Azerbaijan-Armenia war over Nagorno Karabakh

[PointOfViewGun]

So can I take from this you're an advocate of ethnic cleansing then? I mean, that's literally what you're suggesting. Albeit in response to a previous bout of ethnic cleansing.

How is Armenian forces retreating from occupied Azerbaijani lands outside of NKAO constitute as an ethnic cleansing?

[antaeus]

How is Armenian forces retreating from occupied Azerbaijani lands outside of NKAO constitute as an ethnic cleansing?

I updated my previous post.

Do you envisage a peaceful transition of governance over land, allowing those Armenians who have moved into the areas you suggest should change hands to stay in their homes and become equal citizens free from prejudice? I mean those Armenians own the plots of land that will be having their governance changed, and any solution that requires them moving is going to be bringing us back to ethnic cleansing.

I mean you're debating as if there aren't thousands of people living there. Just an empty sandbox for soldiers to shoot up. It's sick.

[PointOfViewGun]

I updated my previous post.

Do you envisage a peaceful transition of governance over land, allowing those Armenians who have moved into the areas you suggest should change hands to stay in their homes and become equal citizens free from prejudice? I mean those Armenians own the plots of land that will be having their governance changed, and any solution that requires them moving is going to be bringing us back to ethnic cleansing.

I mean you're debating as if there aren't thousands of people living there. Just an empty sandbox for soldiers to shoot up. It's sick.

I have never seen this approach utilized in any other conflict. You are basically advocating Israeli annexation of West Bank, Turkish Cypriot state's international recognition, and all new settlers in occupied territories to gain internationally recognized independence. Or, is it some special treatment you're willing to give only to Armenians?

[antaeus]

I have never seen this approach utilized in any other conflict. You are basically advocating Israeli annexation of West Bank, Turkish Cypriot state's international recognition, and all new settlers in occupied territories to gain internationally recognized independence. Or, is it some special treatment you're willing to give only to Armenians?

I am advocating a position whereby no more people are forced at gunpoint by conflict to leave their homes because of their ethnicity.

What position are you advocating? It seems to me that you're advocating for a position where more people are forced to move from their home because of their ethnicity, and thus will become resentful. Many of whom weren't even born in 1991. And thus the cycle continues.

I'm advocating a position where we say "let's stop this" and not do it any more. And reconcile or offer serious concession to end it. Armenia needs to offer concessions yes. But they have to be voluntary - not coerced - for them to stick. Same goes for Azerbaijan. They have to both offer non-cynical concessions and be prepared to accept less than the total victory they're hyping in their media. Untying national legitimacy from the same land is key and at the moment both sides are doubling down.

As for unprecedented approach... the Turkish occupation of North Cyprus and Palestinian question are unresolved. And likely to stay that way because everybody wants all the land and nobody can compromise because their legitimacy depends on winning. We need to end the zero-sum approach to resolving ethnic/land disputes.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am advocating a position whereby no more people are forced at gunpoint by conflict to leave their homes because of their ethnicity.
What position are you advocating? It seems to me that you're advocating for a position where more people are forced to move from their home because of their ethnicity, and thus will become resentful. Many of whom weren't even born in 1991. And thus the cycle continues.
I'm advocating a position where we say "let's stop this" and not do it any more. And reconcile or offer serious concession to end it. Armenia needs to offer concessions yes. But they have to be voluntary - not coerced - for them to stick. Same goes for Azerbaijan. They have to both offer non-cynical concessions and be prepared to accept less than the total victory they're hyping in their media. Untying national legitimacy from the same land is key and at the moment both sides are doubling down.
As for unprecedented approach... the Turkish occupation of North Cyprus and Palestinian question are unresolved. And likely to stay that way because everybody wants all the land and nobody can compromise because their legitimacy depends on winning. We need to end the zero-sum approach to resolving ethnic/land disputes.

