April 7, 2005. Theme: From the point of view of Real Politik.

Rasim Musabekov. No one wants war, but they prepare for it strenuously.

No one wants war but don't you see they are preparing for it strenuously? Needy Georgia doesn't conceal that it has increased its military expenditures up to $300 million. Azerbaijan and Armenia aren't far behind. But Baku has the potential to drive its military expenditures up to $500 million next year (equal to the revenues of the entire state budget of Armenia ), and in one year's time it intends to spend a billion dollars a year. That's enough money not only for rearming but also for transferring the entire junior and technical personnel of the army to a contract basis and sharply increasing the fighting capacity of sections and divisions.

Even if Armenia can sustain such an arms race it will only be at the cost of total mobilization and deprivation for the entire population. In that case 500,000 more people will leave Armenia in addition to the 1,000,000 people who have already left. It still will be possible to scrape together the soldiers, but the nation in whose name all these sacrifices will express their true attitude to this policy with their feet - by leaving the country. Thus, the present status quo is just a fork leading either to lasting, even if achievable step by step, peace or to a respite before a new destructive war. What is the way out? It is an exchange of the so-called "security zone" for international security guarantees, for a contractual agreement guaranteeing the non-resumption of the war; it is real disarmament and the implementation of confidence building; it is the restoration of communications and cooperation. The list can be continued by me and you and by all those who really want peace. By the way, this is more or less the view shared by the experienced ex-co-chairman of the Minsk Group, Vladimir Kazimirov, the EU, and many realistic politicians and analysts, not only in Azerbaijan but also in Armenia . So it is necessary to act instead of waiting with hope that the problem and the conflict will go away by themselves.

Laura Baghdasaryan

To Rasim Musabekov. You mention possible changes in the Azerbaijani army that could sharply increase its fighting capacity, hence, change the course of the conflict. Perhaps, that's true. But will the Azerbaijani people, including those who have lived for all these years in tents, have an adequate perception of the reasons that have to keep living in tents, and will they agree to keep existing like this for no one knows how long in order for the Azerbaijani Army to become more efficien t? In fact, these people and any other people see a completely different picture. They see what the Azerbaijani media reports, with the exception of the organ of the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan party, of course: that all the profits from the oil business are s pen t on other things.

But Azerbaijan has had many more financial opportunities to at least improve those people's fate. I understand that this too is a sort of a reserve for the future, just like, for example, getting the younger generation prepared is reserve. Strategically, it is correct; it is necessary to have a population which will be ready to return to the former places of residence (if not to say more), which will believe that only by means of war it is possible to improve their fate and find shelter. But is suchreal politik a manifestation of change for the better?

Rasim Musabekov

To Laura Baghdasaryan. First, the last tent city will be dismantled this year. The money for it has been allocated. They steal in Azerbaijan like they do in Armenia - a lot and recklessly. It's just that much more money comes to Azerbaijan than to Armenia , and so much more is expected in connection with the manifold increase in the oil price and reaching the peak of the output that the country will not even be in a position to digest all these money. In order to steal budgetary revenues, you need to spend them, and the army is an ideal way in this sense, since a priori it is a "closed" sphere. A lot will certainly be plundered but whatever is really done may create an illusion of a favorable balance of power for a new attempt at rewriting the military history of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. But what I have said doesn't mean that I argue for the inevitability of a military collision. I draw your attention to the fact that although on the surface the status quo is being kept, in fact an arms race is taking place.

Laura Baghdasaryan. How do we see each other?

Recently, during a TV discussion of the results of our survey, the host said an interesting thing: We know the Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijan the way they want us to know them. In order to understand how we present each other to our societies it is enough to look through our media and then to look at the results of ours and other surveys. But I think that our survey differs a little from the others. By the fact that we ask questions about mutual relations, about feelings toward each other in our societies directly...

Even if they don't have feelings, what they consider to necessary, safe to demonstrate is visible. When in a society one rigid and narrow formula of patriotism is widespread it is very difficult to become a "non-patriot", isn't it? In Armenia externally there exists a greater tolerance of dissenting views towards Azerbaijanis and Azerbaijan than one can see in Azerbaijan in relation to Armenians. I don't know, maybe there are other attitudes within the society as well, not the ones that are demonstrated, and people here, including journalists, face a "different" reality? Perhaps, it is virtual, invented, not reflecting the people's real thoughts?

