The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[f] is an ethnic and territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians until 2023, and seven surrounding districts, inhabited mostly by Azerbaijanis until their expulsion during the 1990s. The Nagorno-Karabakh region has been entirely claimed by and partially controlled by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, but is recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan gradually re-established control over Nagorno-Karabakh region and the seven surrounding districts since 2020.

[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

2021–present

Twelve Azerbaijani civilians and two soldiers were killed in 2021, by landmine explosions. Seventeen Armenian and ten Azerbaijani soldiers were also killed in shoot-outs in the border area, while 38 Armenian soldiers were captured. Twenty-eight of the captured Armenian soldiers were subsequently released.

In 2022, three Armenian soldiers were killed and 14 wounded in an attack by Azerbaijani drones in Nagorno-Karabakh on 25 March.

The fatalities of the current war, is how i imagined wars when i was younger. Soldiers in combat with other soldiers. Civilian casualties "only" through landmines.

No raiding, raping, torturing & murdering of civilians as a sport of some sort

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This may surprise you, but there are multiple things happening in this picture

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Anyone else find it hilarious that wiki uses the word "Belligerents" to label the list of warring nations?

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that not what "Belligerent" means?

[+] tdawg@lemmy.world -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Calling someone belligerent is general done as an insult. So yes in typical Wiki fashion they are technically using the word correctly. But if read with connotation then it reads more like “here’s the list of assholes.”

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

That is what the word is for. It is an insult because you are calling someone confrontational

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay I don't agree because well. Beligerants basically means aggressive person/nation/etc. But if we don't use beligerant what would you use instead?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying the usage is wrong. I’m saying if you read the page in the same way people casually speak then it’s funny

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand. The way Wikipedia uses the word is the original usage, so only funny if you don't know about it. Applying it to bar fights and such is the tongue-in-cheek usage.

From Latin belligerans (“waging war”), present active participle of belligerō (“I wage war”), from belliger (“waging war, warlike”), from bellum (“war”) + -ger (from gerō (“I lead, wage, carry on”)).

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m not saying the usage is wrong.

But thank you for googling something I already looked up before posting my original comment. I genuinely don’t understand why people on this platform think they have authority on how language can be used and interpreted. It’s exhausting

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well I found your observation amusing

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Well sorry. No offence intended.

[–] Satelllliiiiiiiteeee@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Not every conflict is between nations and the infobox has to work across different conflicts. Belligerents is probably the best option to label the sides of a conflict