By Azerbaijan.US Editorial Board
One year has passed since a civilian aircraft operated by Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) was brought down by a Russian air defense system.
Over this period, the technical circumstances of the incident have been clarified, evidence has emerged, and audio recordings have been made public. The conclusion that the incident was caused by Russian forces is no longer seriously disputed.
What remains absent, however, is accountability.
Despite the establishment of facts, no meaningful political, military, or legal responsibility has followed. No officials have been publicly sanctioned. No judicial process has produced consequences commensurate with the gravity of the event.
This silence is not accidental. It reflects a long-standing pattern in which responsibility is acknowledged only rhetorically, while consequences are systematically avoided.
This case goes far beyond a single tragedy. It represents a direct violation of international aviation law and a broader erosion of the principle that civilian life must be protected even in times of heightened military tension. Under international law, states bear full responsibility for the safety of civilian aircraft within their airspace. The existence of military operations does not dilute this obligation – it intensifies it.
In the AZAL case, Russia not only failed to prevent the incident, but also declined to accept political responsibility after evidence became public. Audio recordings and technical findings led to recognition of the cause, but not to legal or institutional action.
This is no longer a technical failure. It is a deliberate policy choice. The message is clear: facts may be acknowledged, but consequences are optional.
This approach is not new in the post-Soviet space. For decades, Moscow has relied on a model in which military force produces civilian harm, followed by denial, deflection, or political neutralization.
The so-called “frozen conflicts” in Georgia, Moldova, and the South Caucasus are not anomalies but instruments – mechanisms through which influence over sovereignty is maintained. Conflict, in this logic, is a tool rather than a failure.
The war in Ukraine represents the most explicit and violent manifestation of this model. Civilian infrastructure has been repeatedly targeted, cities have been destroyed, and millions displaced.
Yet the rhetorical framework remains unchanged: responsibility is denied or justified under the language of “military necessity.” The underlying logic is the same – power exercised without consequence.
It is in this context that the AZAL tragedy becomes directly linked to Ukraine. If Russia were to emerge from the war without clear political or strategic consequences, the implications would extend far beyond Ukraine itself. It would establish a precedent in which force, civilian losses, and legal impunity become normalized. Such a precedent would weaken the very notion of sovereignty across the post-Soviet region.
For Azerbaijan, this is not an abstract concern. The downing of an AZAL aircraft and the absence of accountability constitute a quieter version of the same process unfolding more visibly in Ukraine.
Sovereignty risks becoming conditional – not a matter of international law, but of tolerance levels defined elsewhere.
As long as the international response remains fragmented and episodic, the structural problem will persist. This is not about a single missile, a single decision, or a single operator. It is about a state’s relationship with international norms – and the consequences of allowing repeated violations to go unanswered.
If impunity continues, the next tragedy will not be an exception. It will be the new baseline.
For this reason, the AZAL incident should not be treated solely as a matter of remembrance. It is a political precedent that demands consequences. Silence today does not preserve stability – it merely postpones the next loss.
