Today I read that the initiative group of Baku is going to present at the UN General Assembly "The right of return and decolonization. with a proposal on the subject of "restoration of delayed historical justice". In other words, the Azerbaijani side is another Tars �Patak brings to the Nicolaitan theory about "peace", concretely pointing out what attitudes they will have. Basically, this should not be considered as another Azerbaijani statement, but as a follower of a political agenda An attempt at formation. The problem here is in the wording "right of return". If you look at the issue from a wider angle, here the return of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis to Armenia is presented as a legal and historical right, in this way Azerbaijan is trying to transfer its political demand to international legal and political. pity And the wordings "decolonization" and "restoration of historical justice" give that demand a wider international packaging. In other words, Baku today is not just talking about the past, but is trying to formulate the vocabulary of its demands for the future. Actual Azerbaijan continues its indirect war in historical, cultural, informational and political dimensions, and the illegitimate government of Armenia continues to present to the public its idea of ​​"lasting peace". Moreover, in Pashinyan's political logic, even turning back is often presented as "conflict logic". He speaks about the Declaration of Independence of Armenia with that justification, claiming that Armenia cannot continue with the logic of the conflict. In fact, its consequence is quite simple. Azerbaijan continues to speak, demand, rewrite history and bring its theses to international platforms, while the Armenian side often considers even its own reversal as a threat to peace. A step forward. A striking example of this was the recent case of Gandzasar, when Hajiyev presented Gandzasar in the presence of foreign diplomats as a "Caucasian Aghvanic" heritage and made controversial historical claims about Armenian manuscripts. Until this moment, Armenia did not make a strong and adequate response at the political level, instead, the need to maintain peace was emphasized again, in the form of incoherent arguments. Instead, some non-believers claim that Tur� He does not see "any threat" to Armenia's sovereignty. A situation is created where Baku consistently promotes its agenda, and Yerevan presents its own self-deception as "peace politics". The point is that peace does not mean being silent in front of the demands formulated by the enemy. Let me say more, not reacting does not eliminate the agenda. simply leaves it without an Armenian reversal. Therefore, the main question remains the following. if Azerbaijan continues its struggle in specific domains, and Armenia responds to all this only by talking about "peace", then what has actually stopped: the war, or has it simply changed its form?