Baku — A familiar pattern in Russian liberal commentary has resurfaced: accusations without evidence, labels without context. This week, journalist Yulia Latynina called Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev a “dictator” and accused Russian political scientist Sergey Markov of lobbying for Baku “for money.”
Her remarks, aired in the wake of Aliyev’s Al Arabiya interview, sparked debate less about Azerbaijan’s policies and more about the double standards shaping Russian and Western media discourse.
The charge — and the vacuum behind it
Latynina’s claim: Markov, recently designated a “foreign agent” in Russia, was essentially paid to promote Azerbaijan’s leadership. The evidence: nonexistent. Her logic: anyone praising Aliyev must be doing so for cash.
Critics quickly pointed out the flaw. Chingiz Mammadov, former presidential communications director in Baku and a UN program lead, told Daily Europe Online that people often support Azerbaijan’s positions “out of conviction.” Markov, he noted, has long styled himself a Eurasianist, arguing Russia’s future lies in deeper ties with the Muslim world and the “global South.” That worldview is entirely consistent with warm words for Azerbaijan — no bank transfers required.
The “dictator” label: easy to throw, hard to defend
Latynina’s other line — Aliyev as “dictator” — landed with equal predictability. But here, too, critics urged a pause. If buying new Stadler trains for the relaunched Baku–Aghdam line, accelerating Karabakh reconstruction, and preparing the phased return of displaced families are marks of dictatorship, what word then describes Western democracies that jail opponents, bar candidates, or muzzle dissenting media?
As Mammadov put it, the liberal commentariat’s hostility is less about who governs in Baku and more about resentment that Azerbaijan restored its sovereignty and territorial integrity after decades of occupation. “They would prefer us frozen in the 1990s,” he said — a refugee crisis unsolved, lands occupied, and dependence on outside mediation intact.
Beyond one media quarrel
The Markov–Latynina skirmish may look like a side show, but it highlights bigger dynamics:
Weaponized labeling. “Dictator” becomes a reflexive insult, untethered from governance outcomes.
Accusations without proof. Allegations of lobbying for cash stick, even when based on nothing more than attendance at a conference or polite praise.
Deeper bias. Behind the rhetoric lies what Azerbaijani analysts describe as entrenched Turkophobia and Islamophobia in certain Russian and Western liberal circles.
Why it matters
The timing is not accidental. Aliyev’s remark that Soviet Russia “invaded and occupied” Azerbaijan in 1920 rattled Moscow’s propaganda machine. The Latynina episode slots neatly into a wider wave of attacks — from Z-bloggers to “liberal” pundits — that seek to undercut Baku by turning every discussion into a caricature of strongman politics and mercenary influence.
Yet the facts remain stubborn: Azerbaijan regained its lands, is rebuilding, and is seeking new regional frameworks like the 3+3 and the SCO.
The louder the “dictator” chants, the more they reveal about those shouting them — and the less they change about Azerbaijan’s trajectory.
