That is not true, in 2020 Azerbaijan successfully liberated a region that was under Armenian occupation since 1994. I say liberated because that land was and is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan suffered atrocities conducted by the Armenians, for example the Khojaly massacre[0]. Yes Turkey helped Azerbaijan, Russia helped Armenia. It was the first showcase of the Turkish drone technology in a war between regular armies but the Turkish help was not only in providing weapons, it was much deeper.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre
When it comes to the Kurds, IMHO the Turks deserve most of the blame for the feud BUT what Turkey demands has nothing to do with Kurds but with internationally recognized terrorist organisations that operate in Turkey.
Think of it like this, if you are sympathetic of the people of Iraq for the horrible things that the USA did there would you also support ISIS? If your answer is NO then you don't have a case for supporting PKK against Turkey because PKK is a terrorist organisation that blows up public buses or kills teachers. If you are not familiar with their activities, there's ample amount of information online.
What you just said does not dispute the fact that turkey led the campaign against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
You are giving context, which I guess is welcome, but that's not a refutation, because a refutation is not possible given that indeed Turkey fought against Armenia alongside Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan is a sovereign country which was a communist one from 1920 to 1991[1], Turkey did not exist in 1920[2].
Turkey did assist Azerbaijan's war. Together with Israel, Turkey was among the primary supporters of Azerbaijan and the cooperation went very deep indeed.[3]
I also concur on the importance of Googling things.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Soviet_Socialist_Re...
I'm sorry to disturb your narrative but I am not spamming.
Yes, the lands were disputed and the dispute was resolved by Azerbaijan winning the lands back after 16 years of occupation.
But a lot of Turks live in Bulgaria(%10 of the population), a lot of Russians live in Ukraine and the baltic states, a lot of Azeri live in Iran. On each and every case, they are concentrated in some specific regions.
Do you think that Turkey should invade Bulgaria, Russia rightfully invaded Ukraine and has the right to invade Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and many others. Do you think that Azerbaijan should invade Iran?
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
Obviously what happened hundreds of years ago should be irrelevant since the people currently living there had nothing to do with it. But also I don’t think we should deny the right of self determination to the people living there just because Stalin drew some line on a map close to century ago.
In the case of Armenia vs Azerbaijan, this time around the Azerbaijan came victorious. On the previous war it was the Armenia.
Anyway, I agree that people should have a right for self determination but unfortunately in the age of countries they will need to fight and win. Unfortunately, with the war technology we have this means huge tragedies.
Oh and the comparison with Ukraine is not nonsensical at all, the regions under Russian invasion are Russian-dominated places that declared independence from Ukraine almost a decade ago. The only new development is that those people finally have a state actor on their side. Why wouldn't you say that the Russians in Ukraine have the exact same self determination rights as the Armenians in Azerbaijan?
Do you need that piece of land that bad so that Armenians living there have to abandon their homes?
What was held by the Karabakh Armenians until last year was a region consisting of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan.
While the remainder of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is indeed internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, it is not in fact part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet secession law. This law can be found on the homepage of Michigan State University, here:https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/she...
The law is from April 3, 1990 and the relevant part is article 3 which reads as follows:
``Article 3. In a Union republic which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.´´
That is, for the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast to secede with Azerbaijan there'd have to be a vote in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the 'join the Azerbaijani SSR in seceding' option would have to win. Otherwise the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast would remain in the Soviet Union, or raise the question of its own secession.
The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast became independent only with the final dissolution of the USSR. Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO was at first the invasion of the Soviet Union and then later on, an invasion of the now unrecognized successor state-ification of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. In their attack on the Soviet NKAO and later the statified, independent NKAO Azerbaijan then lost, to the degree that parts that are de jure part of Azerbaijan were occupied the Karabakh Armenians. These parts were indeed retaken by Azerbaijan, but parts of the NKAO were also taken, and Azerbaijan's claim to these is invalid.
Furthermore, with regard to the Wikipedia article you link, it contains the line:
en "a large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. It is reported that as they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon".
Such an attack, as described-- i.e. firing on a mixed column advancing on an outpost is permissible according to the laws of war. Thus the so-called Khojaly Massacre, while regrettable, was perfectly legal. This is presumably why Azerbaijan has not pursued the Khojaly Massacre as a war crime in international courts, despite its important role in its internal historiography. Indeed,
Wow, just wow. Defending the killing of civilians, including women and children and labelling it as "so-called massacre" doesn't deserve an answer.
