If you mean the West, or the US, has a tendency to support Armenia, then yeah I will agree. If you think that this particular thread of about 20 posts is overwhelmingly in favor of Armenian interests in this conflict, I think you are wrong. Seems like knowlegable people speaking about what they know. And not all of it is in favor of Armenia.
I’m not sure if this was addressed towards me.
I said that Turkey shouldn’t involve themselves, not that one side is in the wrong or the right.
The government of Turkey has laws that make it criminal to acknowledge the Armenian Holocaust.
If Bob’s grandad was KKK, his personal position on the KKK was that they were kind and gentle people who simply opposed affirmative action, and now he’s sending weapons to whites in South Africa to fight the black-lead government - I’d vote that Bob’s not doing himself any favors on the whole “I’m not racist” thing.
In general, Turkey is in a bad place to insert itself into a matter that involves Armenians, given their stance on the history. And they’re simply worsening how they’re going to be viewed in the history books by siding against Armenia while denying the Armenian Holocaust.
It looks like Azerbaijan is invading their own territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, to clear it of terrorists (Armenian-ethnicity separatists and, plausibly, soldiers sent to support them by the nation of Armenia).
Russia has closer connections to Armenia and seems to have troops in the region, keeping watch. Presumably, this is to keep it in the territory of suppressing the separatist movement rather than an active genocide against Armenian-ethnicity denizens of Azerbaijan.
Russia keeps troops stationed in Azerbaijan for the same reason it kept troops in Georgia and the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics: Russkiy mir, the belief that Russia has a right to everywhere Russian is spoken, regardless of whether the locals want Russian rule or not.
Bringing up the Armenian genocide that happened over 100 years ago has absolutely no relevance to the current situation, and only serves to further Russian state propaganda interests.
Stating my personal opinion on Turkish involvement in the situation is not in the interest of Russian propaganda. I’m not aware of any Russian commentary on the subject and, if there is, that doesn’t really matter. I don’t believe in the idea that you have to do the opposite of everything that “bad people do”. Lenin and Mao supported the equal rights of women. I don’t think that I’m helping Communism by agreeing that women should have equal rights.
If Russia happens to be in the right on this subject, I’m fine to let them do that one right thing.
You have no idea what is going on in the situation past what Russian state propaganda says if you imagine that Russia is in the right on the subject. This isn’t Armenian territory, it’s Azerbaijani territory that has been occupied by ‘separatists’ who the Russian army has sent in ‘peacekeepers’ to protect. If you haven’t been paying attention for the past two decades, this is the exact same gameplan Russia has used to take slices out of Georgia and Ukraine, ultimately leading to the current war in Ukraine.
And using your own logic in this situation without the fatal flaw of it being wrong, if Turkey is doing the right thing on the subject, you should be fine with them doing that one right thing. Again, the Armenian genocide has nothing to do with the current situation and using it to paint Turkey and by extension Azerbaijan as being in the wrong is repeating Russian state propaganda on the matter.
ETA: Oh, and lest I forget, the same thing Russia has done with ‘peacekeepers’ in Moldovan ‘seperatists’ in Transnistria.
To quote myself:
And, likewise, I didn’t say that Russia is in the right on the subject. I said that if they are then so be it. If they aren’t then so be that. Vladimir Putin’s opinion is irrelevant. If you have some argument that Turkey should or should not involve itself in supplying military aid to Azerbaijan with an eye towards offensive maneuvers against Armenians then you’re free to make that argument. But if your opinion is simply that we have to do the opposite of everything that you imagine Putin might say then I don’t think that’s a good way of evaluating your foreign policy.
If your foundation on foreign policy is to remain blissfully ignorant on subjects, consider Putin’s opinions, past and present actions in starting wars in countries that were former parts of the USSR and prior to that the Russian Empire to further his stated goals of Russkiy Mir and Russian reclaiming or dominating those former parts of its colonial empire, and further you imagine that my opinion is based not on these facts and things like, I don’t know, Putin starting the largest war in Europe in the past 77 years but instead on some kneejerk thought process of “Putin bad, opposite of Putin must be right”, your metaphoric building on foreign policy has no foundation, not even a decaying one.
My foundation for coming to opinions is to study the history, the law, consider the various options, and determine how that will affect different groups going into the future.
Do you have a complaint with this methodology?