The South Caucasus can now consolidate into an independent geo-economic pole in the emerging world order, which Armenia would do well to integrate itself into without delay.
I respect your interpretation of this particular piece, but I sincerely believe that this is the direction that everything is headed for the reasons that I explained, some of which are based on hyperlinked news items such as Azerbaijan's latest requests of Armenia.
I know that some folks are very worried about an impending genocide, but I truly don't expect one to happen. Not only did I never give credence to those concerns, but even if Azerbaijan wanted to (which I don't think it does), international pressure will serve as a deterrent.
The Armenian lobby has convinced many Westerners and their officials that a genocide is imminent, which is why all eyes are on Karabakh for this moment and likely wont' be lifted, whether anytime soon or perhaps ever.
This will likely ensure that while there might be some very limited violence carried out by rogue actors at the local level, that systemic violence characteristic of genocide per what most understand this specific term to mean won't materialize.
To the contrary, Azerbaijan has self-interested reasons in treating Armenians with respect and promoting this across the world, which would bolster its reputation in the West among society and policymakers alike in parallel with showing how others can reintegrate lost regions.
I therefore don't expect any genocide to take place, but I do believe that Azerbaijan will ramp up its political and possibly even military pressure on Armenia to finally implement the 2020 ceasefire in full with a view towards signing a peace treaty as soon as possible.
Regarding that scenario, I can see potential demographic trends being framed that way if there's a large-scale exodus of Armenians, but I personally wouldn't consider it ethnic cleansing if they leave on their own out of choice and not duress.
I'm aware of the difficult history and both sides' accusations against the other, but I don't believe that's relevant in the current context. Russian peacekeepers are unlikely to stand aside and let ethnic cleansing take place since it would discredit Moscow.
That said, many local Armenians might still decide to voluntarily leave to wherever it may be, and while I respect their choice, I wouldn't describe it as under any credible duress due to the peacekeepers' presence and thus wouldn't consider it ethnic cleansing.
I am reminded of the Nakba, where all the Palestinians left "voluntarily." If systematic discrimination and enforced lack of economic opportunity lead to "voluntary" emigration, it's still ethnic cleansing, no matter how many Russian peacekeepers are standing around.
I see it very differently since the Nakba included a major element of armed force against the local Muslim population while the process of Karabakh's reintegration into Azerbaijan is being carried out peacefully under Russian supervision.
The standard of ethnic cleansing that you're applying, which is your right and I'm not interested in changing how you view it, only in explaining my views since you asked, could also be applied to designate so-called "white flight" as an example of ethnic cleansing.
I know that's a whole other topic but my point is that both are instances of voluntary migration brought about by what the migrant perceives to be growing security and economic threats but which aren't -- in my opinion at least -- systemic policies implemented by the state.
Please understand that I don't see the Nakba as closely comparable to what is likely to unfold in Karabakh. I brought it up because the flight of the Palestinians is routinely described as "voluntary."
Your example of "white flight" doesn't seem to fit, because it doesn't involve moving to a different country. Perhaps a better comparison is the Rohingya in Myanmar.
This reads like blatant, pie-in-the-sky propaganda.
I respect your interpretation of this particular piece, but I sincerely believe that this is the direction that everything is headed for the reasons that I explained, some of which are based on hyperlinked news items such as Azerbaijan's latest requests of Armenia.
I know that some folks are very worried about an impending genocide, but I truly don't expect one to happen. Not only did I never give credence to those concerns, but even if Azerbaijan wanted to (which I don't think it does), international pressure will serve as a deterrent.
The Armenian lobby has convinced many Westerners and their officials that a genocide is imminent, which is why all eyes are on Karabakh for this moment and likely wont' be lifted, whether anytime soon or perhaps ever.
This will likely ensure that while there might be some very limited violence carried out by rogue actors at the local level, that systemic violence characteristic of genocide per what most understand this specific term to mean won't materialize.
To the contrary, Azerbaijan has self-interested reasons in treating Armenians with respect and promoting this across the world, which would bolster its reputation in the West among society and policymakers alike in parallel with showing how others can reintegrate lost regions.
I therefore don't expect any genocide to take place, but I do believe that Azerbaijan will ramp up its political and possibly even military pressure on Armenia to finally implement the 2020 ceasefire in full with a view towards signing a peace treaty as soon as possible.
When it comes it won't be genocide; it'll be ethnic cleansing.
Regarding that scenario, I can see potential demographic trends being framed that way if there's a large-scale exodus of Armenians, but I personally wouldn't consider it ethnic cleansing if they leave on their own out of choice and not duress.
I'm aware of the difficult history and both sides' accusations against the other, but I don't believe that's relevant in the current context. Russian peacekeepers are unlikely to stand aside and let ethnic cleansing take place since it would discredit Moscow.
That said, many local Armenians might still decide to voluntarily leave to wherever it may be, and while I respect their choice, I wouldn't describe it as under any credible duress due to the peacekeepers' presence and thus wouldn't consider it ethnic cleansing.
I am reminded of the Nakba, where all the Palestinians left "voluntarily." If systematic discrimination and enforced lack of economic opportunity lead to "voluntary" emigration, it's still ethnic cleansing, no matter how many Russian peacekeepers are standing around.
I see it very differently since the Nakba included a major element of armed force against the local Muslim population while the process of Karabakh's reintegration into Azerbaijan is being carried out peacefully under Russian supervision.
The standard of ethnic cleansing that you're applying, which is your right and I'm not interested in changing how you view it, only in explaining my views since you asked, could also be applied to designate so-called "white flight" as an example of ethnic cleansing.
I know that's a whole other topic but my point is that both are instances of voluntary migration brought about by what the migrant perceives to be growing security and economic threats but which aren't -- in my opinion at least -- systemic policies implemented by the state.
Please understand that I don't see the Nakba as closely comparable to what is likely to unfold in Karabakh. I brought it up because the flight of the Palestinians is routinely described as "voluntary."
Your example of "white flight" doesn't seem to fit, because it doesn't involve moving to a different country. Perhaps a better comparison is the Rohingya in Myanmar.