In an interview with "Voice of America," Ambassador James Warlick referred to the dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

"Question. Ambassador James Warlick, the former US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, is with us. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for agreeing to speak with us. I am convinced that you are following the process of establishing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Here some difficulties arise. The peace process itself appears to be in danger of stalling. We are witnessing a hardening of rhetoric. How would you assess the current stage of the process, and what are the main risks?

Warlick. I'm optimistic about the process of the last few months. It is a good sign that the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia met each other. In particular, the meeting held in Sochi gave a positive result. The parties agreed not to use force. There are also opportunities for progress in the future, with a possible meeting within the framework of the European Union on December 7. I expect all discussions to be manageable. And, of course, the rhetoric can probably change on both sides, but that shouldn't stop the process from moving forward. The parties must talk, and there must be a negotiation process.

Question. Mr. Ambassador, however, it still needs to be clarified whether the December 7 negotiations will take place or not, as the parties have inevitable disagreements on this occasion. What do you think is the cause of this setback in the peace process?

Warlick. There is some disagreement, which I understand, regarding the participation of President Macron in the negotiations. The Armenian side wants Macron to continue participating in the dialogue and why not lead it, while President Aliyev has made strong statements against Macron's participation. This is not a big problem that the parties have to overcome because the most important thing is that the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides talk to each other regardless of the format or the participants of the negotiations.

Question. Mr. Ambassador, in your opinion, what is the main obstacle preventing the settlement between the parties?

Warlick. The biggest challenge is that only some things can be handled at once. There should be processes on many issues at the same time. The President and the Prime Minister must encourage it. For example, there must be a demarcation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan that can reduce the likelihood of conflict. It's important to discuss the status. I am fully aware that President Aliyev has made it clear that all issues of the conflict have been resolved and that all this is a matter of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Still, there is a need for a process to protect the rights of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. It's a vital status discussion. There are also other issues. For example, communication, water resources, return of prisoners of war. These are all problems that face obstacles but can be solved, for which there should be a multilateral approach, first of all, involving the president and the prime minister.

Question. You mentioned the factor of French President Macron, whose participation in the negotiations has become a cause of disagreement between the parties. The President of Azerbaijan directly opposed the involvement of President Macron, as well as pointed to the recently adopted resolution in the French Senate about the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. What do you think about the situation, and how can it be resolved?

Warlick. President Macron understands the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and he can be an impartial, fair mediator in this process. But my views are not the point. It is essential to have such a process that will enjoy the trust of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, whatever the format and wherever it takes place. So that you know – the parties must be confident in the process and committed to moving forward. So the design is less crucial than Aliyev's and Pashinyan's commitment to moving forward effectively in the peace talks.

Question. Mr. Ambassador, these days the chief negotiator, the American co-chair of the Minsk Group Philip Ricker, who met with the president and leadership of Azerbaijan, was in Baku. He is also going to visit Yerevan to meet with the Armenian leadership. How do you assess the activity and role of the US in this process?

Warlick. Ambassador Ricker is quite a senior diplomat, and I am glad he has been appointed as an exceptional negotiator. It is also encouraging that both the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser are addressing this issue. It should be a sustainable commitment. You'll need more than one meeting with the American side. It should become a commitment by the US government, of course, by the European Union and other institutions to move this process forward. Otherwise, we will return to military conflict. What I see now from the US administration is very positive. That engagement should continue regularly, both by Ambassador Ricker and other senior members of the US government.

Question. How would you assess Moscow's role in this process? Is it destructive, or can it contain some positive elements? After the invasion of Ukraine, it isn't easy to imagine Moscow as a peacemaker.

Warlick. It is hard to imagine that today the USA and the European Union can work effectively with Moscow. However, despite all our differences with Russia, we also have common interests in establishing peace and security between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Russian side does not want a conflict unfolding in its neighborhood and wants to see an active process here. Of course, the Russian side should not control the process but should be a participant in the process along with other countries of the region. We must understand that Russia has a unique history with Armenia and Azerbaijan. So Russia can play an influential role, but as far as I know, the co-chairmanship format is no longer viable for mediating the conflict.

Question. At the hearing held in the US Senate recently, Ambassador Ricker stated that the mandate of the Minsk Group continues to be helpful for the settlement of the conflict. How do you see the future of the Minsk Group?

Warlick. The mandate of the co-chairs continues to be helpful. It includes the United States and Russia, as you know. It's a format that can work, but it needs to be acceptable to all parties. The co-chairmanship format can work effectively, but the difficulty is that the US and France are unlikely to work with Moscow today. In addition, President Aliyev categorically rejected the co-chairmanship mandate. He accepted Ricker as a special envoy but left the Minsk Group process, and for the latter's success, all parties must agree to this process.

Question. My last question is about Turkey and its role in resolving the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A few days ago, the adviser of the Turkish president said that the Armenian-Turkish negotiation process is ongoing. At the same time, Ankara continues to link the improvement of its relations with Yerevan to the Armenian-Azerbaijani process. What is your opinion about the future of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, and where are we today in this process?

Warlick. First, Turkey can play an instrumental role in achieving a long-term settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey has enormous influence in Baku, and they can use that to advance the peace process, and they should. As for the relations between Armenia and Turkey, it is impossible to settle them in one day. This should be done through small steps toward building trust, and both parties should be willing to move one step at a time. I do not propose reviving the protocols of 20 years ago. It is impossible. But if the parties want, they can take some steps, for example, in terms of trade between countries and protection of spiritual wealth. The Armenian churches in Turkey must be preserved. It is possible to reach an agreement in such a direction. Both Armenia and Turkey should work in that direction. Improving Turkish-Armenian relations is in the interests of both countries. If it becomes possible to open the border between them, even to a limited extent, then it will allow them to carry out trade and ensure the movement of people. It can start a process that is beneficial for Armenia. I know it is difficult for the Armenian side to take that step, considering everything that has happened and the particular rhetoric present. Still, it is essential that this step is taken and a reconciliation process begins for the benefit of all."