So, yes, you're going with this approach, which pretty much even rewards Armenian invasion of non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan displacing hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis, only for Armenians. That's not just, or practical. I'm advocating for a just position. What makes Armenians so special that we are to legitimize their colonization?

[antaeus]

So, yes, you're going with this approach, which pretty much even rewards Armenian invasion of non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan displacing hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis, only for Armenians. That's not just, or practical. I'm advocating for a just position. What makes Armenians so special that we are to legitimize their colonization?

You'll note I said both sides will need to make concessions, they will need to be volunteered, not coerced though violence.

[Cookiegod]

There are some indications that Russia and Turkey might have done a deal trading bits of Karabakh with bits of Idlib. Either that or Turkey's decided with some weird timing that they're overextended, or wanted to make a good will gesture to Moscow for keeping still so far.

Either way, they're abandoning some of their outposts near Morek in what has since 2019 been far away from the front lines deep inside the land controlled by the legitimate government of Syria. Russia of course has no intention to fight either side in the Caucasus. As acknowledged by some Armenian politician (don't remember which one anymore) arguing along the line of: "We have allies, but they won't fight for us."

So, yes, you're going with this approach, which pretty much even rewards Armenian invasion of non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan displacing hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis, only for Armenians. That's not just, or practical. I'm advocating for a just position. What makes Armenians so special that we are to legitimize their colonization?

I take it you want the Turkish settlers to leave Cyprus as well, then.

[PointOfViewGun]

You'll note I said both sides will need to make concessions, they will need to be volunteered, not coerced though violence.

That doesn't really address my points.

I take it you want the Turkish settlers to leave Cyprus as well, then.

Sure. Not exactly analogous as its much more clear in the Azerbaijani/Armenian conflict, but would you call their departure an ethnic cleansing like antaeus does for Armenians leaving non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan?

[Cookiegod]

how is it much more clear in Karabakh?

[antaeus]

That doesn't really address my points.

If you look at my argument over the last page, all your points have been addressed.

A settlement must have concessions by both parties, they will need to be volunteered, not coerced though violence.

Those who currently own property, should be allowed to keep their property and live in peace without prejudice (if this necessitates countries allowing Armenian's to live within Azerbaijan territory and visa versa then so be it - the last part becomes most important)

Addressing your last point regarding compensation for past wrongs? There are other mechanisms that could be used that don't necessitate ongoing conflict or zero-sum thinking. There must be concessions for a resolution to occur, and for Azerbaijan that means that a status quo must be accepted at some point. Conquest or forced capitulation just invites future conflict and future harm for innocents who live there (you know... like WW1 and Versailles). The status quo is the first step in a negotiated settlement. This negotiation would have to involve concession by Armenia as well. But both countries would not get everything they want. Negotiations have failed to this point because nobody will offer concessions. Concession is the most important word for each party.

After a status quo is accepted - when people are reassured of their property rights and their right to not be shot or forcefully moved because of their ethnic group, we could start a dialogue regarding compensation for past wrongs. For a resolution to stick, this might have to take the form of financial compensation via arbitration. It has worked well for indigenous settlements in former colonial countries. Those Azeris who lost land in 1992 could seek compensation for lost land directly from either their own government or from Armenia through an internationally moderated tribunal. The same tribunal might establish compensation for any Armenians who choose to move as a part of concessions to Azerbaijan.

You just have to get out of your zero sum thinking. You're stuck with your circles of vendetta. I'm not saying I have the full solution or even the best one. But I seem to be the only person here who is thinking about solutions that don't involve either one side or the other fully capitulating. Which is not intelligent thinking.

Perhaps you could offer some solutions that aren't zero-sum and that allow both parties to step back from future conflicts? You're really only offering solutions suitable for one party at this point. That makes you the problem.

[PointOfViewGun]

how is it much more clear in Karabakh?

