I listened to the video but I personally don't agree with the approach. Both the monk & his audience have taken a contentious non-impartial position. Dhamma is about law (niyama) thus the political matters in the video are about
international law. Yet the monk appears to be preaching:
1. self-defense via the sword
2. metta
The Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a matter of
international law. The past initiatives, per the Wiki narrators, are
here, which includes
UN Resolution 62/243. It appears most of the world have not supported the Armenian position. Nagorno-Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan despite having 80% or so (whatever) Armenian population & being self-governed by secessionist Armenians. It is similar to the German-Sudetenland matter in the 1930s & the
German-Poland-Danzig matter that eventually ignited World War 2; where Germany sought to reunite the majority German people living in the recently formed northern Czechoslovakia and western & north Poland.
The monk appeared to blame Islam for the collapse of Buddhism in India and appears to be similarly calling Azerbaijan "Islamic aggressors"; despite the majority of nations in the UN never supporting the Armenian position & despite the fact Jewish Israel is also heavily supporting Azerbaijan (for its vested interests).
It appears, already, the monk is not impartial and the monk is misapplying Dhamma.
First, sila or morality must be applied. In the worldly sphere, sila includes following the international law of nations, unless those laws are inherently immoral. The majority of nations have made proposals to resolve this matter and, in my opinion, a monk should focus on this (rather than getting involved in tribal self-determination identity politics).
Note: my best friend is Armenian.
