In an era when information can be weaponized as easily as any missile, the bond between Azerbaijan and Türkiye has become a target for coordinated campaigns of deception. This was the central warning issued by Farid Shafiyev, Chairman of the Center for Analysis of International Relations and Multiculturalism, or AIR Center, during a panel session titled “Turkic World Dialogues: Shared Future, Shared Vision” in Baku. His remarks were not abstract musings about media trends; they were a clear-eyed assessment of a real and ongoing threat. Shafiyev pointed out that disinformation campaigns against Azerbaijan–Türkiye unity are not random or spontaneous. They are organized, deliberate, and carried out on multiple fronts. The goal, he suggested, is to weaken a partnership that has become a pillar of regional stability and a model for the broader Turkic world. In a room filled with diplomats, scholars, and policy experts, his words carried the weight of someone who has spent years studying the intersection of geopolitics and public perception. The panel itself was part of a larger conversation about the future of the Turkic-speaking nations, but Shafiyev’s intervention shifted the focus to a more urgent question: how can these nations protect the truth of their cooperation from those who seek to distort it? The answer, he argued, lies not only in official statements or diplomatic channels, but in the intellectual ties that bind Azerbaijan and Türkiye together. These ties, built on shared language, history, and cultural memory, are the foundation upon which the modern strategic partnership rests. And precisely because they are so strong, they have become a target for those who fear what a united Turkic world might mean for their own interests. Shafiyev’s message was clear: the attacks are real, the stakes are high, and the response must be collective.
Shafiyev placed particular emphasis on the role of intellectual cooperation in sustaining Turkic unity. In many discussions of Azerbaijan–Türkiye relations, the focus tends to fall on energy pipelines, military exercises, or diplomatic alignments. But Shafiyev reminded the audience that beneath these visible structures lies a deeper layer of shared meaning. Intellectual ties—the exchange of ideas, the collaboration of scholars, the mutual recognition of each other’s cultural and historical narratives—are what make the political and economic partnership durable. Without them, alliances can become transactional, vulnerable to shifts in interest or pressure. With them, they become something closer to kinship. This is why the “Turkic World Dialogues” platform matters. It is not merely a talking shop; it is an attempt to institutionalize the intellectual dimension of Turkic unity. By bringing together thinkers, researchers, and public intellectuals from across the Turkic-speaking world, the platform creates a space where common challenges can be addressed and common narratives can be strengthened. Shafiyev’s point was that this intellectual infrastructure is just as important as any treaty or trade agreement. It is also, for that very reason, a target. Disinformation campaigns often seek to poison the well of intellectual exchange by sowing distrust, promoting conspiracy theories, and amplifying marginal voices that claim to represent “authentic” national interests against the supposed encroachment of others. The aim is to make Turkic peoples suspicious of one another, to erode the sense of shared destiny that has emerged in recent years. Shafiyev’s insistence on intellectual ties was therefore not a soft or secondary concern. It was a strategic imperative. If the Turkic states are to jointly combat disinformation, they must first recognize that the battle is not only about correcting false facts. It is about maintaining the credibility of the institutions and relationships that produce and transmit knowledge. A united front requires a shared understanding of the past and a shared vision of the future. That understanding and vision are cultivated through education, research, and open dialogue—exactly the kind of work that AIR Center and its partners are trying to advance.
One of the most striking aspects of Shafiyev’s remarks was his dismissal of the claim that closer ties among Turkic states represent a new form of Pan-Turkism. This accusation has been floated by various circles for years, often with the implicit suggestion that Azerbaijan and Türkiye are somehow plotting to dominate the region or to recreate a bygone empire. Shafiyev called such portrayals completely unfounded. To understand why, it is helpful to look at what Pan-Turkism has historically meant and how different the current project of Turkic cooperation actually is. The old Pan-Turkist ideologies of the late Ottoman period were indeed expansionist and romantic-nationalist in character, dreaming of uniting all Turkic peoples under a single political umbrella. The modern movement, if it can be called a movement at all, is something else entirely. It is based on the voluntary cooperation of independent, sovereign states that share cultural affinities but have no interest in merging their identities or surrendering their autonomy. Azerbaijan and Türkiye are not seeking to absorb anyone. They are seeking to coordinate policies, share knowledge, and support each other in a world that is increasingly competitive and uncertain. The accusation of Pan-Turkism is a rhetorical weapon, not a description of reality. It is deployed by those who feel threatened by the emergence of a more cohesive Turkic bloc, whether in the South Caucasus, Central Asia, or the broader Middle East. By invoking a historical bogeyman, they hope to discredit the entire project of Turkic unity and to frighten other states into viewing it as a threat. Shafiyev’s rejection of this framing was emphatic, but it was also measured. He did not deny that Turkic states have deep historical and cultural connections. He simply insisted that those connections are being used for constructive purposes—economic integration, educational exchange, diplomatic coordination—not for the revival of outdated imperial fantasies. The distinction matters. In a region where memories of empire are still raw, the charge of Pan-Turkism can be damaging if left unanswered. By addressing it directly, Shafiyev sought to take away its power and to reframe the conversation around the actual goals and values of the Turkic world.