The non-NKAO areas that are under Armenian control were where Azerbaijanis made up over 95% of the population. These are spill over areas. The initial conflict stemmed from NKAO lands. Today none of those Azerbaijanis are able to live on those lands. On the other hand, Cypriot conflict spanned through out the island. The ethnic make up of the island was 18% Turkish to 77% Greek back in 1960s and that division continues to hold today. To have a perfect comparison we'd have to have Turks occupying the entire island as well as Crete of Greece. We'd be comparing settlement of Turks in Crete with settlement of Armenians in non-NKAO occupied lands.

So, would you call their departure an ethnic cleansing like antaeus does for Armenians leaving non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan?

If you look at my argument over the last page, all your points have been addressed.
A settlement must have concessions by both parties, they will need to be volunteered, not coerced though violence.
Those who currently own property, should be allowed to keep their property and live in peace without prejudice (if this necessitates countries allowing Armenian's to live within Azerbaijan territory and visa versa then so be it - the last part becomes most important)
Addressing your last point regarding compensation for past wrongs? There are other mechanisms that could be used that don't necessitate ongoing conflict or zero-sum thinking. There must be concessions for a resolution to occur, and for Azerbaijan that means that a status quo must be accepted at some point. Conquest or forced capitulation just invites future conflict and future harm for innocents who live there (you know... like WW1 and Versailles). The status quo is the first step in a negotiated settlement. This negotiation would have to involve concession by Armenia as well. But both countries would not get everything they want. Negotiations have failed to this point because nobody will offer concessions. Concession is the most important word for each party.
After a status quo is accepted - when people are reassured of their property rights and their right to not be shot or forcefully moved because of their ethnic group, we could start a dialogue regarding compensation for past wrongs. For a resolution to stick, this might have to take the form of financial compensation via arbitration. It has worked well for indigenous settlements in former colonial countries. Those Azeris who lost land in 1992 could seek compensation for lost land directly from either their own government or from Armenia through an internationally moderated tribunal. The same tribunal might establish compensation for any Armenians who choose to move as a part of concessions to Azerbaijan.
You just have to get out of your zero sum thinking. You're stuck with your circles of vendetta. I'm not saying I have the full solution or even the best one. But I seem to be the only person here who is thinking about solutions that don't involve either one side or the other fully capitulating. Which is not intelligent thinking.
Perhaps you could offer some solutions that aren't zero-sum and that allow both parties to step back from future conflicts? You're really only offering solutions suitable for one party at this point. That makes you the problem.

You're still not telling me what makes Armenians so special that you apply different standards there. You're arguing as if you're providing some solution that makes complete sense. It doesn't. It has no ground in reality and you kinda acknowledge that too.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The non-NKAO areas that are under Armenian control were where Azerbaijanis made up over 95% of the population. These are spill over areas. The initial conflict stemmed from NKAO lands. Today none of those Azerbaijanis are able to live on those lands. On the other hand, Cypriot conflict spanned through out the island. The ethnic make up of the island was 18% Turkish to 77% Greek back in 1960s and that division continues to hold today. To have a perfect comparison we'd have to have Turks occupying the entire island as well as Crete of Greece. We'd be comparing settlement of Turks in Crete with settlement of Armenians in non-NKAO occupied lands.

At least attempt to make an equal comparison would you?
You're comparing the demographics of the entire country of Cyprus, occupied or not, to only the occupied portion of Azerbaijan, rather than the whole country like you're doing with Cyprus.
You're taking the whole country of Cyprus and saying that the percentage of Turks has remained unchanged. Let's ignore for a moment whether or not that is true and see if the same is true for Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan (including the occupied region) went from Azeris being 82.7% of the population in 1989 to 91.6% in 2009. Over the same period Armenians declined in the country from 5.6% to just 1.35%, almost all within Artsakh.
As for Azerbaijan, when making the comparison you talk exclusively about the occupied region. But lets see if the same demographic trend held true in just the occupied portion of Cyprus: Yes. The area was majority Greek-Cypriot, and today almost none of those are left.

