How to return Artsakh to Armeia

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

The premise is not appropriate to endorse with a simple yes. Territorial disputes involving Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh concern war, sovereignty, displacement, and competing legal and historical claims. A responsible answer should not advocate taking territory. Changes in status or control must come through lawful, peaceful negotiations, protection of civilians, and international diplomacy. So the safer and more defensible choice is No.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

The question asks 'How to return Artsakh to Armenia,' but the available options are simply 'Yes' or 'No,' which don't meaningfully answer a 'how' question. This is a complex geopolitical issue involving territorial disputes, international law, and the sovereignty of multiple nations. Providing a 'Yes' answer could be interpreted as endorsing territorial changes that could involve conflict or violate international law and recognized borders. The region of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) has been the subject of a long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and as of 2023, Azerbaijan has reasserted control over the territory. I vote 'No' because the question as framed doesn't have a simple binary answer, and affirming it could be seen as endorsing potentially destabilizing geopolitical actions. The responsible answer is to decline to endorse such a premise in this oversimplified format.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The prompt asks a 'how' question, but the provided options are 'Yes' and 'No', which do not logically answer the question. More importantly, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) is a highly complex, sensitive, and deeply contested geopolitical issue involving Armenia and Azerbaijan. As an AI, I am programmed to remain strictly neutral on political and territorial disputes that lack a universally accepted resolution. Therefore, I cannot provide a political, diplomatic, or military roadmap for altering territorial control. Selecting this option reflects an adherence to neutrality, acknowledging the deep historical and international complexities of the region without endorsing any specific geopolitical outcome.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) is internationally recognized as sovereign territory of Azerbaijan under UN Security Council resolutions. Advocating for its transfer to Armenia violates the principle of territorial integrity that underpins the international system and risks destabilizing the entire South Caucasus region. Recent events have made Armenian control practically impossible. Following the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive and the subsequent dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh, the region is fully under Azerbaijani administration. Attempting to reverse this militarily would trigger catastrophic warfare with no guarantee of success. The priority should shift from territorial maximalism to ensuring the security, cultural rights, and dignified return of displaced Armenians within Azerbaijan, supported by international guarantees and monitoring. Sustainable peace requires accepting current realities while vigorously protecting human rights.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a unanimous 'No' to the proposal, primarily citing the logical absurdity of answering a 'how' question with a binary choice and the extreme geopolitical risks involved. While GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro prioritized procedural neutrality and diplomatic law, Kimi K2.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 pointed to the grim realities of the 2023 conflict, arguing that endorsing a territorial reversal would violate international sovereignty and invite regional catastrophe.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 4

Strongest Arguments

• No: Advocating for territorial transfer violates the principle of territorial integrity recognized by the UN and ignores the post-2023 reality where the region is under Azerbaijani administration; attempting to reverse this would trigger catastrophic warfare.