A post about protecting Karabakh's Armenian heritage sparked a thousand-comment discussion.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC, OR CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC.

More than a thousand comments were left by Facebook* users under the "Caucasian Knot" post about historians' calls to preserve Karabakh's Armenian heritage. The discussion escalated into mutual accusations of vandalism at various periods in the region's history and the need for appeals to the international community.

As "Caucasian Knot" reported, Karabakh historians and activists have repeatedly reported the destruction of historical buildings and memorial structures in the region by Azerbaijani authorities. Thus, in December 2025, a video of destruction inside the Yerits Mankants Monastery appeared on Azerbaijani social media, and satellite images showed the destruction of the Holy Savior Monastery. Historians called on the international community to respond to the destruction of Armenian monuments. Christian monuments in Azerbaijan are protected by the state, Azerbaijani experts insist.

A Facebook post by the "Caucasian Knot" about Armenian historians calling for an end to the destruction of Armenian monuments in Karabakh has garnered 1,058 comments as of 4:00 a.m. Moscow time today, March 18. Commenters quickly shifted to mutual accusations of vandalism, the importance of preserving historical memory, and the right to interpret the past. The key line of conflict has become the comparison of current statements by Armenian historians with the events of previous decades. While each side appeals to its own experience of loss and destruction, a significant portion of the comments focus not on facts, but on mutual distrust of the opponents' arguments.

Some users questioned the competence of the experts mentioned in the publication. They believe the professional community is not united, and therefore, experts cannot speak on behalf of all their colleagues. This reinforces the general skepticism toward public assessments and makes the discussion even more fragmented.

"Which historians? I know plenty of historians who don't care," noted Fatih Irevanli. "Historians—who?" asked Rasim Makhmudov.

Facebook* users believe that the discussion cannot be conducted without considering the broader context of the destruction claimed by both sides. Since the topic of cultural heritage protection is closely intertwined with politics and the memory of war, any accusations are perceived through the prism of past conflicts.

"Why are they only talking about this now?" asks Shamil Israfilov. "The situation needs to be viewed from both sides," wrote Aynur Ibrahimova. "Without a comprehensive analysis, it looks one-sided," stated Ruslan Ramazanov.

Some of the audience appeals to past events, emphasizing that trust has already been undermined and any new statements are viewed critically. "After this, who will believe you?" asks Gennady Simantov. "Where were you 30 years ago?" — Farid Nasirov asks.

Commentators emphasize that each side points to destruction that is ignored by the international community, which only increases mistrust of new statements, ultimately shifting the dispute toward the fairness of assessments. "We must not forget past events," wrote Amina Eybatova. "We must first acknowledge the old destruction," said Elmar Ibrahimov. "Otherwise, dialogue is impossible," added Akif Shukurov.

Ownership of historical monuments sparked controversy

Commentators considered the ownership of cultural sites in the region to be one of the central issues. Readers note that the arguments of the parties are based on different historical interpretations. "These monuments have a different historical basis," said Sevda Mehrəliyeva. "There are alternative versions of their origin," wrote Tarana Zamanova. "History requires proof," stated Gunduz Bahri.

More categorical statements, reflecting the extreme positions of the parties, were also voiced. "This is Armenia," declared Gagik Tshagharyan. "There are no Armenian churches there," retorted Tabriz Mamedov. "There are none," echoed Elchin Mamedov.

Other participants demand proof of the historical origin and value of the objects. "Prove it's yours," wrote Zamin Adilov. "Let them prove its value," noted Elnara Babayeva.

Other users believe that a region's cultural heritage should not be defined unilaterally, and that such disputes lead to polarization of opinions. "Existing data cannot be ignored," said Syuzi Susanna. "Historical facts must be verified," wrote Gar Ian. "It is important to consider the cultural context," noted Eduard Mkhitaryan.

Some of the audience completely rejects the historical arguments of their opponents. "History is fiction," noted Dilara Mikayilova. "Tales of antiquity," noted Arzu Jafarov.

Calls for international intervention have provoked a mixed reaction. Some view such initiatives as ineffective without internal dialogue, while many are downright skeptical of the role of international organizations. "No one will intervene without political will," said Aynur Ibrahimova. "Similar calls have been heard before," wrote Elshad Aliyev. "This is not producing results," stated Rauf Salamov.

Some commentators, however, insist on the need for an external assessment. They believe that only international experts can ensure objectivity, but even such mechanisms are questionable. "An international commission could help," said Syuzi Susanna. "We need an independent examination," wrote Marina Kirakosyan. "Without it, the dispute cannot be resolved," agreed Ruben Avagyan.

Commentators suggested comparing the destruction from different periods

According to social media users, an important element of the discussion was the comparison of destruction from different periods of the conflict. They believe that such polemics are essentially turning into an exchange of accusations. "We need to take into account the destruction of past years," said Asker Jafarov. "History does not begin with current events," wrote Vugar Veliyev. "Context is important," stated Ilham Guliyev.

Specific accusations were also made. "Mosques were turned into stables," wrote Yasmin Huseynzade, for example.

Other users responded by noting that the past should not justify present actions. In their view, each violation should be considered individually. Readers note that this is one of the few attempts to return the conversation to a specific topic. "You can't justify one thing with another," said Max Vinci. "Each case requires an assessment," wrote Gar Ian. "We need to talk about the present," noted Syuzi Susanna.

The topic of monument restoration also figured prominently in the discussion. The parties have different assessments of the past condition of the objects, leading to mutual accusations of distorting the facts. "The objects were in good condition," said Hovhannes Minas. "There is evidence of restoration," wrote Artur Gazaryan. "This is confirmed by sources," stated Syuzi Susanna.

Some users have even decided to comment on the events in a radical manner. "All monuments will be demolished," declared Dilara Kuliyeva. "Level them to the ground," wrote Farida Najafova. "Take them with you," wrote Azer Akhmedov.

Ironic assessments of the objects are also common. "A terrible monument," noted Nata Allahverdiyeva. "Build a toilet," suggested Mustafa Hesenov.

The discussion about the state of the monuments has escalated into a dispute over territorial rights

A large number of comments concern the issue of territorial rights, based on the answers to which we should now talk about the preservation of the monuments. "Each state decides on its own territory," said Namik Ibrahimov. "It's a question of sovereignty," wrote Rauf Rauf. "Local authorities make the decision," stated Mahmud Rahmanov.

However, some commentators believe that cultural heritage is universal. "Cultural sites must not be destroyed," said Max Vinci. "History does not belong to just one side," wrote Ruben Avagyan. "There are international norms," ​​noted Gar Ian.

Amid the heated debate and mutual accusations, the comments also included calls for restraint and a balanced position. "We must learn to coexist," said Aynur Ibrahimova. "It is important to think about the future," wrote Rufi Mansur. "The conflict should not continue indefinitely," declared Mahir Qadirov.

Commentators suggested moving beyond mutual accusations and toward a meaningful dialogue. "We need to seek a compromise," said Alexander Hakimov. "Dialogue is more important than disputes," wrote Abraham Grey. "Without it, there will be no progress," noted Rafiq Abbasov.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (Artsakh) is an unrecognized state on territory that for several decades was the scene of interethnic clashes and conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the fall of 1991, the NKR declared its independence. On September 19-20, 2023, Azerbaijan carried out large-scale military operations and took control of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which began a mass exodus of the Armenian population. By October 7, 2023, 100,632 internally displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh had arrived in Armenia, and by September 2024, only 14 Armenians remained in the region. The "Caucasian Knot" has prepared a report "The Beginning and End of the Unrecognized Republic of Artsakh".