Now lets examine your claim about the "unchanging" demographics of Cyprus: The 2006 census in the Turkish occupied zone revealed to us that 17% of the population had at least one parent born in Turkey, and a further 27% held Turkish citizenship, for a combined 44% of the population. Those numbers are significant enough even without being combined to prove that there clearly has been substantial demographic impact as a result of settlement in the occupied zone.
But what of the percentage of the total population? Well, the Turkish occupied portion of the Island has a population of 326,000 (2011 census), a disputed number with some claiming as many as half a million or even 700,000 but let's just take this number, meanwhile the government controlled portion has 667,000. That's a third of the population, a substantial increase from their 1960 census percentage of 18.2%.

[antaeus]

The non-NKAO areas that are under Armenian control were where Azerbaijanis made up over 95% of the population. These are spill over areas. The initial conflict stemmed from NKAO lands. Today none of those Azerbaijanis are able to live on those lands. On the other hand, Cypriot conflict spanned through out the island. The ethnic make up of the island was 18% Turkish to 77% Greek back in 1960s and that division continues to hold today. To have a perfect comparison we'd have to have Turks occupying the entire island as well as Crete of Greece. We'd be comparing settlement of Turks in Crete with settlement of Armenians in non-NKAO occupied lands.

So, would you call their departure an ethnic cleansing like antaeus does for Armenians leaving non-NKAO lands of Azerbaijan?




You're still not telling me what makes Armenians so special that you apply different standards there. You're arguing as if you're providing some solution that makes complete sense. It doesn't. It has no ground in reality and you kinda acknowledge that too.

You're still not getting it.

I'm not saying anyone is special. I'm just saying stop killing now and start talking. Stop using past wrongs to justify future pain. You're so intrenched that anyone who views the situation differently to you is automatically against you. If you read my last post, it discusses compensation for lost lands in every which direction. I even offered a procedural pathway. You're doing a Donald Trump zero-sum.

You're predicating any solution upon Azerbaijan "winning" or "getting it's own back from 1992" when both parties have historic claim over the whole area from different periods, and both parties have tied their identity directly to "winning" their land. More winning land back will lead to future pain and future wrong and endless cycles. I know Azerbaijan are your favourite war sports team, but really. If you can't even consider compromise based on status quo, then you're just another cog in the endless cycle of war and vendetta.

I have challenged you to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to both parties and prevent further rounds of violence, I've made a go at it myself. I've assumed you're empathetic and capable of looking at problems from the other side. Is my assumption wrong? That challenge is still open. You can either reply by going back to your intrenched position trying to justify Azerbaijan's current attack, or we can discuss possible solutions where future violence in both directions can be avoided. That's my challenge for you.

[Drtad]

I know Azerbaijan are your favourite war sports team, but really.

And that's the crux of the issue - the trivialization of violence. I think this tweet by AZ President Aliyev speaks volumes:

"We are writing a glorious history today through solidarity, mutual support and unity. We are a lucky generation to witness these joyful days."
https://twitter.com/presidentaz/stat...18942667853825

Only a petro-oligarch dictator could think that all out war with thousands of deaths is "joyful."

I have challenged you to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to both parties and prevent further rounds of violence, I've made a go at it myself. I've assumed you're empathetic and capable of looking at problems from the other side. Is my assumption wrong? That challenge is still open. You can either reply by going back to your entrenched position trying to justify Azerbaijan's current attack, or we can discuss possible solutions where future violence in both directions can be avoided. That's my challenge for you.

The issue is that those surrounding regions outside the NKAO (Lachin, etc.) were captured by Armenian forces for a few reasons - to prevent Azerbaijani artillery and other weapons from firing from those positions, to prevent Azerbaijani attacks from those adjoining reasons, to improve supply lines from the RA to NK, and to create a buffer zone in case of further Azerbaijani aggression against NK. This invasion by Azerbaijan shows that this was exceptionally important for the protection of people living within Artsakh - without this buffer zone, the fighting would be far closer to civilian centers like Stepanakert, Shushi, and others (though they are still under constant bombardment anyway, but at least they are farther away than they would be from the front lines).