Shafiyev went on to note that organized disinformation campaigns against Azerbaijan–Türkiye unity are being conducted in different directions. This is an important detail, because it suggests a coordinated strategy rather than a series of isolated incidents. The campaigns are not limited to one region or one set of issues. They adapt to the context, exploiting whatever tensions are most salient at any given moment. In the South Caucasus, the focus might be on the unresolved conflict with Armenia and the post-war reconstruction efforts. In Central Asia, it might be on competition for resources or influence. In the broader Islamic world, it might be on the relationship between secular governance and religious identity. The common thread is the attempt to drive a wedge between Baku and Ankara, and to portray their partnership as a source of instability rather than a force for good. Shafiyev specifically mentioned the Middle East as an area where Azerbaijan coordinates its policies with Türkiye, and where this coordination has attracted unwanted attention. The Middle East is a region of intense rivalries, shifting alliances, and deep-seated suspicions. Any actor that appears to be aligning with another powerful actor is bound to be scrutinized. But the level of coordination between Azerbaijan and Türkiye on Middle Eastern issues is not a secret, nor is it a conspiracy. It is a matter of shared interests and shared perspectives. Both countries have a stake in regional stability, in the resolution of conflicts, and in the prevention of extremism. They also have a common understanding of the importance of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. This convergence of views is precisely what worries some external actors. They would prefer to deal with Azerbaijan and Türkiye separately, to play one against the other, or to assume that their interests can be taken for granted. The fact that Baku and Ankara consult each other, coordinate their positions, and sometimes act together complicates those calculations. Hence the disinformation. The goal is to make it appear that Azerbaijan is being dragged into Türkiye’s regional agenda, or that Türkiye is using Azerbaijan for its own purposes. In reality, the relationship is one of mutual respect and mutual benefit. But the narrative of manipulation is easier to sell than the truth of partnership, especially in a media environment where sensationalism and suspicion often outrank nuance and evidence.
Perhaps the most delicate issue Shafiyev raised was the role of Israel in the disinformation campaigns. He noted that coordinated disinformation against Azerbaijan–Türkiye brotherhood is being conducted specifically regarding the issue of Israel. This is a sensitive topic, because Azerbaijan and Türkiye have different public postures toward Israel, and those differences are often exploited by those who want to prove that the two countries cannot truly be allies. Azerbaijan has developed a pragmatic and multifaceted relationship with Israel, based on defense cooperation, technology transfers, and diplomatic engagement. Türkiye, on the other hand, has been a vocal critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and its leaders have not hesitated to condemn Israeli actions in strong terms. On the surface, this seems like a natural point of friction. If Azerbaijan is close to Israel and Türkiye is hostile to Israel, how can the two be united? This is exactly the question that disinformation campaigns seek to amplify. They take real differences in policy and blow them up into existential contradictions. They ignore the fact that states are capable of holding complex positions, that Azerbaijan’s relationship with Israel does not come at the expense of its support for Palestinian rights, and that Türkiye’s criticism of Israel does not translate into hostility toward Azerbaijan’s choices. The reality is that Azerbaijan and Türkiye have managed to navigate this issue without allowing it to damage their strategic partnership. They have found ways to disagree, or to agree to disagree, while maintaining a common front on the issues that matter most to them. This is not a sign of weakness or hypocrisy. It is a sign of maturity. But in the world of disinformation, maturity is not a story that sells. What sells is conflict, betrayal, and hidden agendas. So the campaigns continue, feeding on every statement, every visit, every deal that can be twisted into evidence of a rift. Shafiyev’s mention of Israel was not an attempt to reopen a debate or to assign blame. It was an illustration of how disinformation operates: it takes a complex reality, reduces it to a simple narrative, and then repeats that narrative until it begins to feel true. The antidote is not to pretend that differences do not exist. It is to explain, patiently and repeatedly, that differences within a partnership are normal, manageable, and far less important than the shared interests and values that hold the partnership together.
In the end, Shafiyev’s message was not one of despair but of determination. The existence of coordinated disinformation campaigns is a sign of the strength of Azerbaijan–Türkiye unity, not its weakness. People do not waste time trying to tear down things that are already broken. They attack what they fear. The fact that so much effort is being invested in driving a wedge between Baku and Ankara suggests that the bond between them is seen as a genuine obstacle to the plans of those who would like to see a more fragmented region. The response, Shafiyev argued, must be joint. Turkic states need to develop shared mechanisms for detecting, exposing, and countering disinformation. They need to invest in media literacy, in independent journalism, in fact-checking, and in the kind of intellectual cooperation that can provide an alternative to the narratives of division. They also need to be patient. Disinformation is not defeated overnight. It is a long game, and it requires a long response. But the tools are available. The Turkic world has a rich history of storytelling, of oral tradition, of poetry and prose. It has a deep reservoir of cultural memory that can be drawn upon to tell a more accurate and more compelling story about who these peoples are and what they want. The theme of the panel—“Shared Future, Shared Vision”—captures this perfectly. The future is not something that happens to the Turkic world. It is something that the Turkic world builds together. And the vision is not a fantasy of domination or expansion. It is a vision of cooperation, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. Shafiyev’s remarks were a reminder that this vision is under attack, but also that it is worth defending. The disinformation campaigns are real, the challenges are serious, and the stakes are high. But so is the resolve. As long as Azerbaijan and Türkiye continue to recognize each other as brothers, as long as the intellectual ties remain strong, and as long as the Turkic states are willing to stand together against the poison of falsehood, the unity will hold. And in the end, the truth—however slow and unglamorous—will outlast the lies.