Asianet Pakistan Private Limited

Nizami Cinema Center has hosted the premiere of the feature film “Taghiyev: Sona”, a portrayal of the life of the renowned philanthropist Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev, Azernews reports.

The event was attended by Arzu Aliyeva, the film’s executive producer and President of the Baku Media Center, along with government officials and notable cultural figures.

Produced by the Baku Media Center, the film was made with support from the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, the Azerbaijan Culture Ministry and the Cinema Agency. It also received backing from NEQSOL Holding, Kapital Bank, Bakcell, and Norm companies.

“Taghiyev: Sona” is the third chapter in the four-part Taghiyev saga, which chronicles the life and philanthropic legacy of Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev. The film explores significant historical events that shaped Baku and the region during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The story follows Haji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev, a man who has endured many hardships, as he meets a young and educated woman named Sona. His love for her brings new challenges, and the film portrays their unforgettable love story, as Sona navigates obstacles to win his heart.

Viewers will experience themes of strength, loyalty, and love, while witnessing the personal transformations of the characters from the first two episodes.

The executive producer is Arzu Aliyeva, with Orman Aliyev serving as producer.

Directed by Zaur Gasimli, the film’s script was written by Ismayil Iman, Asif Isgandarli, and Zaur Gasimli. The key creative team includes cinematographer Vladimir Artemyev, artist Sabuhi Atababayev, costume designer Vusal Rahim, and composer Etibar Asadli.

The cast features prominent actors such as People’s Artists Parviz Mammadrzayev and Gurban Ismayilov, along with Honored Artists Rasim Jafar, Elshan Rustamov, and Natavan Hajiyeva, who play key historical roles.

The film’s premiere was met with a standing ovation from the audience.

The first part of the Taghiyev saga, “Taghiyev: Oil”, was released in 2024 to mark the 100th anniversary of Taghiyev’s death. The film became a cultural milestone, attracting over 70,000 viewers in local cinemas, and it earned international recognition, winning the Best Feature Film with Color Correction award at the Dehancer Colourist Awards 2024.

The film takes viewers through various stages of Taghiyev’s life, from his humble beginnings in a cobbler’s family in Baku to becoming a wealthy industrialist and public figure devoted to improving the lives of ordinary people. It delves into his challenging decisions, perseverance, and his efforts to enhance education.

With its stunning visuals, the film highlights Taghiyev’s great role in societal development, including the establishment of the first girls’ school in the East and his contributions to the oil industry and the urbanization of Baku.

The production of the film has become a landmark in Azerbaijani cinema. Nearly 2,500 creative professionals were involved in large-scale scenes filmed across 76 locations, with over 300 sets constructed.

A dedicated costume workshop meticulously created period-accurate costumes, accessories, and jewelry to authentically depict the era of Taghiyev.

Kur Olympic Training and Sports Center has hosted rowing competitions as part of the third CIS Games, Azernews reports.

Based on the results of the two-day competition, Azerbaijani rowers have won a total of four medals.

Alimurad Hajizade claimed the silver medal. Amil Ramazanov won two bronze medals.

The duet of Ivan Vorobyanski and Huseyn Hasanov secured third place and earned a bronze medal.

Azerbaijan is hosting the third Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Games from September 28 to October 8, 2025, marking a significant event in the region’s sports calendar.

This multi-sport competition brings together athletes from CIS member states and invited countries, aiming to promote friendship, cooperation, and athletic excellence.

For the first time in the history of the CIS Games, competitions are being held across seven cities in Azerbaijan: Ganja, Mingachevir, Gabala, Shaki, Goygol, Yevlakh, and Khankandi.

Each city hosts events in different sports, with the second-largest city, Ganja, serving as the main hub and officially designated the CIS Sports Capital for 2025.

Around 23 sports are being contested across 12 venues, highlighting a broad and inclusive athletic program.

A total of 1,624 athletes from 13 countries had confirmed participation. Event mascots Babir and Leyla are helping to generate enthusiasm among young fans.

