Your trusted source

In this period the Turkish-Azeri campaign has stirred up its anti-Armenian and anti-Armenia campaign publishing falsified facts and information with the direct involvement of high ranking state officials.

Everybody or/and any party involved in the Nagorno Karabakh processes is well aware of the reality and it seems that the Azeri-Turkish fibber campaign can not be a threat. But the reality proves different. Of course, the involved parties are not influenced by this stream of disinformation, because they are well aware of the information and they have understood that any information spread by Baku should be accepted with conditions. At the same time the Turkish-Azeri anti-Armenian campaign can not be fought and it has some sort of threat. Hence it should be opposed. And the best way to oppose it is to give true information about the reality.

The Turkish and Azeri officials including the president, prime minister, foreign minister, and the mass media also make statements regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict using such expressions “territorial dispute”, “aggressor Armenia”, “occupied territories” “aggression towards Azerbaijan”, etc.

It’s enough to study the case to see that their legal content has nothing to do with Artsakh conflict.

Nagorno Karabakh is not a matter of territorial dispute: Azeri official, scientific and media sources stress in their outlets over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict that Armenia has territorial pretentiousness towards Azerbaijan, and that this is the basic problem. This is a rough lie. “Territorial pretentiousness” means “pretentiousness of one country towards some territories aiming to establish its governance there” (the definitions are taken from international documents and encyclopedias). Those territorial pretentiousness are one-sided and multi-sided. One-sided territorial pretentiousness means that the state recognizes the legal status of the land but it is believed that it should be changed. For example Great Britain, France, Argentina, Chili, Australia, New Zealand and Norway have territorial pretentiousness towards Antarctica.
Regarding the multi-sided pretentiousness it is said that one or two states have territorial pretentiousness towards the same territory, and in this case “territorial dispute” term is used, which, by the way, is well practiced by Azerbaijan.

So regarding the Karabakh conflict, how much are those definitions applicable in this case? Obviously, they are not. First Armenia should recognize that NK belongs to Azerbaijan and then it should be changed. But Karabakh has never been a part of Azerbaijan. Regarding the multi-sided pretentiousness Azerbaijan should recognize the legal status of Karabakh and then it should claim that it has territorial pretentiousness towards that land.