In academic theory, there exists a notion that contentious arguments—whether in everyday life or high-stakes politics—serve one of two primary purposes: either to expose the truth or to provoke disruption. The former, of course, demands a scaffold of solid logic and profound evidence. It is this rigor, this fidelity to fact, that forms the backbone of any claim seeking to stand tall in the arena of truth.

The latter, by contrast, is often the last refuge of those whose voice has grown hoarse and whose influence has waned—a desperate lunge rather than a calculated move. It resembles the erratic gestures of a player long ejected from the game, still shouting from the sidelines in hopes of stirring the dust.

We see this in those who cling to worn-out narratives about the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, spinning empty rhetoric about a matter that has not only lost its immediacy but has, in essence, already been resolved. These voices echo not with authority, but with the hollow clang of irrelevance—a cacophony from those whose time on the stage has passed, but who still mistake noise for significance.

The remarks made by Michel De Maegd, a Belgian politician, in an interview with Armenian media, reveal not a lack of respect for Türkiye and Azerbaijan, but rather for Armenia itself. It is obvious that he tried to curry favor with Armenian lobbies, yet he disregarded Armenians to such an extent that he had not even bothered to........

© AzerNews