,” Berezovets said.

According to him, attempts by the Russian side to refute the claim that an Iskander missile was used are unconvincing.

“The Russians tried to argue that if it had been an Iskander missile, the destruction would have been greater. But I personally experienced an airburst of an Iskander‑K missile with a cluster warhead over a building in Kyiv. This happened on July 31 this year: on our entire street, windows and doors in houses were blown out; in my apartment, internal doors and two windows were damaged. At that time, the Russians also claimed it was supposedly a Ukrainian missile. But the explosion was planned — the missile detonated in the air — and only by sheer luck did no one die,” Berezovets said.

He emphasised that this type of airburst perfectly matches what happened in the area of the embassy.

“And finally, Russian attempts to claim it was a Patriot missile do not withstand any scrutiny. To date, there has not been a single confirmed case where a Patriot missile caused destruction or hit a civilian target. It is a highly precise weapon, and even the PAC‑3 version supplied to Ukraine has not created such incidents. So, this version is entirely ruled out,” Berezovets stated.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian diplomat, international law expert, and military analyst Vadym Triukhan noted that when it comes to Russia, accidents are out of the question.

“First of all, this is not the first strike. We remember the attack on the SOCAR fuel depot in Ukraine and are aware of how relations between Russia and Azerbaijan developed when, as a result of unlawful — I would even say audacious — actions by Russian security forces, Azerbaijani citizens were killed. So this is no accident; it is a pattern. What is the purpose of this provocation? It seems to me that Russia is looking for a pretext to expand its aggression elsewhere. Ukraine proved too difficult, so they need to find another point of conflict. Let us remember that Russia constantly organises provocations in Europe — drones, airspace incursions, and so on — probing for weaknesses both politically and militarily.

So, in my view, Azerbaijan should treat this situation very seriously. Against this background, I find the news of the conversation between Zelenskyy and President Aliyev very positive. Reports have even appeared in the Ukrainian press that the two sides agreed to expand cooperation across almost all sectors,” Triukhan concluded.

According to the author of a military-analytical YouTube channel and Israeli military expert Sergey Auslender, purely theoretically, an accident is also possible — for example, a fragment of an air-defence missile could have fallen onto the embassy’s premises.

“But the key factor is the root cause, which is that Russian aggression against Ukraine continues, and as a result of military actions, a wide range of critical targets suffer, including diplomatic missions, and civilians are killed. At the same time, as I understand it, the Russians began acting within the same paradigm, confidently claiming that it was a Ukrainian air-defence missile, not a Russian one. Accident or intent — anything is possible, but the most problematic issue is that it will now be extremely difficult to prove responsibility, even if, overall, it becomes clear who is to blame for the strike on the diplomatic mission,” Auslender concluded.