West carried away to the tune of "Armenian" tango Hajiyev says it's time to turn off the music

Media hysteria against our country is raging these days. The West has unleashed such anti-Azerbaijani criticism that Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Presidential Administration Hikmet Hajiyev could not look at it calmly. Over the past two weeks, he has travelled several times to Aghdam and other towns in Karabakh with representatives of the diplomatic corps, clearly demonstrating the availability of the Aghdam road to supply food to Karabakh Armenians, and posted tweets on topics related to both the situation itself and the smear campaign against Azerbaijan.

"From the money talks series! Apparently, in the eve of the 'anniversary' of the most terrible, bloody and criminal separatist entity in Europe so-called 'Nagorno-Karabakh Rep', a new dramatic misinformation and manipulation campaign was launched by the order of the Armenian Government and armenian lobby groups," that's how the presidential aide started his post on X (former Twitter).

The first addressee of Hajiyev's criticism was the notorious former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, who a few days ago "severely" condemned Azerbaijan for the "blockade" and even threatened "consequences".

"At least, but disgracefully, the former NATO Secretary General does not deny that he is paid by the Government of Armenia for propaganda campaign," Hajiyev pointed out and in confirmation attached a document already known to us, which, among other clients of Rasmussen, includes the Republic of Armenia.

It should be noted that earlier this document was widely published in Azerbaijani media. However, the fact that now a representative of official Baku, moreover, the aide to the head of the Azerbaijani state, is directly involved in exposing unscrupulous schemes involving a Norwegian, means that the counteraction to Western propaganda has reached a higher level. Almost certainly, this tweet will get on the table of top officials of various powers. It is not a fact, of course, that they will reprimand Rasmussen, but they will once again be convinced that we know everything.

In his post, Hajiyev also touched upon the biased position that the well-known British broadcasting corporation BBC has been demonstrating in recent days. Let us recall that first a journalist of the local service sent to Aghdam asked Hikmet Hajiyev a question, the context of which suggested the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed regime and expressed blatant disrespect for the sovereignty of Azerbaijan. And the presidential aide was absolutely right in refusing to comment on the obviously biased topic in any way. But the BBC did not stop there and made a story with the involvement of American-Armenian musician Serge Tankian and separatist Artak Beglarian "to discuss the situation in Garabagh". Can you imagine what impression a viewer/listener can get from the interpretation of events on behalf of two representatives of the Armenian side?

As Hajiyev noted, the BBC, which states in its charter that it "strives to achieve due impartiality in all its material," engages in one-sided and biased aggressive manipulation and promotion of lies in the Context programme as well.

"The BBC should serve as a platform for all voices, especially on sensitive topics," Hajiyev notes.

Meanwhile, the UK is a long-standing business partner of Azerbaijan and has never been seen at the state level in anti-Azerbaijani politics. True, there is a well-known baroness, but she cannot speak on behalf of the United Kingdom due to her status. By the way, she has not made any statement regarding "famine". Maybe because Armenians stopped paying her? The situation with BBC is more curious, as this company is a state-owned one.

It turns out that there are still forces in London, which are trying to drive a wedge between our countries, hoping to destroy their favourable and very mutually beneficial relations. That is, the BBC, in fact, has become a tool of these forces. By the way, their current activity is by no means new. Everyone remembers President Aliyev's interview with a BBC correspondent during the 44-day war. The journalist, out of the context of the conversation (which is unprofessional in itself), suddenly started to teach the Azerbaijani leader about human rights and freedom of the press. But Aliyev resolutely stopped her, reminding her of the bitter fate of Julian Assange, who was persecuted by the Swedish and British authorities on trumped-up charges, and in fact, for investigative journalism. As you know, Assange spent a long seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, but then he was still arrested by the British government. "You held him hostage for his journalistic work, destroying him physically and morally, and now he is in prison. So you have no moral right to talk about press freedom," Aliyev shamed the journalist.

It has been repeatedly confirmed that Baku has been very effective in its political and diplomatic efforts over the past decade, especially in building ties with various countries and centres of power to defend and promote its just position. This can be felt, for example, in the way the draft anti-Azerbaijani resolutions initiated by France and Armenia on international platforms have failed one after another. This is evidence of the fact that people at the helm of power are usually more practical and less adventurous than representatives of the Western media, and therefore try to use common sense. However, this does not always work out, as traditional Turkophobia and Islamophobia together with unwillingness to spoil relations with the Armenian Diaspora blind even the most sober politicians. For example, the US ambassador has never visited liberated Shusha. Baku has long established certain relations with many countries, but it managed to liberate Karabakh only after it created a powerful modern army. In addition, it gained political support from Türkiye, which assumed the civilisational role of the protector of the Turkic world and covered our flanks with its authority. This is to say that diplomacy is diplomacy, justice is justice, but no one has cancelled the right of force.

As for the Western media, they, it should be noted, have always lacked common sense and often blurt out things that politicians, assessing the situation, keep in their minds for the time being. Besides, the press, unlike governments, is a more idealogised organism. In this sense, both left and right forces in Europe take a pro-Armenian stance in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict due to the same Turkophobia and Islamophobia, which inevitably affects the social opinion ruled by the media. Add to this the intrigues of the Armenian Diaspora, including direct bribery, and we get what we have.

On the other hand, this hysteria shows that Azerbaijan is on the right track. The Western elite, gripped by Armenianophilia, does not want to see Azerbaijan crossing the "red lines" it has outlined, for example, the installation of the Lachin checkpoint. Baku is firmly following the set course. There is no difference and no preference for Azerbaijani residents of Armenian nationality. The territory of Azerbaijan is not a passageway through which Milonov, Pelosi, Pecresse, Baroness Cox, Iranian militants, and others of their ilk, not to mention Armenian military and weapons, can walk uncontrolled.