These “impartial” and “independent” media outlets are merely mechanisms set in motion by control centers to manipulate public consciousness. If in the West words like “biased” and “controlled” are used regarding our media, then the most fitting term for Western press is “hypocritical.”
There are numerous examples of hypocrisy in Western media: they support the territorial integrity of certain countries purely from the perspective of their financial interests. It is fortunate if the interests of those seeking protection genuinely align with the desires and expectations of the West. Otherwise, the West has no qualms about turning a victim of injustice into a monster, thanks to the media they finance.
Cynicism is the primary creed of Western press. Take, for instance, The Economist, which in September 1996 in its articles on the situation in Karabakh remained silent about the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their lands and ethnic cleansing, while praising Armenian separatists, defending terrorists and war criminals.
“Nowhere have Armenians shown such energy and resilience as in Nagorno-Karabakh. Today, Karabakh is effectively part of Armenia, with its population of around 130,000 completely free from Azerbaijanis (Azeri-free). Armenians actively settle in former Azerbaijani districts (especially villages along the key road through Lachin). These are tough and resolute people who have proven themselves as much better fighters than Azerbaijanis,” the publication stated.
And where are these fighters now? What happened to them? Did they run away with their tails between their legs? What did these resilient Armenians do when Shusha fell in November 2020? Why doesn’t The Economist write about the cowardice of Armenians who couldn’t defend “their homeland”? And what about Syamo? Where is this “merciless and charismatic” Armenian leader?
“The real leader is Samvel Babayan, a 30-year-old defense minister, diminutive but ruthless and charismatic. Samvel Babayan is an advocate of expansion, believing that Karabakh should extend even further to the north,” the publication noted in its 1996 article.
So, where is he? Did he flee? Along with women, children, and the elderly? Perhaps he even dressed in women’s clothing so Azerbaijani border guards wouldn’t recognize him. Probably his passport was fake.
Why doesn’t The Economist inquire about the fate of Samvel Babayan?
It’s easier to accuse Azerbaijan of crimes it didn’t commit. Today, The Economist, when discussing the voluntary departure of Armenians from Karabakh, writes, “Azerbaijan is guilty of ethnic cleansing, choosing to attack the enclave instead of signing a Western-supported agreement guaranteeing the civil rights of the Armenian minority.”
They suddenly remember the “Armenian minority,” the same minority that 30 years ago expelled the Azerbaijani majority from the region. But back then, Western media called these Armenians “heroes,” and today they’ve suddenly become a “minority.” Should we pity them?
Azerbaijan doesn’t expel Armenians from Karabakh; on the contrary, we guarantee their safety, not because the West desires it but because we decided so.
Azerbaijan owes nothing to the West. Azerbaijan is a multi-ethnic country where all peoples live in peace and prosperity, where everyone is citizens of one state and are called Azerbaijanis. Armenians in Karabakh will have the same rights, but they shouldn’t expect any special privileges; they shouldn’t count on patrons.
Our response to The Economist is simple: Armenians left on their own, and the West should save its recommendations for Madrid, which has yet to resolve the issue of separatism with the Basques or Catalans. Next time, we’ll remind them of how Italy resolved the South Tyrol issue.
