Commensant newspaper editor-in-chief: Russia is a principal mediator in the Karabakh conflict settlement, while tomorrow this might be the United States and Europe

- Meeting of Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia took place in St. Petersburg. Media had rather scanty information on this. I would like to know what are your impressions of the outcome of the meeting.

- Frankly speaking I have no impressions of the meeting of the two president. Actually, I did not expect any sensations from this meeting. Sensation, in my opinion, can be expected only in two cases: if the two Presidents themselves, without intermediaries, decide to meet, or if their meeting is preceded by a full and mutually profitable agreement on the final settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

- There is an opinion that Russia is currently the principal mediator of Karabakh conflict. What do you think is it caused by?

- Yes, at the moment Russia is a principal mediator in the Karabakh conflict settlement, and tomorrow it could be the United States and Europe. And unless they agree among themselves, the success, in my opinion, is unlikely. It is impossible to find a solution that is fully profitable for both parties, but in such a situation, there is always an opportunity for a party claiming to be disadvantaged to seek the support of currently not principal  mediators and, thus, to return to the starting position.

- President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan thanked President Medvedev for a loan issued to Armenia. Do you think Russia can and will use this loan as a tool of pressure on Yerevan in the negotiation process?

- Russia may use its influence (and uses) for Armenia (and for Azerbaijan) in order to bring the two presidents to the negotiation table. But it is hardly able to force one (or both) of the parties to the conflict to make significant concessions. Any pressure has a limit. And if a president under pressure (or as the result of reflection and rethinking of its views) agrees to make concessions greater than the public opinion of his country is ready to accept, he will cease to be president very quickly. And he will be replaced by a more stringent politician. Such examples have already existed including in the history of the Karabakh conflict.

- At the end of the Prague meeting, despite the optimism of the co-chairs of the OSCE, Baku expressed disappointment, noting that Armenia once again proved to be nonconstructive. What do you think of Armenia's position in the negotiation process, considering the fact that the Petersburg negotiations recorded no breakthrough?

- Intermediaries are required to radiate optimism, otherwise they would have to admit defeat. Hence are the statements, such as "The parties came to understanding on 90 per cent of the issues, a step or a half is left". The mediators do not specify that 90% of agreement might include indisputable issues like "peoples should live in peace and accord", "peace is better than war", "Volga flows into the Caspian Sea", "The Sun rises in the East", while the remaining 10% is the issue of belonging of Nagorno Karabakh and here I do not see any special changes in the positions of the parties.

/Day.Az/