Essentially, Armenia was offered a deal of returning some of the regions surrounding NK in exchange for "peace" but not official recognition, thus giving up the buffer zone in exchange for, essentially, empty promises (since the status of NK would be up in the air and AZ definitely wants it to remain within the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is obviously unacceptable and puts everyone's life at risk). Armenia will be more willing to accept a deal that involves giving up some adjoining regions in exchange for the official recognition of those living in NK, thus better ensuring a peaceful settlement, and then they can negotiate regarding the remaining regions. Azerbaijan has proven that it does not respect ceasefires, in any case, and that's exactly why Armenia has not accepted the regions for "peace" deal.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Azerbaijan treated its Armenian minority better. Armenians in NK voted to secede from Azerbaijan in the late 80s, and the Azerbaijani authorities responded with the violent pogroms, which prompted the whole war. The cause of the war should not be forgotten.

[PointOfViewGun]

At least attempt to make an equal comparison would you?
You're comparing the demographics of the entire country of Cyprus, occupied or not, to only the occupied portion of Azerbaijan, rather than the whole country like you're doing with Cyprus.
You're taking the whole country of Cyprus and saying that the percentage of Turks has remained unchanged. Let's ignore for a moment whether or not that is true and see if the same is true for Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan (including the occupied region) went from Azeris being 82.7% of the population in 1989 to 91.6% in 2009. Over the same period Armenians declined in the country from 5.6% to just 1.35%, almost all within Artsakh.
As for Azerbaijan, when making the comparison you talk exclusively about the occupied region. But lets see if the same demographic trend held true in just the occupied portion of Cyprus: Yes. The area was majority Greek-Cypriot, and today almost none of those are left.

Now lets examine your claim about the "unchanging" demographics of Cyprus: The 2006 census in the Turkish occupied zone revealed to us that 17% of the population had at least one parent born in Turkey, and a further 27% held Turkish citizenship, for a combined 44% of the population. Those numbers are significant enough even without being combined to prove that there clearly has been substantial demographic impact as a result of settlement in the occupied zone.
But what of the percentage of the total population? Well, the Turkish occupied portion of the Island has a population of 326,000 (2011 census), a disputed number with some claiming as many as half a million or even 700,000 but let's just take this number, meanwhile the government controlled portion has 667,000. That's a third of the population, a substantial increase from their 1960 census percentage of 18.2%.

You seem to be distorting what I said. NKAO is analogous to Cyprus. Well, it would be if Turkey took over the entire island. For us to consider the occupied non-NKAO lands we'd need Turkey to invade somewhere like Crete in addition. I don't know what kind of sense you see in looking at demographics of Azerbaijani controlled lands. You seem to be trying to frame the conversation in a nonsensical way to create favorable numbers.

The population numbers you're giving are misleading. They are of de jure population which includes a lot of seasonal workers that work at the hotels as well as the tens of thousands of students that reside there. Some Greeks love to include the 30-40 thousand strong Turkish armed forces unit stationed on the island as well. The actual Northern Cypriot citizenship number in 2011 was 190,464.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You seem to be distorting what I said. NKAO is analogous to Cyprus.

...How? NKAO is a portion of a country, Cyprus is an entire country.

Well, it would be if Turkey took over the entire island. For us to consider the occupied non-NKAO lands we'd need Turkey to invade somewhere like Crete in addition.

Why??

I don't know what kind of sense you see in looking at demographics of Azerbaijani controlled lands. You seem to be trying to frame the conversation in a nonsensical way to create favorable numbers.

No, you're confused, that's what you are doing by looking at the demographics of all of Cyprus. And as I've stated, I've provided the demographics that include NKAO, not just Azeri controlled lands.

The population numbers you're giving are misleading. They are of de jure population which includes a lot of seasonal workers that work at the hotels as well as the tens of thousands of students that reside there. Some Greeks love to include the 30-40 thousand strong Turkish armed forces unit stationed on the island as well. The actual Northern Cypriot citizenship number in 2011 was 190,464.

