An expert from France, an analyst from the newspaper Monde, an employer at the Foundation for Strategic Research Gaidz Minassian spoke at an Internet interview with the journalists from various mass media in Armenia.

www.lragir.am - How would you comment on the latest resolution of the European Parliament Point 48 of which calls for establishing relations with the unacknowledged states? Are such relations between the European Union and Karabakh possible, and in what format?

A.D. - That has been quite some time that the Europeans have started to question the establishment of links with non-recognized states. This decision meets several criteria. A strategic criterion: EU cannot allow these entities to have exclusive relationships with a single state, Russia in links with Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia; and Armenia in links with Nagorno-Karabakh. A political criterion: regional stability that Europeans seek through making contact with anything that might undermine the sensitive regions. The more contacts exist, the fewer the chances of war are. Finally, a humanitarian criterion: EU cannot have European populations left on their own. Regarding the format of relations with Armenia, the Armenians must take an advantage of their opportunities and enjoy the European levers to be more assertive. To do so would require the diplomacy of Armenia out of its defensive.

www.lragir.am - France has been actively participating in the operations in Libya and Cote d'Ivoire. Who defines the expedience of the intervention of one country into the affairs of the other? In this context do you think the military intervention of France or the European Union into the Karabakh conflict possible?

A.D. - In the present circumstances of the Nagorno-Karabakh, no Western force will intervene militarily. This must be clear. There should be a bundle of reasons to make the international community intervene; however, such a bundle is not there. Neither France, nor Germany intervenes in Armenia. Remember the lack of Western military reaction in the war between Russia and Georgia. It is now time for a dialogue, a difficult one, but still a dialogue.

www. defacto.am - What do you think about the current situation of the Nagorno Karabakh resolution process where Russia is the actual participant of the settlement process? France and the USA, as if on the basis of a joint agreement among the "Minsk three" are not especially active. Does this mean that Russia alone will in fact deal with the Karabakh resolution process, as it was lately announced by a Russian diplomat? What role is reserved for the USA and France in that case?

A.D. - Indeed, the spirit of Key West or Rambouillet no longer exists. This is unfortunate because the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is a multilateral problem. And it is dangerous to leave Russia alone at the helm. History is there to judge. For now, Russia has a regional leadership, but it remains fragile because the three states want to maintain relations with other powers. France puts forward the regional stability, even if Bernard Fassier is very much involved in the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh. You should know that in France, Bernard Fassier reports on the progress in the negotiations only to his Minister, Alain Juppe and the Elysee. Nobody else. At the Quai d'Orsay, no diplomat is aware of what is happening in the case of the "NK," as they call it. The United States stick to resetting its relations with Russia and have many more important issues. So, South Caucasus is currently an area of secondary interest to Westerners. The French and Americans missed the moment, and Russia advanced his pawns. Between November 2008 and January 2011, Russia has created a process within the Minsk process. Since the last meeting in Sochi, Russia has created a parallel process to that of Minsk. Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan share the dissatisfaction of the Madrid principles. Moscow is against the deployment of an international force in South Caucasus. Azerbaijan is against self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia is against the automatic withdrawal of the territories. But officially, the three countries say "yes" to the Madrid Principles. They can especially say "yes" to the Madrid principles, they know they will not be applied. And that, France and the United States know this, but remain cautious for now.

www.news.am - How can EU's using of double standards and denying historical truth regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict affect its status of a reliable and long-term partner?

A.D. - The European Union has always played the dual language game with Armenia and Azerbaijan. With Armenia, Brussels talks about self-determination in its official documents. With Azerbaijan, Brussels talks about territorial integrity. In fact, it should be understood that diplomacy remains dramatically in the hands of Member States and not in the hands of the European Commission or Mrs.Ashton, whose authority is only symbolic. In terms of direct examination of the conflict, again, it depends on the nature of conflict: is it a post-colonial conflict, as some researchers say in the West? Is this a conflict whose resolution is mechanical, as proposed by the International Crisis Group, whose approach is approximate, because ICG does not take into account the socio-historical problems? In the reports of these NGOs, very political, there is a series of recommendations with the primary "This state should ..." "There's only" ... But this is not the way that we resolve conflicts. Instead, they are fanning.

www.news.am - How can Russia-NATO rapprochement affect the South Caucasus in terms of reorientation of their interests in the region?

