By AzerNEWS Staff

In recent days, the British government moved decisively against Georgian broadcasters IMEDI and POSTV, imposing sanctions on the grounds that they were involved in spreading Russian disinformation. The decision was presented as part of a broader effort to shield democratic societies from Kremlin influence and to defend the integrity of public debate in Europe. London’s message was clear: Russian narratives designed to destabilise states and manipulate public opinion would not be tolerated.

Yet that principled stance begins to look selective when viewed from Baku.

At the very moment Britain penalises media outlets in Georgia for amplifying Moscow’s line, questions are being quietly ignored about the role of BBC World Service and BBC Azerbaijan in circulating narratives that mirror Russian talking points against Azerbaijan. The contradiction is striking. If Russian disinformation is so corrosive that it warrants sanctions in Tbilisi, why is there silence when similar themes surface under the banner of Britain’s own publicly funded broadcaster?

During the COP period hosted by Azerbaijan, BBC Azerbaijan adopted a confrontational editorial tone that many in Baku regarded as openly provocative. Instead of balanced scrutiny, there was a steady stream of content that appeared designed to cast doubt on Azerbaijan’s credibility and intentions. Now, as geopolitical tensions sharpen across the region, familiar Russian propaganda theses are resurfacing in coverage relating to Azerbaijan’s internal and foreign policy matters. The pattern is too consistent to dismiss as a coincidence.

The issue is not criticism. Democratic states must accept scrutiny. The concern is narrative alignment. When editorial lines echo arguments that have long circulated in Russian information campaigns against Azerbaijan, and when those lines are repeated without rigorous contextualisation, it inevitably raises suspicions about whose interests are being served.

If the British government believes that Georgian channels can be sanctioned for disseminating Russian disinformation, then consistency demands a similar level of accountability at home. Azerbaijan, for its part, would be justified in considering legal avenues against BBC Azerbaijan if it concludes that the broadcaster is spreading disinformation and promoting provocative themes about the country. Sovereign states have the right to defend their reputations against coordinated campaigns that distort reality.

The situation becomes even more troubling when one examines the network of public relations actors surrounding Ruben Vardanyan. Companies involved in managing Vardanyan’s international image have reportedly secured access to influential Western platforms, including BBC World Service. There are credible claims that financial resources are being directed towards shaping coverage and sustaining a negative campaign against Azerbaijan.

In this context, particular attention has been drawn to the Paris-based communications firm Havas and the activities of Stefan Fuks. The role of such companies in facilitating media access and narrative framing cannot be ignored. When strategic communications firms with strong political connections operate behind the scenes, the boundary between journalism and advocacy risks becoming blurred.

Vardanyan’s own connections to elite circles, including reported links to members of the British royal family, add another layer of complexity. Even if these relationships are informal or symbolic, their existence feeds a perception that influence networks in London are not entirely neutral in matters concerning the South Caucasus. Perception, in geopolitics, often carries as much weight as fact.

Britain positions itself as a defender of rules-based order and media integrity. It has every right to challenge Russian disinformation wherever it appears. But credibility in that mission depends on coherence. When sanctions are imposed on Georgian broadcasters for promoting Kremlin narratives, while similar accusations directed at parts of the BBC ecosystem are dismissed or overlooked, the moral authority of that policy weakens.

The fight against disinformation cannot be selective. If London genuinely seeks to confront Russian influence, it must be prepared to scrutinise its own institutions with the same rigour it applies to others. Otherwise, what is presented as a defence of democratic values risks being interpreted in Baku and beyond as political expediency dressed in principled language.