In recent months, Armenia’s shifting foreign and security policy has once again exposed deep divisions within its political and social fabric. As Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government pursues new directions in diplomacy and defense, seeking balance between East and West, the reactions from traditional power circles and diaspora groups have been anything but uniform.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the fierce criticism emerging from the diaspora regarding Armenia’s latest cooperation with the United States under the so-called Crossroads of Peace initiative. Framed by its opponents as a ‘Trojan partnership’ and a threat to sovereignty, this rhetoric reflects not a realistic security concern but a broader struggle over identity, power, and control of Armenia’s political narrative.

The recent “white paper” from the Armenian Weekly is a clear example of politically motivated fearmongering. The narrative, disguised as a defense of sovereignty, misrepresents the purpose of the Crossroads of Peace initiative and deliberately overlooks Armenia’s own strategic failures and choices regarding geopolitical dependency.

Armenia’s latest cooperation with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) underlines a familiar pattern: Yerevan repeatedly mistakes symbolic foreign attention for strategic importance. The framework, far from being a Western plot, is a limited technical project aimed at assessing and modernizing border management – something Armenia has long lacked capacity in due to systemic mismanagement and overreliance on outdated Soviet structures.

Labeling such cooperation as a ‘surrender of sovereignty’ betrays a deeper insecurity within Armenian policymaking circles. Decades of dependence on Russia’s security umbrella have left the Armenian state incapable of sustaining independent defense capabilities, and now, when Western engagement comes with transparency requirements, nationalist circles interpret it as espionage. The contradiction is glaring: a country that has hosted Russian border troops for over 30 years suddenly finds U.S. technical experts a threat to its autonomy.

Diaspora’s appeal for ‘strategic neutrality’ conveniently ignores the reality that Armenia long abandoned neutrality when it became a member of the CSTO and hosted a Russian military base in Gyumri. The paper’s call to ‘reorient defense policy’ is a rhetorical maneuver to justify Yerevan’s gradual detachment from Moscow while scapegoating the West for Armenia’s internal political fragility.

The U.S. mission’s stated purpose, to conduct a capability gap analysis, is a standard practice within international cooperation frameworks. Armenia’s own request for such assistance reflects an acknowledgment of governance and border control weaknesses. If sovereignty were genuinely the issue, such discussions would have begun when Russian soldiers were manning Armenia’s borders with Trkiye and Iran.

Perhaps the most revealing element of the ‘white paper’ is its historical revisionism. The authors selectively cite events from the early 20th century to frame the West as an eternal betrayer of Armenia, while conveniently erasing the catastrophic results of Yerevan’s own strategic miscalculations, from its militarized policies in Garabagh to its diplomatic isolation in recent years.

This instrumental use of history, combined with alarmist language about ‘occupation’ and ‘foreign control,’ aims to evoke existential fear rather than promote realistic policy debate. Ironically, it is precisely this mindset – framing every external actor as an enemy – that has confined Armenia to a cycle of dependency and isolation.

The geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus has changed irreversibly. Azerbaijan’s strengthened sovereignty, Trkiye’s assertive regional diplomacy, and new transit and energy routes have made old Cold War-style alignments obsolete. Yerevan’s dilemma is not about ‘foreign infiltration,’ but about its inability to adapt to the region’s new balance of power.

In fact, we have written on the same issues many times before. Without a doubt, this is proving itself again. Not everyone agrees with the current situation. Leaders from the Armenian diaspora, church, and nationalist figures argue that recent developments undermine the Armenian cause. These actors create a constellation of influence that opposes Yerevan’s [current] realist ideologies. What they defend is not merely a set of territorial claims, but a worldview rooted in grievance, martyrdom, and a narrative of heroic victimhood. As governments have come and gone in Yerevan, the Church has acted as a stable institution and, at times, a power center in its own right, arguably functioning as a sort of “deep state.” Significant reforms and steps not taken today could be undermined at any moment in the near future.

While the paper warns of ‘foreign control,’ the real concern for Armenia should be its own diminishing agency and relevance in regional processes such as the Middle Corridor and the Zangezur Corridor (recently labeled as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity), initiatives that continue to progress without Yerevan’s participation or influence.

The ‘Trojan horse’ narrative serves one purpose: to deflect responsibility from Armenia’s domestic failures and geopolitical confusion. By portraying cooperation as infiltration and partnership as espionage, such discourse isolates Armenia further from the modernizing and stabilizing trends of the South Caucasus.

In reality, sovereignty is not eroded by cooperation; it is eroded by the inability to use it responsibly.