Radar Armenia's interlocutor is Armine Margaryan, an expert on socio-political issues.

- Armenia did not sign the declaration yesterday at the CSTO collective security session, and now the document must be revised. To what extent was this expected, and what does this step mean politically?

- It is quite a predictable situation. After the September aggression, until this moment, when we compared the positions of the CSTO allies with the expected role of Armenia, where it should have been recorded that the Azerbaijani troops invaded the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, it became clear that it would not be possible to come to a common denominator. As for the political message it contains is as follows: RA will not conduct an imitate foreign policy and will call the phenomena by their names. The CSTO, as a military-political structure, is meant to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of its member states, in this case, RA, based on implementing the principle of collective security. Meanwhile, after the latest Azerbaijani aggression, the CSTO not only did not undertake to restore the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Armenia but did not even make a statement at the political level that Armenia was subjected to military aggression. Therefore, Armenia will continue to assert its position.

- We can say that, however, the CSTO avoids the evaluations and material support that Armenia expects; in that case, how do you imagine the future cooperation, Armenia's remaining in the CSTO?

- In this regard, we need severe political planning. Let's adopt roughly the same political tactics that Uzbekistan once did. We must continuously minimize our participation in the actions of CSTO bodies. For example, we should not sign declarations or documents of strategic significance, or we should not participate at the level of defense ministers in the meetings held at the level of the collective security council, or we should take a minimal role while participating, conveying a solid political message to the CSTO partners. This will show that our position has not changed, and Armenia is dissatisfied with the work of the structure. At the same time, we will also send a political message to our Western partners that Armenia is unhappy with the CSTO's activities, therefore, aims to reformulate its security policy.

- The president of Belarus also announced that it is not their job to restrain Azerbaijan. Don't such statements contribute to and legitimize Azerbaijan's aggression and its continuation?

- First of all, such statements deal a hefty blow to the image of the CSTO itself. Such a statement by the President of Belarus is against the fundamental provisions of the CSTO statutory documents. Therefore, based on these statements, Armenia can record that Belarus, as a member state of the organization, expresses a position that it will not fulfill the statutory provisions of the CSTO. And this can be a sufficient basis for us to propose at least suspending Belarus' participation in the work of CSTO statutory bodies. And if we look at these statements from the point of view of politics, we must emphasize that here the CSTO, as a military-political structure, is in a deep crisis. Political will and purpose are the basis of any integration group. And such statements speak about the fact that the member states do not share the same value system; therefore, their joint action should be problematic from the point of view of serving collective security.

- When discussing the peace treaty, the Russian side already states that the terms are unnecessary; the important thing is to regulate the process. Does this mean there will be no document until the end of the year?

- The Armenian side emphasizes with its official statements that it is prepared to complete the process as soon as possible, if not to complete it, then at least to crystallize it. Russia's position that dates are unnecessary is contrary to the work presented by Western partners. And taking all this into account, the part of the country that will assume the role of primary mediator in the regulation of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations will be more dominant. In this case, if Armenia and Azerbaijan delegate the mediation role to Russia, the process will go that way and be delayed. And if it is charged to our Western partners, there is a high probability that at least the provisions necessary for signing the agreement will be crystallized.

Hayk Magoyan