Read on Twitter
It's really getting frustrating. It is funny how the whole notion of supremacy of the "unbiased third-party analyst" not only erases the voices of those most directly impacted, but is a bias in itself towards ways of conveniently equivocating every aspect to avoid "bias". https://twitter.com/vickimuradyan/status/1338378303066034178
While I understand issue of inherent bias, I don't get this fetishization of the "western neutral figure" as the source of all that is true. In many cases they have absolutely no added insight beyond what we all see on Twitter, & yet their identity is enough to give them primacy.
Imagine being a referee who with each foul needs to call one on the other team as well to remain unbiased. Refs are rarely liked, but a fair one calls it like it is. The messaging coming from those like @joshuakucera looks like protest against Armenian agency to do what he does.
He might object to this characterization, but I'd ask him one writer to another&on behalf of many more Armenian ones active on @twitter, what is it that he does which we are "nationalists" for trying to do? While we have bias, how has his work demonstrated a complete lack of one?
We are all a collection of experiences which shape our view. Each side on the ground understands the context of the war far between than any outside observer. Outsiders can play important role as referee, but they have their own "neutral" bias, which indeed is a bias as well.
Consider Kucera's June 2018 fiasco with @HikmetHajiyev, who threw him under the bus and yet in response Kucera lashed out and blamed the Artsakh authorities & Armenians for it. He stated he'd block anyone who used his screw up to score points, but just blocked Armenians en masse.
Did such incidents contribute to a bias in how Kucera sees the conflict, along with the tightrope he walks for his job? Its hard to argument otherwise. His work can play a big role in the conflict but is not unassailable. Stop calling names to those who legitimately criticize it!
