Lawson discredits British journalism by becoming mouthpiece of Armenian propaganda

The truth expressed by British Foreign Minister David Lemmy about the Karabakh conflict seems to be pricking the eyes of Armenians and those who supported her false narratives about the fabulous "Artsakh" for a long time. For years, the Armenian propaganda has been working hard to misinform the world community as much as possible through the purchased experts that Karabakh is allegedly not a native Azerbaijani land. Armenian Narnia somehow tried to exist for almost 30 years, then Azerbaijan liberated its territory, as Lemmy correctly noted, from the occupiers and justice was restored. However, Armenians still cannot lag behind their myths. For almost a week, all sorts of bought henchmen sympathizing with them have been trying to prove that the British foreign Office has "disgraced itself." Since when telling the truth is a shame, not courage, it is unclear, but now British journalist Dominic Lawson has taken up Lemmy, who managed to ruin the reputation of The Times newspaper - one of the oldest in the world.

What did Lawson write?
In fact, Azerbaijani Ambassador to the UK Elin Suleymanov took up this task, who replied to Dominic Lawson, stressing that in his criticism the British journalist did not mention that the holding of COP29 in Azerbaijan was a direct result of the peace process with neighboring Armenia, despite the fact that it had kept a fifth of our country under occupation for decades.

According to him, the recent article by the British Foreign Minister, where it was noted that "Azerbaijan liberated Karabakh from occupation", is a disgusting joke and support for "ethnic cleansing". And earlier, Lawson blurted out that the so-called "government" of the collapsed "Artsakh" is being "illegally" held in Baku, calling the war of 2020 and the anti-terrorist measures of 2023, attention, an "invasion". They say that is why COP29 cannot be held in Azerbaijan, especially since the country is oil-producing.

The pro-Armenian journalist shares this idiotic opinion in the section "Letter to the editor". It is idiotic, firstly, because the invasion cannot be in itself. Secondly, this is not a "government" at all, but the leaders of the criminal junta, who are being tried legally for all crimes against the Azerbaijani people and the state. All of them have been charged with terrorism, financing terrorism, and the creation of armed formations and groups not provided for by law. Thirdly, Lawson did not say anything new either: everything is an unfounded hysteria, which all the Armenians write according to the same template. And the fact that the Armenians left Karabakh voluntarily, despite calls from Baku to stay, seems to have forgotten everything.
"As a gesture of goodwill, Armenia withdrew its candidacy for the COP in order to support Azerbaijan's bid, while Baku supported Yerevan's candidacy for the COP Bureau of Eastern European States. In addition, the leaders of both countries recently confirmed that most of the terms of the peace agreement have now been agreed. Instead, Lawson advocates the release of Armenian warlords who tried to reproduce the pattern of illegal ethnic separatism in Karabakh, a region internationally recognized as the territory of Azerbaijan. Even the Armenian government now recognizes that Karabakh is a sovereign territory of Azerbaijan in accordance with international law," Suleymanov told Lawson.

The British journalist simply exposed himself in an extremely ridiculous light, and his tantrum, like all other tantrums against Azerbaijan, turned out to be useless. Lawson is extremely biased and biased, and these, we recall, are features that are far from real journalism, but perfectly serve the interests of those who are ready to write custom-made nonsense.

He proved that his work is more like propaganda than real journalism. There is no place for objectivity and unbiased analysis in his articles, which undermines the credibility of his opinion. Such publications, full of bias and unfounded accusations, not only cast a shadow on his reputation, but also discredit the publication in which they are published. In today's world, where access to truthful information is vital, such antics harm not only individual countries, but also readers who deserve honest and balanced coverage of events.