Russia has officially admitted that its air defense system hit a passenger aircraft belonging to the Azerbaijani airline AZAL on December 25, 2024, leading to a crash and the deaths of 38 people. This was stated in a joint declaration by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both states. It is emphasized that the strike on the liner was “unintentional.” The parties also reported that they have “reached an appropriate settlement of the consequences, including the issue of compensation payments,” although details of the agreements were not disclosed.
The AZAL Embraer 190 aircraft, en route from Baku to Grozny, was hit over Chechnya by a “Pantsir-S” system while on approach for landing. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the liner sustained damage during the repulsion of an attack by Ukrainian drones. Following the hit, the crew requested an emergency landing in neighboring Russian cities but did not receive permission. Ultimately, the aircraft headed across the Caspian Sea toward Kazakhstan and crashed near the city of Aktau. There were 62 passengers and five crew members on board. Only 29 people survived.
Analytical Summary: Moscow’s admission of responsibility for the destruction of a civilian aircraft is a forced, pragmatic step aimed at preserving the strategic partnership with Baku under conditions of international isolation. Unlike the MH17 case, where guilt was categorically denied for years, in the instance of the AZAL flight, the Kremlin chose the path of an “amicable settlement.” This is explained by the fact that Azerbaijan is currently a key transport and political hub for Russia (the North-South corridor), and a conflict with Aliyev would cost Moscow significantly more than the payment of compensations.
However, the incident has exposed critical systemic issues: the chaos in coordination between civilian and military services, as well as the “nervousness” of Russian air defenses, which, under constant drone attacks, are beginning to pose a threat to civil aviation even in the deep rear. The refusal to grant an emergency landing to the damaged aircraft also points to a severe paralysis of decision-making on the ground, which effectively turned an unintentional shot into a deliberate failure to provide assistance.