Aliyev, Pashinyan: in contact

- In which direction have the conversations around Nagorno-Karabakh changed after the meeting of the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia in Dushanbe? Are there any moves?

-The meeting in Dushanbe was the debut of the Prime Minister of Armenia. It was a good chance to test his behavior at a high-level meeting, and react to processes. Therefore, it is difficult to say in connection with which and on what issues some agreements were reached. In addition, there were no serious agreements. There were just proposals that have not yet matured. So far, nothing has been done to put this document up for discussion.

- In recent years, we have witnessed violations of the cease-fire regime every day 100-150 times. After this meeting, are there any reductions in the number of cease-fire violations? Do you, as a conflictologist who frequently visits the front line, have any information or statistics?

- No one conducts statistics on violations of the cease-fire regime other than the Ministries of Defense of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am sure that even the OSCE MG does not keep such statistics. They need statistical data on the damage incurred on the front by armed forces and civilians more than statistics on cease-fire violations. Therefore, it would be better to think not about statistics, but about the geography of incidents and their impact on people living near the front line.

- 4-5 months ago, Pashinyan set forth certain conditions in order to begin negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh. However, he took part in this meeting without setting any conditions. What made Pashinyan move away from his position?

- While Pashinyan was on the square, among his remarks to Sarkisian were the division of power between the clans and the lack of progress in the Karabakh conflict. Then it was not clear what progress in resolving the conflict was discussed. When he came to power, he understood that in order to win the support of the lobbyists of Armenia and the population of Nagorno-Karabakh (NK), it is necessary to take urgent measures. But he had no such plan. Then he announced, "I will not be able to represent Nagorno-Karabakh at the talks. They themselves must sit at the negotiating table. " Then it turned out that this statement did not satisfy either Azerbaijan or the OSCE Minsk Group. Then he put forward an excellent opinion, declaring that he was not refusing the negotiation process. At any time, he is ready to negotiate with the President of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan did not have time to prepare a strategic document in connection with the NK conflict. He has the primary task of strengthening the power inside the country. Meanwhile, a summit of heads of state of the CIS took place; and there it was necessary to go with a particular position. At the UN Assembly nothing was required of him. He simply took advantage of the UN podium for his propaganda. At the summit of the CIS heads of state, Pashinyan, although he did not put forward a specific position, but he demonstrated his willingness to cooperate. Before the elders, he behaved in a young and promising manner.

-Pashinyan said that three aspects of bilateral relations were discussed with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. The first is that the ministers of defense of Azerbaijan and Armenia must reach an agreement on preventing incidents at the border. Secondly, the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia agreed on a commitment to dialogue and negotiations. Both noted the importance of resolving the Karabakh conflict peacefully. The third important decision is the operational communication between the two officials. Is it possible that a third party may intervene in the agreement reached at these negotiations? Will all these consistencies and negotiations be broken?

-It is natural that this proposal is a repetition of the initiatives used in its time. At different times, defense ministries contacted at various stages of military operations. There were meetings, stopped the battle and changed the prisoners. For a long time, there was a direct connection between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Moreover, various structures had a direct connection with the actual leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh. At one time, a more substantive conversation was conducted with Sarkisian, but now Pashinyan"s proposal to start everything from the very beginning is not so new. However, it is better to start implementation of proposals, that to be without any negotiations; it will be more successful.

- Will the negotiations continue on the basis of the Madrid principles, or can some new version emerge?

-After Pashinyan came to power, and it is possible that up to the announcement of the results of the next parliamentary elections, the actual topic will not be the format of negotiations, but conducting the negotiations themselves. Therefore, Pashinyan is not interested in the Madrid principles now, because he questioned the negotiations themselves. For this reason, the heads of both states, in the first place, must prove that a return to the negotiation process is possible. Only then it will be possible to continue negotiations on the basis of a single document and the updated Madrid principles.

- Recently, unconfirmed information has been disseminated about the return of some occupied areas to Azerbaijan. In particular, these conversations were held among the public on the eve of President Putin"s visit to Azerbaijan. How do you think, who spreads this kind of information to the public, and what are the goals?

- This information is disseminated by the media of Azerbaijan, as well as managed sites. There is no serious talk about the liberation of the regions either in Russia or in Armenia, and I witnessed that. Speaking the language of Lavrov, it is doubtful that the issue of returning areas is on the agenda. I believe that this kind of information is launched to check public opinion. This has its positive and negative reasons. In any case, in order to keep people in good shape, there is no other method, this is the best. This may be the goal of increasing public confidence in the negotiation process.