Medinski's Imperial Delusions And Dangerous Revisionism Of Russian Policy

By all appearances, Vladimir Medinski is a textbook example of the reactionary chauvinist mind that has long dominated certain corridors of power in Moscow. A former Russian culture minister, Kremlin adviser, and self-declared“historian,” Medinski has earned a reputation for promoting nationalist myths, shallow ideology, and distorted history in the service of a neo-imperial Russian state.

But his recent comments about the former Garabagh conflict-claiming it was a“disputed territory” or insinuating moral equivalency between Azerbaijan's 2020 counteroffensive and fascist aggression-go beyond mere ignorance. They are part of a calculated narrative meant to justify past Russian interventions, excuse its support for Armenian separatism, and prepare public opinion for more imperial adventures under the guise of "historical justice."

Let us begin with facts: Garabagh has never been a “disputed territory” in legal terms . It is recognized internationally, including by Russia, as part of Azerbaijan's sovereign territory. Even Moscow, through multiple bilateral agreements and at the United Nations, has repeatedly affirmed Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. To now cast doubt on this position is not just revisionist-it is disingenuous and dangerous.

Medinski, like many others in the Russian establishment, was not merely a passive observer of the three-decade-long occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Russia's role in the conflict was never neutral. It was Moscow that armed and supported Armenian forces, provided political cover for the illegal regime in Khankendi, and repeatedly blocked meaningful international pressure on Yerevan. The myth of Russian mediation masks the reality of Russian manipulation.

In this light, the 2020 Second Garabagh War should not be seen as a new conflict, but as the culmination of decades of failed diplomacy and tolerated occupation. It was a liberation war, not a territorial dispute. Medinski's attempt to equate Azerbaijan's war of self-defense with acts of fascist aggression during World War II is an insult-not only to Azerbaijanis who suffered ethnic cleansing and occupation, but also to the memory of those who genuinely resisted fascism.

To compare Azerbaijan's military operations, conducted largely within its own borders, with the goal of restoring internationally recognized sovereignty, to Hitler's campaigns in Europe is morally bankrupt. If any analogy holds, it is that of the Soviet Union's fight against Nazi invasion: a just and necessary war to reclaim stolen land and dignity.

What makes Medinski particularly dangerous is not just his historical illiteracy, but the way he cloaks it in a false moral narrative. He is a propagandist, not a scholar; a man whose simplistic, imperial view of the world has no room for nuance or post-Soviet sovereignty. Under his worldview, small nations exist not as subjects of international law, but as instruments or obstacles to Russia's imperial resurgence.

This mentality has long shaped Russia's approach to the South Caucasus. The region's conflicts, from Abkhazia to Garabagh, have been fueled by a Kremlin strategy of“divide and rule”. Moscow's aim has never been to resolve these conflicts, but to prolong them-to keep its neighbors weak, fragmented, and dependent. Officials like Sergey Lavrov have played the diplomat's game, offering soothing rhetoric while advancing Moscow's interests behind closed doors. Medinski, by contrast, simply blurts out what the Kremlin really thinks: that Russia has the right to redraw borders and reinterpret history at will.

This is why his voice matters. Medinski is not some fringe commentator; he is a symbol of the ideological rot at the heart of Putin's Russia-a regime that glorifies conquest, suppresses dissent, and weaponizes memory. His views on Garabagh are not random; they are part of the same worldview that justified the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the suppression of Chechnya.

Azerbaijan's victory in 2020 was not just a military success, it was a moral one. It proved that small nations can no longer be bullied by imperial nostalgia masquerading as diplomacy. The world must stop indulging the false narratives of men like Medinski and instead recognize the plain truth: Garabagh was occupied. Azerbaijan liberated it. And Russia, for decades, enabled the injustice.

To build peace in the South Caucasus, we must first dismantle the myths that justify war. Medinski's narrative is one such myth, and it must be rejected unequivocally.

MENAFN10062025000195011045ID1109654199