A.D. - The relations between Russia and NATO are largely dependent on the relations between the U.S. and Russia, as well as on those between Germany, Great Britain, France, on one side and Russia, on the other. Brussels does not want to face a fait accompli as in 2008. So be cautious. Moreover, the issue of missile defense is crucial for the future relations between NATO and Russia. If NATO deploys his shield regardless of Russia's interests, the relations will harden. NATO continues to speak of the accession of Georgia to the agenda, but she knows very well that this will not happen in the current tense relations between Russia and Georgia. Finally, we must not underestimate the political side of this bilateral relationship (NATO-Russia). In 2012, the United States, Russia and France will hold presidential elections. The color of the winner in all three countries depends on the nature of relationships.

www.arminfo.am - The USA and France have somewhat moved away from the settlement of the Karabakh conflict lately, giving the third country – co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, a carte blanche in this issue. What do you think are the reasons for this?

A.D. - I will not say a "white card", but a "lucky" one for Russia. The reason is simple: Russia wants to prove she has adopted the tactic of soft power and after five days of the war, she wants to improve its image by becoming a force for peace. Nobody is fooled, however. I have partly answered this question. France favors the question of stability. The United States – the reset with Russia. Neither France nor the United States will go directly to face Russia in Nagorno Karabakh, at least not in the current state of things. In other words, I think long and that the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is totally manipulated by the powers in the context of other more important issues, including Iran. At the very beginning of the operations against Gaddafi, France assumed the leading role. Is this an evidence of the yearning of the official Paris to gain higher positions in the structure of NATO or are there other reasons for this? France took the helm of the military operation against the power of Gaddafi to sweep the bad sequence Tunisian diplomacy under Michèle Alliot-Marie. It was out of this rough patch. France and Britain have been leading the military coalition because they have a conflict to deal with Gaddafi, whose regime is accused of having destroyed two aircraft there is more than ten years now. If France has agreed to transmit the command to NATO, it is mainly to find a way out of the conflict and share responsibilities.

www.arminfo.am - The French leadership and Parliament have not yet ratified the law that envisages the introduction of criminal liability for denying the Genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. What do you think the reasons for this are, apart from the unwillingness to spoil its relations with Turkey that is striving for joining the EU?

A.D. - The government has decided not to legislate on the past. Then, under the influence of certain circles of historians, these laws called "memorial" are draconian. Finally, Paris wants to spare Ankara since the French are already against Turkey's accession to the EU. But things can change as we enter election time, when every member thinks of his reelection, as socialists and right-wing senators are in favor of adopting the text in the Senate on May 4. In addition, members see a need to finish the work. Not to mention that more and more parliamentarians take their right distance from the Elysee.

www.newsarmenia.am - Mr. Minassian, what is your view of a realistic solution for the Karabakh problem?

A.D. - Big question ... I think we need to involve civil societies in the resolution of conflicts and create more democratic states. Armenian or Azerbaijani nationalism will not work : an illusion of safety, but certainly not peace. I also think it goes back to the origins of the conflict: the reunification with Armenia. Levon Melik-Shahnazarian, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh declared in 1991-1992 that "independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh was a concession in respect of Azerbaijan". Armenians have to give up their defensive diplomacy, porous and vulnerable. The context favors a diplomatic offensive, but Yerevan is not benefiting. Yerevan speaks as if he was wrong about what is happening. However, diplomacy is the art of balance of power without arms. It had to wait for the summit in Astana to hear President Serzh Sargsyan say that "Armenia will recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh if Azerbaijan continues its aggressive policy" .... Again, all conditions are met to proceed ... The Armenians have mastered the field, not Azerbaijan. Armenians enjoy the independence of Kosovo, South Sudan and the Hague Declaration upon the independence of Kosov, and nothing is done. Do not wait for the Americans and the French move instead of the Armenians.

www.newsarmenia.am - Do you concede the probability of the renewal of the war in Karabakh? What consequences will a new war in Karabakh have?

A.D. - The risk of war is still there of course. Peace hangs by a cease-fire and it is violated every day here or there. We hear more and more about relapses into the conflict without a declaration of war damage. But for now, Baku uses the threat of war to advance his pawns on the diplomatic front. And it progresses. Armenia, look at past statements and resolutions ... The consequences of a war would obviously be terrible for both sides. We know when a war might begin, but it is always difficult to stop it. In any case, if the regimes remain authoritarian, the war risk is greater. Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians did not understand that the best security is democracy.

www.newsarmenia.am - An opinion exists in Armenia that the West does not properly react to the bellicose statements of Azerbaijan and its constant threats to start military actions. What is such a position of Western countries caused by?

