The staff of the Monument Watch platform, tasked with monitoring cultural heritage in Karabakh, have once again highlighted their concerns. Their 2025 reports are filled with a sense of tragic loss and lamentation over the removal of a monument dedicated to the “heroes of the Artsakh” conflict.

Observing an entire office meticulously cataloguing construction debris and treating it as invaluable heritage can, at times, feel over the top—almost theatrical.

Yet some perspective is necessary. Imagine a homeowner returning after decades in exile, only to find in their garden a monument honoring those who caused harm to their family. Is it reasonable to expect them to care for it as if it were their own cherished possession? The answer is clear.

This is not merely about preserving a legacy—it reflects the complexities of history and the sensitivities surrounding it. Respecting cultural heritage does not mean imposing a narrative on those whose lived experiences tell a very different story.

A constructive approach might have been for Monument Watch to relocate such monuments to locations where they could be properly appreciated, rather than insisting they remain in areas where they evoke trauma.

Ultimately, the role of heritage organizations should be to document, preserve, and educate—without imposing values that conflict with historical realities. Historical justice and sensitivity to affected communities must guide these efforts.