A look from Moscow: The real addressees of Sargsyan`s and  Nalbandyan`s statements about the possibility of "surrendering  territories" are the mediating countries and Baku

ArmInfo.The maximum expectations of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group from the intensification of the negotiation process on the Karabakh settlement, observed in the wake of the curtain of 2017, is the return of meaningfulness to the negotiation process. A similar opinion was expressed by ArmInfo Russian analyst Sergei Markedonov.

In October, the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Geneva,  after which the Minsk Group co- chairs met with the Armenian and  Azeri FMs in Moscow.

"However, despite the" constructive atmosphere "of the Geneva summit,  there were no notable breakthroughs in the settlement, and there were  no plans to introduce effective mechanisms to prevent incidents on  the contact line and the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border outside  Nagorno-Karabakh. words of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan on the  "painful resolution of the Artsakh issue" and Armenian Foreign  Minister Edward Nalbandian on possible compromises in the Karabakh  settlement "he stressed.

According to the analyst, the answer to the question about the  motivation of official Yerevan in the scoring, provoking discontent  with the authorities and unnecessary agiotage around the possible  "surrender of territories", the statements are not so complicated, as  it seems at first glance. In this light, Markedonov notes that  Sargsyan and Nalbandian have listeners and readers not only in  Yerevan, but also in Baku, as well as in the capitals of the  countries co-chairing the Minsk Group.

Meanwhile, the analyst emphasizes that the agreed plan for a peaceful  settlement, which is almost a unique case of unanimity between Russia  and the West in the post-Soviet space, remains, presupposing  compromises and concessions, "updated Madrid principles>. According  to him, the "principles" can and do be criticized for, but they do  not have the slightest hint of maintaining the current status quo  unchanged.  Another issue is that the destruction of the status quo  is dangerous, and there is no consensus between the co-chairs about  how and why.

"At the same time, there are no maximalist slats in the" basic  principles " Yerevan, or Baku. Therefore, Armenian politicians can  compete with each other in the degree of brutality for the internal  audience, but in dialogue with the co-chairs they must show readiness  for compromises.  And in fact, speaking of possible concessions,  Sargsyan and Nalbandian practically did not take any chances,  considering that Baku is clearly unable to immediately grasp their  proposals, "the analyst summed up.