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".
Bookmarks