A.D. - Indeed, Western reactions are chilly. Because Westerners do not want to publicly denounce the responsibility of one of two camps at this stage of negotiations, even if everyone knows who is responsible for these threats. Such bellicose statements are not without displeasing the negotiators. On the one hand, negotiators are pressing Yerevan, telling him to yield because Baku threatens. On the other, negotiators are pressing Baku to stop using the threat as Yerevan winces. In both cases, the negotiators know that it is easier to act on this particular point on the defensive (Armenia) than the offensive part (Azerbaijan).

www.newsarmenia.am - Turkey, Israel and Ukraine are the main suppliers of the offensive armory for Azerbaijan. It is understandable that Turkey pursues political goals, arming Azerbaijan. What are the aims of Ukraine and Israel?

A.D. - Ukraine and Israel have vested interests as producers of weapons. They need creditworthy customers, and Azerbaijan is one. Besides, Baku provides 20% of oil to Israel. Baku also maintains an ambiguous relationship with Iran. So, Israel prefers its relations with Azerbaijan for economic and strategic purposes. Let us not forget the weight of the Azerbaijani lobby in Israel, including Israel Beitenou Party, composed mostly of former Soviet citizens.

www.newsarmenia.am - How do you think Armenian Diasporas in the Arabic countries should behave during the political shocks underway?

A.D. - By experience, the Armenians of the Middle East adopt a safe position regardless of the actuality. In the Lebanon war, the Iran-Iraq Gulf War or the liberation movements in the Arab world, Armenians have reason to be cautious. They are the ones that are there. And nobody can judge for them. In the long term, the issue of security and the presence of Armenians in the Middle East is open. Only Armenians of the Middle East can decide where their future is. In those Arab countries undergoing transformation or elsewhere? Why not Armenia? For the Armenians of the Middle East are populations well equipped for the trade and properly connected to global economic relations. But it is a sensitive issue.

www. hetq.am - There is an opinion that the military activities of France beyond its borders (Libya, Cote d'Ivoire) are conditioned by the upcoming elections and are aimed at the solution of domestic policy issues. Do you think such an opinion is truly justified? How are the French military operations in the context of the economic crisis perceived by the French people? Is there no probability that the military operations will last longer than it was assumed by the NATO countries?

A.D. - The risk of getting bogged down there. But for now, it is far away. As I said earlier, France had to turn the page of Tunisian diplomatic fiasco. The Libyan crisis was precipitated by the first announcement and the crackdown against the insurgents. France is now on three fronts: Afghanistan, Libya and Ivory Coast. At this time, the Ivorian crisis has dropped a notch. There is still enough time before the presidential election to resolve the crisis in Jamahiriya. But as the command is passed into the hands of NATO, the responsibility is shared. So for now, there is no impact on the presidential campaign, it has already begun. Afghanistan will be at the heart of the campaign, after 10 years of war.

www. hetq.am - What was there in NATO that France felt dissatisfied with when it decided to suspend its membership, and on the contrary, what was it that pushed France back into NATO?

A.D. - France has never left NATO. Paris, under General de Gaulle, had left the integrated command, for reasons of independence and distancing from the blocks during the Cold War. Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed to reconnect more closely with NATO. Nicolas Sarkozy has gone further than his predecessor, returning to the integrated command of NATO. For the government, the return of France to the integrated command may facilitate the Europeanization of this strategic alliance and create a European military arm. For anti-NATO, it is a loss of flexibility, sovereignty and the end of Europe's defense. Being in NATO means being in solidarity with the Alliance decisions and often pass under U.S. command. For Nicolas Sarkozy, joined NATO in full is also a sign of Western solidarity. And at a time of decline of the West against China, India and other emerging links in between a soldered West is a strategic asset.

www. hetq.am - What is the main shortcoming of NATO as a contemporary security system, and what can intensify the really close relations between Russia and NATO?

A.D. - The enlargement of NATO and the deployment of missile defense are the two main issues of contention with Russia. Brussels does not yield to his release or to missile defense. Not yield to the expansion, but procrastinate, yes. Moreover, NATO refused to consider the principle of co-decision with Moscow. Cooperation yes, co-decision no. Moreover, NATO does not depend upon other powers. In the background of relations, there are strategic vectors, Iranian... and especially Chinese.

The interview was held within the framework of Expanded and Diverse Information on NATO in Armenian Mass Media project, supported by the British Embassy in Armenia and implemented by Region Research Center (Armenia).