Furthermore, there's a special reason why it's not correct to classify it as a massacre: namely, those who deviated from the advance on the Armenian outpost were not killed. Some apparently froze to death in the mountains, but those who were captured were returned to Azerbaijan unharmed.
The PKK aren't great (as a Kurd, I hate them), but to compare them to ISIS is just the Turkish narrative. It can be argued that Turkey as a state is way worse than the PKK. But of course, international politics always sides with governments.
I assume you mean those same teachers that were telling Kurdish kids: "Kurdish is bad", "Do not speak Kurdish", "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!" (English: "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk!"). (PS. I still think it is wrong to kill teachers, no matter how hateful and racist they may be).
The PKK exists because of Turkish actions against the Kurds. Period.
Turks would say: "Nah, that was in the past, we love Kurds, I have Kurdish friends", but it is mostly lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhXCNuXiJZU (some Turks might do of course, but in general, Turks hate Kurds)
Don't get me wrong. A Kurd can be happy in Turkey. If he basically acts Turkish, lets go of his Kurdish culture and customs, and loves Ataturk (who forced Turkish surnames on all citizens of the "modern Turkey" and changed the names of thousands of Kurdish towns and villages from Kurdish to Turkish).
There are many Kurds in Turkey that are happy. However, these don't speak Kurdish. They speak Turkish in the family, they speak Turkish with their kids. To other Kurds, they are basically Turk.
In my opinion, one reason Turkey is invading North Syria (the Kurdish region - aka Rojava) is because the Kurds in North Syria are Kurmancî speakers. This is the same dialect of Kurdish that is spoken by the Kurds in Turkey.
Kurds in North Syria speak Kurdish at home, they watch Kurdish TV, they go about their daily lives in Kurdish. They watch Kurdish plays and listen to Kurdish music and since The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) has been a thing, the Kurds in Syria are studying Kurdish from year one all the way to college. This revival in Kurdish literature is really scary to Turkey because it lights a fire in the Kurmancî speakers in its territory. It shows the Kurds in Turkey that being a Kurd isn't bad, it shows them that Kurds are a people with a rich culture and it is a shame to let that go.
Turks would argue that no, we invade the Kurdish regions in Syria (see Efrîn/Afrin) because the people of The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) are the other side of the coin of PKK. Personally, I think that is bullshit. Turkey moved 1000s of ISIS members through its borders and helped them attack the Kurds when the Kurds were fighting ISIS.
Plus, now that Turkey is in control of Efrîn/Afrin, 1000s of Kurds were forced to flee, their homes and belongings have been given to former ISIS members (they no longer call themselves ISIS of course: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/how-...). Efrîn/Afrin is/was a Kurdish majority region (https://www.ceasefire.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CFR_Syr...), yet the new schools that are opened by Turkey in Efrîn/Afrin don't teach Kurdish. Only Arabic and Turkish.
Basically, Turkey has and is making a demographic change in Efrîn/Afrin, they are driving Kurds away and putting Arabs there. Then they'll say "come and look, there are hardly any Kurds here". They now want to do the same to the rest of North Syria.
Nothing scares Turkey more than Kurdish nationalism, which only gets stronger by Turkish aggression. You'd think they'd learn this by now, but no.
If in Turkey, Kurds are allowed to study from nursery to university in Kurdish, and if they truly get considered as Kurdish citizens of Turkey with no racism or oppression, then Kurdish national sentiment would die out.
I do accept the existence of the Turkish oppression on Kurds and I do blame the existence of PKK on the unjust treatment of Kurds by the Turkish state and I hope that the Kurds in Turkey will eventually obtain their rights and receive apology and compensation for the atrocities of the Turkish state.
It's just that I do not accept terrorism as a fair device of resistance and it is completely in Turkey's rights to push for elimination of grooming and funding of those organisations.
What I’ve been hearing from my well-educated colleagues from February was “No matter the reason, I’m against war, war is always bad, mmmkay?” But they turned a blind eye when it came to Artsakh.
Anyway, no matter the reason, people were dying where they haven’t been for a long time(at least not in high numbers). Would you say national pride justifies the means?
Turkey continues to treat the Kurds awfully, and in recent times. Allowing Turkey into the EU without this ending completely would be an insult to the ideals of that organization.
Care to elaborate?