A plane crashes while Putin enjoys himself: what the incident involving the Azerbaijani aircraft reveals.

The Embraer 190 aircraft, carrying 62 passengers and 5 crew members, took off from Baku heading to Grozny at 5:49 AM Kyiv time yesterday. However, while approaching the Chechen capital around 7:20 AM, it unexpectedly turned around and headed towards the Kazakh city of Aktau, which was one of the alternate airports for flight No. J2 8243. At 7:35, the plane sent a distress signal due to a failure in the control system. A few minutes later, the crew requested an emergency landing in Aktau, but did not reach the runway where rescuers and medical personnel were waiting.

At 8:28, just a couple of kilometers away, the aircraft crashed into the ground, rolling to the right and hitting the ground with its wing, resulting in an explosion of the fuel in its tanks. The front section of the plane was completely destroyed and charred, while the rear section was thrown several dozen meters away and remained relatively intact. Some passengers managed to exit the aircraft on their own and even assisted those who were injured. Most of the 29 survivors were taken to hospitals. The passengers included citizens of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, and Russia.

The technical condition of the aircraft, which was built in 2013 in Brazil and soon leased to Azerbaijan Airlines, raised no questions, and the crew was considered experienced, according to Azerbaijani media. They reported that the pilots from Azerbaijan had flown to Grozny, Makhachkala, and other cities in the aggressor country many times.

It seems that the Embraer did not completely lose control – the crew managed to fly over the Caspian Sea and reach Aktau, which is surrounded by relatively flat steppe, suitable for landing.

The International Airport in Grozny, named after Akhmat Kadyrov, reported that flight No. J2 8243 was not accepted due to weather conditions—allegedly because of heavy fog. However, according to the weather forecast for the morning of December 25, it was only supposed to be overcast in the Grozny area. This led to the following version in the media: the landing ban may have been related to an attack by drone aircraft of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Northern Caucasus at that time, and an operational plan called "Carpet" was being implemented. One of the drones, as later reported by the head of North Ossetia, Sergey Menyailo, was shot down by air defense systems at 7:28 AM. The debris fell onto the "Alania Mall," causing a fire and the death of a woman.

“The sky over Grozny is always under our protection. Today's situation has once again shown that vigilance is our priority. Everything is under control,” stated the Secretary of the Security Council of Chechnya, Khamzat Kadyrov, on social media on December 25, confirming that drones had attacked Grozny as well.

Survivors of the Embraer 190 crash reported hearing and feeling several explosions, after which it became difficult for them to breathe. Judging by the footage of the aircraft's fuselage taken at the crash site, its tail section had numerous holes. The cause of these holes has not yet been officially determined.

Meanwhile, the domestic Center for Counteracting Disinformation under the National Security and Defense Council highlighted that the Azerbaijan Airlines plane that crashed in Kazakhstan was shot down by a Russian surface-to-air missile system (SAM). This was stated by the head of the Center, Andrey Kovalenko. According to him, Russia was supposed to close the airspace over Grozny but failed to do so. “The plane was damaged by the Russians, and instead of making an emergency landing in Grozny to save lives, it was sent to Kazakhstan,” Kovalenko stated.

In Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, criminal cases have been initiated under similar articles of the Criminal Codes regarding violations of safety rules in transport operations that led to the negligent death of two or more individuals. However, after the decoding of the flight recorders and obtaining the results of the examinations, the classification of the cases may change. Azerbaijan Airlines announced that the company has suspended flights on the Baku-Grozny-Baku and Baku-Makhachkala-Baku routes until the causes of the crash in Aktau are established.

“The incident with the Azerbaijani plane is gathering new details and could become a problem for Putin and/or Kadyrov. The distance from Baku to Grozny is about 460 km considering the maneuvers. From Grozny to Makhachkala, it is about 120 km. That is, everything is very close. At the moment the decision to 'redirect' was made, it should have been known that there was fog in Makhachkala. The distance from Makhachkala to Baku is only 30 km more than to Aktau. Therefore, there are already many questions: why fly over the sea to a regional airport in another country when one could return to the modern airport in Baku, where all services, including incident response, are at a qualitatively different level? The characteristic damage to the fuselage is very similar to the result of the aircraft being fired upon by some air defense system. And this damage was sustained over the territory of Russia, over Chechnya or Dagestan,” notes Alexey Kopytko, an expert from the Ukrainian Center for Military-Political Studies.

“Russian channels have started actively promoting the version of an alleged attack on the plane by a 'Ukrainian UAV.' It’s even interesting what kind of UAV could that be, what kind of strike systems it could carry? It looks like they tried to send the plane to Makhachkala and then to Aktau, far from prying eyes. And if it had landed normally, everything could have been hushed up. In Baku, even in the case of a successful landing, it would have been much more difficult to conceal the aircraft being shot at by Russian air defense; leaks would surely have occurred. Now it all depends on how the President of Azerbaijan perceives the incident. Just on December 24, President Ilham Aliyev celebrated his 63rd birthday. On the morning of the 25th, he headed to St. Petersburg to participate in an informal summit of the CIS heads of state. Judging by how the information is already being presented, there is at least an unspoken permission not to hide the true cause. And the most likely cause is the work of air defense, which was handed over for Kadyrov's protection. The immediate question arises: what if Russian air defense had acted against another aircraft, for example, against Aliyev's presidential plane? As of now, Kadyrov has only expressed his condolences in a dry manner,” summarizes the expert.

There has been no official reaction from Baku yet, although sources from the Azerbaijani government off the record directly state that the cause of the plane's crash was a Russian surface-to-air missile. However, as noted by Reuters, the Azerbaijani government expects Russia to acknowledge that it shot down the Azerbaijan Airlines plane.

Meanwhile, on December 25, Putin held an informal summit of the CIS leaders at the resort complex "Igora" in St. Petersburg. Just before the event, the Kremlin dictator was presented with another "surprise" in addition to the information about the crash of the Azerbaijani aircraft. In particular, it became known that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan would not be attending. According to his own words, he had “caught COVID” and was out of commission for a few days.

Interestingly, exactly one year ago, at the previous informal CIS summit attended by the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia, they exchanged handshakes, and global media made optimistic predictions that work on the text of a peace agreement would be completed by early 2024. However, as of now, having agreed on 15 out of 17 articles of the draft document, the parties have reached an impasse regarding provisions concerning refraining from international claims against each other and the non-deployment of representatives of other countries at the border. At the same time, by the end of 2024, the tough rhetoric between Yerevan and Baku has increased, and the prospects for signing a peace agreement seem increasingly murky.

Aliyev recently openly accused Yerevan of actively purchasing offensive weapons from France, India, and the USA, which, in his opinion, indicates the ongoing relevance of a forceful scenario in Armenia's relations with Baku after the "defeat in the second Karabakh war." Another complaint concerns EU observers stationed by Yerevan at the border with Azerbaijan. “Under the guise of so-called European observers at the border with us, on the Armenian side, NATO infrastructure has been created,” Aliyev recently expressed his dissatisfaction with Yerevan's policy.

“Armenia is not in an arms race with any country; we acquire weapons solely for the defense of our borders and territorial integrity. That is, for defensive purposes, and our goals are transparent,” Pashinyan responded, categorically disagreeing that Armenia should limit itself to acquiring only defensive weapons.

“Azerbaijan is also acquiring non-defensive weapons. Does this mean that it is pursuing a revanchist policy?” Pashinyan wondered in a recent interview.

“The difference between the military budgets of Armenia and Azerbaijan is already three times in favor of Azerbaijan. Against this background, accusing us of arming ourselves is, at the very least, unfair. I