New war breaks out in Nagorno-Karabakh

[Viking]

Except that this fragile democracy had conquered one fifth of the neighboring country, including regions outside the disputed area, which then ethnically cleansed and tried to annex. The Armenian leadership has only itself to blame. If it was more diplomatically minded, instead of engaging in populist rhetoric and refusing to negotiate, the territorial losses might have been milder.

Armenian- and Azerbaijani-controlled areas are similarly cleansed. Əliyev and Erdoğan are kindred authoritarian spirits.

[Crandar]

Armenian- and Azerbaijani-controlled areas are similarly cleansed. Əliyev and Erdoğan are kindred authoritarian spirits.

Well, the difference is that Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, also conquered a bunch of provinces that belonged to her neighbor, which then proceeded to ethnically cleanse. Several of them didn't even belong to the disputed area the Nagorno-Karabagh. As a result, I don't think that refusing to help Armenia in the war is morally reprehensible. Sucks for the civilians of both sides, but I'm not going to feel sorry for the Armenian government.

[Montmorency]

Here's a map of the peace deal.



As I understand it Azerbaijan won almost everything, including a corridor through Armenia to the Nakhchivan exclave and Turkey beyond. However, most of Artsakh remains independent and there will be some kind of formal corridor between it and Armenia. Russia and Turkey will get to maintain a peacekeeping force in or around both countries.

I can't help but think this episode will only reinforce the Israeli commitment to occupying as much land as they can get away with. The message of a territorially-larger country overwhelming a smaller one's occupation of its territory by dint of a bigger population and military as well as allies must for Israel be on par with the one received by North Korea and Iran when Hussein got wiped out. And Israel's holdings are honestly more modest than Armenia's were, following the return of the Sinai to Egypt. (I assume the logic behind the Armenian occupation around Nagorno-Karabakh was in the first place precisely to give itself, a smaller country than Azerbaijan in every way, a buffer between its heartland and the opposition.)

Moreover, that this was such a lopsided, quick, and decisive conflict might encourage future irredentism and authoritarian adventurism around the world: 'If it worked for Azerbaijan, maybe it can work for us.'

I hope such a crushing defeat/victory produces lasting stability in the region, but the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh's sovereignty remains outstanding and that leaves a permanent wedge for escalation. Hard to sustain peace when everyone (and not necessarily just in the Caucasus) thinks they need Lebensraum to survive.

[Gilrandir]

Pretty sure the ally is called Russia, not Putin.

Have you ever heard of metonymy?

[Viking]

Well, the difference is that Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, also conquered a bunch of provinces that belonged to her neighbor, which then proceeded to ethnically cleanse. Several of them didn't even belong to the disputed area the Nagorno-Karabagh. As a result, I don't think that refusing to help Armenia in the war is morally reprehensible. Sucks for the civilians of both sides, but I'm not going to feel sorry for the Armenian government.

If you are going to go into details you might as well drag in the Republic of Hatay, or the fact that the dispute over the area is of similar age as the first Azeri state itself.



(New York Times, 3 May 1920)


The point is not that Armenia should be helped, but to highlight the forms of government found on the winning and loosing side here.

[Crandar]

What do the forms of government matter? A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one. In my opinion, what matters is the cause of the conflict and its result, the principal one of which that the Armenian conquests of Azerbaijani territories have been cancelled. That's directly relevant to the war, unlike the Hatay Republic.

[Gilrandir]

A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one.

That's heavy, as Marty McFly used to say. All we need to know about the author of the statement.

[Crandar]

That's heavy, as Marty McFly used to say. All we need to know about the author of the statement.

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

[ReluctantSamurai]

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

The list of US-backed coups is so long that it's not worth copy/paste....just peruse it for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

[Gilrandir]

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

Praising dictatorship means supporting this type of government.

[Viking]

What do the forms of government matter? A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one.

Unless you believe that benevolent dictatorship has a role to play in the region, then the current systems of Azerbaijan and Turkey are bad guys, and the current system of Armenia is a good guy. This is not an evaluation of Pashinyan and his government; they do not constitute Armenia's democratic system, they were merely enabled by it.

In my opinion, what matters is the cause of the conflict and its result, the principal one of which that the Armenian conquests of Azerbaijani territories have been cancelled.

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh seems to have been disputed more or less since the inception of the first Azeri state. It doesn't make any sense that if a state on its inception claims a territory and manages to suppress with force any dissent among the territory's inhabitants, then the state is the rightful owner of that territory.

If you do accept that argument, you also implicitly accept that might makes right. Then the combined might of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the state of Armenia would also be right in taking control of the disputed territory, and any other territory it manages to wrest out of Azerbaijani control.

That's directly relevant to the war, unlike the Hatay Republic.

When Azeribaijani authorities are happy to receive help from a country that operates in the same business as their mortal enemy, it turns their argument that country borders should be respected into a joke.

One could think that Azerbaijan would tread carefully around the subject of Hatay given their claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, when in actuality, they are approaching the topic with the grace of a raging bull:

The visit to Hatay began with a commemorative ceremony on 40th anniversary of the death of Tayfur Sokman, the first and only president of the Hatay state.

