"MOVE RIGHT, YOU LOSE YOUR KNIGHT; MOVE LEFT YOU LOSE YOUR LIFE…" WHICH WAY DO YOU MOVE TO ACHIEVE PEACE?

Meetings between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, brokered by their Russian counterpart Dmitriy Medvedev, have traditionally been rather intensive. The eighth and latest tripartite meeting, which discussed ways to a settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, was held in Sochi on 5 March. During the talks the sides arrived at a number of specific agreements on prisoners-of-war and investigations into incidents along the contact line. However, they failed to achieve a breakthrough in the process of a peace settlement.

The next round of talks between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents on a settlement to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict will be held in Kazan, reports Interfax, quoting a diplomatic source. "A meeting between Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has been planned for 25 June in Kazan," the agency quoted the source as saying.

What do experts expect from this meeting in particular, and Russian mediation as a whole, to what extent might the political processes in the broker countries affect the talks process and when might one expect a breakthrough in a settlement to the conflict, and so on? The Russian political analyst and first vice-president of the Strategic Development Modelling Centre, Grigoriy Trofimchuk, answered all these questions in an interview for our magazine.

- In recent years Russia has been active in the Karabakh conflict settlement process. We can soon expect another summit meeting brokered by President Medvedev. At the same time it is being suggested that Moscow will become less active in this question because of the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia.

- There is no let-up in Russia's interest in the process of a peaceful settlement to the Karabakh conflict. Moreover, this interest may increase, because any Russian leader who can offer an initiative on this question, which might lead to progress in the settlement process, straightaway strengthens the position of the president himself and the Russian state as a whole as a source of important initiatives. The main thing is to have ideas because a lack of ideas merely makes the situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict worse.

- How effective do you think past meetings between the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents have been?

- These meetings were mainly geared towards maintaining and increasing the credibility of the tripartite format of the talks. But if, at the same time, the problem of a settlement to the conflict remains then this will have a negative impact on the prospects for this format. In any event, specific ideas for resolving the problem must be discussed at these meetings. In other words, it must not be just a matter of quoting facts and figures but discussing progressive ideas, so that everyone is aware of a desire to solve the Karabakh problem. I am confident that it is not insoluble. On the contrary, I said as much at a round-table meeting recently which was entitled "Nagornyy Karabakh: a problem without a solution". There are thousands of ways of resolving this conflict which I can propose. Whether the parties in the conflict accept them is another matter. But it is possible to resolve the problem. Any deadlocked situation can be settled.

- So what do you think is the best way of resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict?

- Well, for example, the Armenian leaders and President Serzh Sargsyan say they need guarantees, and I think that's where we should start from. After all, if Armenia wants guarantees and at the same time is prepared to proceed within the framework of the Madrid Basic Principles, then such guarantees should be offered to Armenia. Clearly, at the moment we do not have such guarantees or they are not conclusive. All the sides need to be convinced that guarantees will come with this option.  This will require experts to draw up these proposals so that everyone can clearly understand what these guarantees are. Then all these arguments about there being no guarantees will no longer exist. The problem lies not in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia or some other country: the problem is there are no specific ideas of resolving the problem. I have such ideas and I could express them at, say, a round-table meeting in Baku. And we can propose such ideas in the appropriate format.

- Are there any basic differences between the US and Russia in their approaches to a solution to the conflict?

- Yes, there are. The US has no borders either with the countries involved in the conflict or the Karabakh region. At the same time it is easier for the West to express its opinion on the conflict because it does not concern them directly. And generally speaking, in the West they don't fully understand who the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis are. If the conflict drags on for another 15 years the West could raise a counter-question before the participants in the tripartite meetings, in particular Russia, and say: Look, you have been meeting and talking for so long - where's the result? That was roughly how Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev behaved last October in Cyprus. He quite rightly reproached the European Union which has been involved with the problem of Cyprus for a very long time. That same reproach could be thrown at Russia.

- There is an opinion going around that the OSCE, as an international organization, is quite incapable of resolving armed conflicts. If that is the case, is there any point in continuing the work of the OSCE's Minsk Group?

- If there were no Minsk Group, then the situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict would have been more unpredictable. The Minsk Group is a tried-and-tested long-term format. Although it has not brought any results, figuratively speaking, neither the West nor the East wants to dump it. The work of the Minsk Group brings neither joy nor anxiety to anyone. The problem is that at the moment there is no substitute for it. The tripartite format of the talks merely supplements the Minsk Group's mission: it doesn't transcend it. But, of course, everyone realizes that talks can't go on forever. If there had been an alternative, then the parties in the conflict would have gradually ditched the Minsk Group.