While that is the number of "citizens" of the Turkish occupied territory, the number of people actually there is 294,906 and this is excluding military forces, according to the census. De-facto this is a massive change to demographics.
190,464 would still mean an increase to about a quarter of the population, btw, if you also only count citizens of Cyprus in government controlled areas (the number I previously provided, which to be fair I should have excluded non citizens in the occupied territory as well if I didn't include them in Cyprus).

[PointOfViewGun]

You're still not getting it.
I'm not saying anyone is special. I'm just saying stop killing now and start talking. Stop using past wrongs to justify future pain. You're so intrenched that anyone who views the situation differently to you is automatically against you. If you read my last post, it discusses compensation for lost lands in every which direction. I even offered a procedural pathway. You're doing a Donald Trump zero-sum.
You're predicating any solution upon Azerbaijan "winning" or "getting it's own back from 1992" when both parties have historic claim over the whole area from different periods, and both parties have tied their identity directly to "winning" their land. More winning land back will lead to future pain and future wrong and endless cycles. I know Azerbaijan are your favourite war sports team, but really. If you can't even consider compromise based on status quo, then you're just another cog in the endless cycle of war and vendetta.
I have challenged you to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to both parties and prevent further rounds of violence, I've made a go at it myself. I've assumed you're empathetic and capable of looking at problems from the other side. Is my assumption wrong? That challenge is still open. You can either reply by going back to your intrenched position trying to justify Azerbaijan's current attack, or we can discuss possible solutions where future violence in both directions can be avoided. That's my challenge for you.

My first attempt was to provide a solution that I believed is the right one. Since then you've been whining that I didn't take yours as granted at face value. Hence, I find your accusations futile. Simply put, legitimizing ethnic cleansing and colonization of a region, no matter what the concession is, doesn't solve anything. You're merely advocating creation of new problems.

...How? NKAO is a portion of a country, Cyprus is an entire country.

Which is an irrelevant distinction.

Why??

The self determination conflict was about NKAO and Cyprus, not non-NKAO occupied lands or Crete.

No, you're confused, that's what you are doing by looking at the demographics of all of Cyprus. And as I've stated, I've provided the demographics that include NKAO, not just Azeri controlled lands.

Nope. There is no point in looking at entirety of Azerbaijani lands to determine demographics change in Armenian occupied lands. This quite a pointless argumentation line you're following. To compare NKAO with Cyprus we look at demographics of their entirety then to accommodate for non-NKAO occupied lands I introduced Crete. It's quite simple. You can try to move the optics to create a favorable position all you want.

While that is the number of "citizens" of the Turkish occupied territory, the number of people actually there is 294,906 and this is excluding military forces, according to the census. De-facto this is a massive change to demographics.
190,464 would still mean an increase to about a quarter of the population, btw, if you also only count citizens of Cyprus in government controlled areas (the number I previously provided, which to be fair I should have excluded non citizens in the occupied territory as well if I didn't include them in Cyprus).

Non-citizen inhabitants have not much value in determining demographics of a country. They can't vote. Vast majority of that population is made up of seasonal workers and university students as I have indicated. There are over 60 thousand foreign students in Northern Cyprus, for example. Taking your numbers at face value it wouldn't make a quarter, but 22%, after 46 years. Without going into much detail, I'll just conclude this segment by stating that if the ethnic make up of the island did change through external forces then it should be resolved just like it should be resolved for NKAO.

[antaeus]

Your "right" solution only takes into account the concerns and desires of one party. Thus it is incomplete.

I have already outlined why you can't have a solution that involves only one party getting their desires when both parties attain legitimacy and identity from controlling the same land.

Your argument is zero-sum and thus is tantamount to an endorsement of future pain for Azerbaijani and Armenian families who will pay the price of the next round that your solutions fail to show they would prevent.

And now by suggesting that I am whining, you are revealing distain. Well done.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Which is an irrelevant distinction.