[...]

The delegation also visited Turkish soldiers who were wounded during military operations in Idlib and now are treated at Hatay State Hospital, and wished them recovery. The soldiers were given presents on behalf of Azerbaijan.

[...]

The brotherhood project “From Hatay to Caspian” which aims to deepen cooperation between the two countries in social, cultural and economic spheres, was presented at the meeting. It was noted that within the framework of the project it is planned to be brother with several cities of our country and 15 cities of Hatay region.

http://diaspor.gov.az/en/xeberler2020/x1264.php (posted 6 months before the war broke out)

A relevant tagline for the 'brotherhood project' would be "From Hatay to Nagorno-Karabakh - the more lands under Turkish and Azeri control, the better; principles be damned".

[Crandar]

I still don't see how the internal government of each participant is relevant to moral evaluations about the conflict. Also, as I said, I would be more sympathetic to the Armenians, if the current war concerned only Nagorno-Qarabagh. However, the Armenians had also conquered several Azeri territories outside the enclave, which were populated by Azeris and recognized as Azeri even by the Armenians. These territories remained under Armenian occupation and the current administration had even taken a couple of measures (e.g. renaming Azeri cities) implying they were aiming at annexing them permanently. So, yeah, Armenia definitely didn't have the higher moral ground here, dictatorship or no dictatorship.

[Viking]

I still don't see how the internal government of each participant is relevant to moral evaluations about the conflict. Also, as I said, I would be more sympathetic to the Armenians, if the current war concerned only Nagorno-Qarabagh. However, the Armenians had also conquered several Azeri territories outside the enclave, which were populated by Azeris and recognized as Azeri even by the Armenians. These territories remained under Armenian occupation and the current administration had even taken a couple of measures (e.g. renaming Azeri cities) implying they were aiming at annexing them permanently. So, yeah, Armenia definitely didn't have the higher moral ground here, dictatorship or no dictatorship.

The expressed intent of Azerbaijan has been to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, not just the adjoining areas. Of course, they've actually taken parts NK as well.

This victory will give undemocratic forces in Armenia more ammunition for their attempt tol undermine the country's democratic system, it strengthens Əliyev's position, it strengthens Erdoğan's position, and it may be beneficial to Putin as well.

Thousands of people have been killed. What's the big gain to justify that so that the fact that authoritarianism has gained becomes irrelevant?

[Montmorency]

Unless you believe that benevolent dictatorship has a role to play in the region, then the current systems of Azerbaijan and Turkey are bad guys, and the current system of Armenia is a good guy. This is not an evaluation of Pashinyan and his government; they do not constitute Armenia's democratic system, they were merely enabled by it.



The status of Nagorno-Karabakh seems to have been disputed more or less since the inception of the first Azeri state. It doesn't make any sense that if a state on its inception claims a territory and manages to suppress with force any dissent among the territory's inhabitants, then the state is the rightful owner of that territory.

If you do accept that argument, you also implicitly accept that might makes right. Then the combined might of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the state of Armenia would also be right in taking control of the disputed territory, and any other territory it manages to wrest out of Azerbaijani control.



When Azeribaijani authorities are happy to receive help from a country that operates in the same business as their mortal enemy, it turns their argument that country borders should be respected into a joke.

One could think that Azerbaijan would tread carefully around the subject of Hatay given their claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, when in actuality, they are approaching the topic with the grace of a raging bull:



http://diaspor.gov.az/en/xeberler2020/x1264.php (posted 6 months before the war broke out)

A relevant tagline for the 'brotherhood project' would be "From Hatay to Nagorno-Karabakh - the more lands under Turkish and Azeri control, the better; principles be damned".

Good answer, but it's not unreasonable to think that Azerbaijan has a claim to lands that Armenia occupied and cleansed of Azeris.

Ultimately this war was not a good development unless it can somehow seed a permanent peace, which I doubt because the populations of both countries are very nationalistic, domestic rulers respond to that whether they want to or not, both are militarily vulnerable to one another (though objectively Azerbaijan less so), and foreign powers have a stake in the competition.

[Crandar]

Ultimately this war was not a good development unless it can somehow seed a permanent peace, which I doubt because the populations of both countries are very nationalistic, domestic rulers respond to that whether they want to or not, both are militarily vulnerable to one another (though objectively Azerbaijan less so), and foreign powers have a stake in the competition.

Foreign powers don't have a stake in the competition. The conflict is definitely embarrassing for the US, but the same is now true for Russia, which enjoys good relations with both parties. That wasn't the case in the early '90s, when Russia actually added fuel to the flames, but the situation has changed considerably since then. In my opinion, the result of the 2020 hostilities has the prospects of easing up tensions. It was sealed by a peace agreement, according to which, the stronger side, achieved most of its goals and largely conciliating the de jure with the de facto situations. Nationalists on both camps will get salty, but they will never be satisfied and, if tensions do indeed deescalate, fervour will decline accordingly.

Anyway, an interesting article about how grossly Yerevan miscalculated. Ain't gonna lie, when you are diplomatically isolated and economically/militarily weaker, behaving so provocatively isn't a very astute move.