> That’s the kind of thing they should have put front and centre, because it completely changes the narrative. Does it? I think that the heuristics about an oc

> That’s the kind of thing they should have put front and centre, because it completely changes the narrative. Does it? I think that the heuristics about an occupier being bad are less useful than usual. The territory was occupied just after both countries gained independence from the USSR, because the arbitrarily drawn borders did not reflect the ethnic composition of the countries and there were worries among the Armenians about ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan. Obviously, it's important historical context, but there's a huge amount of important historical context, such as the Armenian genocide, atrocities committed by both sides in the 1990s etc., which they also don't put front and centre, because it's simply not an article about the historical context. If China invaded and occupied Taiwan, would you discount an article writing about the situation in Taiwan, just because it did not focus on the fact that officially Taiwan is not an independent country?