File talk:Conflicte de l'Alt Karabakh de 2020 (setembre).svg

Ukraine

Ukraine supports Azerbaijan in this conflict. Please change. --Ayxan İsmayılov (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact they consider Karabakh a part of Azerbaijan does not mean they support Azerbaijan in this conflict. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hungary

As per this source, Hungary supports the Turks.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

So, where the problem? KajenCAT (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kazakhstan? Uzbekistan? Kyrgyzstan?

Any source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion of English article or in the Catalan article. P.S. Please, mention me if you want me answer or may not see it. --KajenCAT (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Central Asian disputes

Only the Turkic Parliament unilaterally expressed support for Azerbaijan’s views, but the foreign ministries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other countries expressed support for peaceful settlement of the problem.

Kazakhstan view （Kazakhstan's first president concerned over Karabakh conflict's escalation）This is still a report by Azerbaijani media and Kazakh official Kazakh, Azerbaijani parliaments discuss situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

Uzbekistan also Uzbekistan calls on Azerbaijan and Armenia to stop hostilities

As for the Kyrgyz Republic, it is in a state of chaos and has no basis for its opinions.

@Бмхүн: It was already discussed at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in sections like Why are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan coloured as supporting Azerbaijan in Reactions section?. All countries which take a side like Turkey, Afghanistan or Pakistan also did a statement to stop hostilities. For that, it's more rellevant this position. Kyrgyzstan protests begin at 5 october, not at 27 setember. You don't have any power or authority to say that a government who is handling a internal crisis doesn't have any right to do statement about foreign policy and international relations. --KajenCAT (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: I have read your discussions. Your statement has no basis. Although the Turkic Parliament is an intergovernmental organization, it has no compulsory effect on member states. It is more like a forum. Each Turkic-speaking country has issued separate statements and Russia, etc. The statement of the country is similar. This map shows a country rather than an international organization. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have all issued separate statements. The Kyrgyz Republic did not find that the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of their country must be looser than the Turkic Parliament much more reliable. According to the same standard, nato member Turkey clearly supports Azerbaijan’s military operations, and nato advocates peaceful resolution of the problem, then does Nato’s attitude represent Turkey’s position? Nato belongs to a military alliance, and it is undoubtedly closer than the forum model Turkic Parliament.

@Бмхүн: Idk why Wikimedia Commons didn't notificed me your mention. I don't think that because the member states decides the statements, not the workers or Secretrary General of Turkic Council. It's like a forum but its members are not activist, intelectuals, etc. So, you must be agree with Turkic Council with that statement and especially to do it. The individual statements of these countries do NOT contradict them. In spite of all that has been said, these days I am considering creating another colour for the member countries of organisations that make a statement since both the EU and the GCC have done the same. There are still some European countries that have not expressed themselves publicly. I should probably create another map to reflect this or use striped colour. That way I think it will generate more consensus among the editors. What do you think? --KajenCAT (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: In fact, this conflict is not important to some countries. It is normal not to express opinions except for the surrounding areas. If you make a map like what you said, then how to resolve the inconsistent views expressed by international organizations and member states? Both sides of the war are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. If the Commonwealth of Independent States issues a statement, can it represent Azerbaijan or Armenia? I think the standard should be unified, the international organization and the sovereign state

@Бмхүн: I don't know what is happening but still I don't receive any notification of your message despite of mentioning me. I repeat, I don't see any inconsistent views expressed by international organizations and member states. But in hypothetical case, it would prevail the country's statement, but it's not the case.--KajenCAT (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: It is obvious that the statements of international organizations are inconsistent with member states. For example, the views of NATO and Turkey are clearly inconsistent.NATO urges immediate end to Armenia-Azerbaijan clashes And you chose to ignore --Qabala (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qabala: I don't see ANY inconsistent. Turkey also urges immediate end to clashes. --KajenCAT (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Hello KajenCAT, South Ossetia supports Artsakh. You can read about it here: [1], [2]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dromaeosaurus, the map map only shows state government's reactions, not the legislative power as show in your first article. In the second source, doesn't clearly says that support Artsakh, only a peaceful ceasefire. If I'm wrong, let me know. --KajenCAT (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)