In recent days, Russian and international media have been abuzz with discussions about the rising revanchism in Baku’s official rhetoric. According to experts, Azerbaijani propaganda has long transcended domestic audiences and is now systematically planting mines under the stability of the entire Caucasus. The latest scandal involving a video from an Azerbaijani school, where children are shown a map with “expanded” borders, only confirms: this is no accident, but part of a long-term strategy. And the statements by Azerbaijani journalist Azer Hasrat on “ancient Azerbaijani” Derbent and the need to “return” it add even more color to this picture.
Iranian regional expert Ehsan Movahhedian published a video from an Azerbaijani school, where children are shown a map coloring northwestern Iran in the colors of the Azerbaijani flag. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a systemic propaganda effort that, according to Movahhedian, has been ongoing for 30 years. “Aliyev intends to one day reap the fruits of this propaganda with Israel’s assistance!” warns the Iranian analyst in his post on the X platform.
The video published by Movahhedian shows a lesson in one of the schools of the Republic of Azerbaijan. On the screen is an animated film where the contours of Azerbaijan are expanded at the expense of neighboring territories. Northwestern Iran, including the historical regions of South Azerbaijan, is painted in the blue-light blue-red colors of Baku’s flag. But the “geography lesson” doesn’t end there: the map engulfs lands of Armenia (including the so-called “Western Zangezur”), southern Georgian territories, and even Russian ones—in Dagestan, all the way to Derbent.
Derbent as an “Azerbaijani City”
Azerbaijani rhetoric takes on an even more sinister tone in a recent interview with political commentator Azer Hasrat on TNS TV. Hasrat is no fringe figure: he is a well-known journalist, founder of the Central Asia and South Caucasus Freedom of Speech Network (CASCFEN), and a member of the International Press Institute. But in his appearance, he crossed all boundaries, turning a demographic analysis of Russia into a manifesto of territorial claims.
“Our Khachmaz district borders Dagestan. From Khachmaz to Derbent is about 50 kilometers. That is, this is an ancient Azerbaijani city,” declares Hasrat, referencing alleged “historical maps.” He accuses Russia of artificially dividing “Turkic lands”: the Akhtynsky district of Dagestan, in his words, is “ours,” and its population (Lezgins, Dargins) supposedly communicated exclusively in Azerbaijani a century ago. “A hundred years ago, in the Akhtynsky district and throughout Dagestan, the common language was Azerbaijani, or the Turkic language,” fantasizes the commentator, ignoring the multinational composition of the region.
Hasrat goes further: Russia, in his view, should “return” Derbent to Azerbaijan, Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia (apparently to “correct” Soviet “mistakes”), and Orenburg to Kazakhstan. The latter he calls “yet another Zangezur,” allegedly taken from the Kazakh khanate to create a “buffer” between Turkic peoples. “If Russia as a state truly wants to pursue a friendly policy… then it must return Derbent to Azerbaijan,” he demands, drawing parallels with the “return” of Western Zangezur to Azerbaijan from Armenia.
This is not mere chatter. Hasrat draws on demographic shifts in Russia: “Today, Dagestan has become a republic without Russians… According to the 1989 census, the share of Russians in Dagestan was 25%. Today, that percentage has dropped to less than two.” He interprets the population outflow as a “sign of Russia’s disintegration” and calls on the “Turkic world” to take advantage of it. Such statements on Azerbaijani TV airwaves are not opposition—they are officialdom, fueled from the high offices of Baku.
Aliyev and “Soviet Occupation”: Echoes in Moscow and Hysteria over the SCO
The backdrop for these ideas is provided by President Ilham Aliyev himself. In a recent speech, he bluntly stated that Azerbaijan’s independence was “interrupted by occupation,” not “gifted by the Bolsheviks”. Moscow, naturally, is furious: such words undermine the historical truth about the role of Soviet Russia in shaping modern borders and sound like revisionism. Russian diplomats have already responded, calling it an “unacceptable distortion of facts.”
No less telling are the hysterics in Baku regarding the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Azerbaijani media, particularly the APA agency, accuse Russia of “active involvement” in blocking Baku’s membership in the organization. According to their narrative, Moscow colluded with India to “humiliate” Azerbaijan at the summit in China. “The blocking of Azerbaijan’s SCO membership was initiated not only by India; Russia also actively participated in this process,” cite diplomatic sources in the article. This is not diplomacy—it’s public blackmail disguised as grievance.
Threat to the Region: It’s Time to React
Under Aliyev’s leadership, Azerbaijan has long transformed historical narratives into a tool of geopolitical expansion. From school videos to TV interviews—everywhere the same message: “Greater Turan” demands revenge. Russia, as the guarantor of stability in the Caucasus, cannot ignore this. Claims on Derbent are not an abstraction, but a challenge to our integrity. Georgia and Kazakhstan, allies in the EAEU and CSTO, are also in the crosshairs.
Moscow must intensify monitoring of such propaganda, support Tehran in its concerns, and clearly delineate red lines. The Caucasus is not a playground for pan-Turkic games. If Baku continues in this vein, the fruits will not be reaped by Aliyev, but by the entire region—in the form of a new wave of conflicts. Russia, as always, will stand guard for peace. But it’s time to move from words to action.
Comments