Says you.

The self determination conflict was about NKAO and Cyprus, not non-NKAO occupied lands or Crete.

I really don't see why you keep bringing Crete into this, it's not part of Cyprus.
It's an arbitrary distinction that you've decided to make. It is a fact that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over NKAO had far lesser demographic impact than the Cyprus conflict. Within the areas occupied the result was largely the same in both, but when looking at the country as a whole the difference is easily visible. You chose this arbitrary distinction for a very obvious reason: refugees from the Turkish occupied zone fled into government controlled territory, thus the demographics of the country as a whole didn't change too drastically (before Turkish colonisation), and you want to count these refugees to make your point. In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict however you want to avoid counting Azeri refugees who fled to Azerbaijan while counting Armenian refugees who fled to NKAO, thus you added this arbitrary distinction. The double standard is blatantly obvious.

Nope. There is no point in looking at entirety of Azerbaijani lands to determine demographics change in Armenian occupied lands.

Just as there is no point in looking at the entirety of Cyprus's lands to determine demographics change in Turkish occupied lands.

This quite a pointless argumentation line you're following. To compare NKAO with Cyprus we look at demographics of their entirety then to accommodate for non-NKAO occupied lands I introduced Crete. It's quite simple. You can try to move the optics to create a favorable position all you want.

The one moving the optics is you. Instead of comparing occupied territory to occupied territory you're comparing in one case both occupied territory and non-occupied territory which received refugees from each other, whilst in the other conflict not doing so.

Non-citizen inhabitants have not much value in determining demographics of a country. They can't vote. Vast majority of that population is made up of seasonal workers and university students as I have indicated. There are over 60 thousand foreign students in Northern Cyprus, for example. Taking your numbers at face value it wouldn't make a quarter, but 22%, after 46 years. Without going into much detail, I'll just conclude this segment by stating that if the ethnic make up of the island did change through external forces then it should be resolved just like it should be resolved for NKAO.

So you admit that the demographics have been changing? Glad we've settled that.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your "right" solution only takes into account the concerns and desires of one party. Thus it is incomplete.
I have already outlined why you can't have a solution that involves only one party getting their desires when both parties attain legitimacy and identity from controlling the same land.
Your argument is zero-sum and thus is tantamount to an endorsement of future pain for Azerbaijani and Armenian families who will pay the price of the next round that your solutions fail to show they would prevent.
And now by suggesting that I am whining, you are revealing distain. Well done.

Nope. My idea takes into account Azerbaijani concerns for non-NKAO occupied territories and Armenian concerns for NKAO itself. Now you're just projecting.

Says you.

Everything in my posts are things I say, yes.

I really don't see why you keep bringing Crete into this, it's not part of Cyprus.
It's an arbitrary distinction that you've decided to make. It is a fact that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over NKAO had far lesser demographic impact than the Cyprus conflict. Within the areas occupied the result was largely the same in both, but when looking at the country as a whole the difference is easily visible. You chose this arbitrary distinction for a very obvious reason: refugees from the Turkish occupied zone fled into government controlled territory, thus the demographics of the country as a whole didn't change too drastically (before Turkish colonisation), and you want to count these refugees to make your point. In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict however you want to avoid counting Azeri refugees who fled to Azerbaijan while counting Armenian refugees who fled to NKAO, thus you added this arbitrary distinction. The double standard is blatantly obvious.
Just as there is no point in looking at the entirety of Cyprus's lands to determine demographics change in Turkish occupied lands
The one moving the optics is you. Instead of comparing occupied territory to occupied territory you're comparing in one case both occupied territory and non-occupied territory which received refugees from each other, whilst in the other conflict not doing so.

Which is because the current state of Cypriot and Karabakh conflicts are not compatible. I have hypothetically expanded the situation in Cyprus to mirror that of Karabakh. You're refusing to acknowledge that for the sake of arguing.

So you admit that the demographics have been changing? Glad we've settled that.

Nope.