Radar Armenia's interlocutor is Shahan Gantaharyan, an international scholar.

- Before the next round of negotiations on the Brussels platform, Azerbaijan violates the ceasefire again. The Armenian side persistently maintains a constructive position. Could you tell me if Armenia's position is visible to the international community and where its effectiveness is?

- I think that for the international community, neither constructiveness nor respecting agreements nor deconstructiveness or violation of the ceasefire are of essential importance. The international family does not want to impose the binding decisions of its judicial system. Otherwise, he would resort to sanctions, embargoes, and other international practices. After all, the mediator must have hotspots to make the mediation meaningful. And mediation is a geopolitical practice of forming a sphere of influence.

- In the background of the negotiations, there is an indefinite popular movement in Artsakh. There are claims that this movement is a Russian order and aims to disrupt the process. How will you interpret it?

- The situation in Artsakh today is such that the follower, with simple logic, perceives that the Russian factor will significantly affect both the state and the society. In today's pan-Armenian panorama, Artsakh is the only environment that shows unity in the National Assembly and the society. This is a unique phenomenon, unfortunately. Such a unity of protest against the blockade should not be attributed to the Russian border. Artsakh has consistently proven that in its existential issues, it had a collective will to unite and thereby become an example to the Armenian world.

- Especially recently, the Russian side seems inactive, and the negotiations are proceeding actively on Western platforms. Does this have anything to do with Erdogan's latest statements about Russia?

- Russia is facing the compulsion to make recalculations in the region. Prerequisites for the weakening of the Moscow-Ankara axis are visible. Erdogan reminds the Russians that they agreed to leave Artsakh in two and a half years. So far, Moscow has not responded, even indirectly. In parallel, the collective West talks about introducing international security guarantees. And here, there are opposite approaches. Ankara and Baku want no peacekeeping force. They are not talking about the Turkish military group stationed in Aghdam. The US and the EU propose an international security toolkit. In PACE, there was even talk about the involvement of UN institutions. And Russia naturally wants to prolong its mission. Here, Artsakh has turned into a conflict of such motley interests.

- In this context, we would like to point out that Maria Zakharova, referring to the Brussels negotiations, said they support any constructive mediation leading to Armenian-Azerbaijani peace. Isn't this one of the declarative statements?

- Yes, Zakharova's statements are purely declarative in this respect. Remember that he even mentioned that the UN could also assist in concluding a peace agreement. By merely internationalizing the Russian mediation, he means that other states will have to cooperate with Russia in the UN format, bearing in mind that Russia is a member of the UN Security Council.

- Will delaying the implementation of the peace agenda continue, and for how long?

- The tension will continue. Official Washington talks about long-term work, implying that the parties still have much work to agree on. This tension is outside the interests of the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem. They hurry, knowing that the situation in the region is changing.

Hayk Magoyan