Meanwhile conceptions about each other also develop at the level of personal contacts, visits. But alas, there have been no visits for a long time. Arif is right when he says that the very arrival to Armenia of our colleagues from Azerbaijan is already a feat, for afterwards they are subjected to very strong pressure. Armenians are not threatened by such pressure simply because they can't even go to Azerbaijan . It is hard to believe that this barrier has been erected only to prevent the parties from having any contact before the settlement. And that this is the sole civilized method Azerbaijan has to put pressure upon Armenia , as one politician from Azerbaijan once responded to a question about economic cooperation with Armenia . Perhaps this barrier is in place to force us to know each other only in the way they want us to know each other.

Arif Yunusov. What can our societies do?

During the forum Laura has used the term "society" frequently and has asked what our societies can do? But conditionally speaking, our societies may be divided into three large, yet unequal in terms of number and influence, groups: a small group of political forces (they are divided into the government and the opposition), another small group of intellectuals (scientists, journalists, human rights activists, NGO activists, etc.) and a huge mass which is often referred to in the media as "ordinary people", on behalf of which both of the other groups like to act at various conferences and forums. This group is not uniform, either but its representatives are united by the fact that they don't take part in various conferences, forums, and don't have discussions on the Internet. They have other things to do, they mostly think about their daily business and, first of all, how to earn their daily bread. These people, depending on the situation, can play a progressive role and arrange a revolution, or, on the contrary, a counter-revolution or organize a pogrom. What should we do with this huge mass? It doesn't terrible to me and, believe me, to many intellectuals, if Azerbaijan becomes federal or even confederative republic. During the entire seventy years of the Soviet period, Azerbaijan was de facto a federal republic with two autonomous regions - Nakhichevan and Karabakh within its structure. Now only the former remains a part of Azerbaijan de jure as an autonomous republic. We would like to see the latter within the structure of Azerbaijan and, certainly, as a republic, perhaps, with slightly greater rights. But the Constitution states that Azerbaijan is a unitary state and this is in the people's "brain" in the first place. Well, I can write or I can agree that Azerbaijan should sign an agreement with Karabakh on separation of powers, but what about those who don't even understand the difference between a federation and a confederation, but who know that it is something bad for their beloved country? Is there any guarantee that if a peace agreement is signed on such terms, new Nemat Panakhovs will not emerge as they did in 1988-1990? There is no such guarantee. The situation in Armenia is no better. And when Azerbaijani journalists ask me with alarm whether our authorities will agree to a capitulatory peace, I appease them by saying that, fortunately, there are Armenians who will protect Azerbaijan's honor, since they won't be satisfied with such a peace either, they will arrange a shooting in the parliament or somewhere else and everything will fail again. Black humor. When I see the unconcealed primitivism of our leaders and, first of all, of the Azerbaijanis leaders I get angry, not so much with them as with the hypocrites from the Western countries and organizations who talk so much and with such pathos about the necessity of democratization of the country but in fact shut their eyes to the cave logic and thinking of our government officials for various geopolitical reasons.

Rasim Musabekov. Political correctness.

1. I believe that as long as the present "no war, no peace" situation is preserved, we should not expect any tangible changes in the information policy of the conflicting parties. That doesn't mean that we should sit there with our arms folded. On the contrary, contacts and discussions like the ones taking place at our forum are extremely useful. It is useful to analyze the real situation together and to react to excesses in the media. Often we don't notice obvious nonsense and phobia ourselves since we've gotten so used to it.

2. In general, political correctness is a fairly important and clearly underestimated element of public life in our countries. Some people may say that it is a display of hypocrisy that political correctness only disguises genuine, dark and egoistic instincts. I agree that political correctness is a mask. But like the mask in the famous performances by the great mime Marcel Marceau, when worn for long time, it can grow so strongly into the fabric of a person's face that at some point it becomes not only the external form but also the new essence. Therefore, both journalists and the political beau monde should start to cultivate political correctness in our countries. Irrespective of whether the present uncertain situation grows into a lasting peace or the military actions resume. After all, sooner or later we will in any case have to live side by side, if not together.

Yelena Kurdiyan

I think the world has begun to change at a terrific speed and today, obtaining the most up-to-date arsenal of weapons doesn't mean becoming stronger still. In the modern world many things are decided by brains, not by arms and thus it seems to me that laying stakes on increased military budgets is a rudiment of yesterday's thinking in today's reality. I'm exaggerating, certainly, but as a matter of fact everything is moving in this direction.

Rauf Mirkadirov. Pyrrhic victory.

Unfortunately, today the attitudes of both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani societies toward Nagorno Karabakh are defined as the following primitive formula: "It is not Karabakh for the people but the people for Karabakh." The formal possession of Karabakh has become an idée fixe for both parties and has overshadowed everything else. And this is the path to a Pyrrhic victory which has become almost a reality for Armenia , and which Azerbaijan is approaching with accelerated steps. And everything is being justified by the existence of the Karabakh conflict. As proof, I would like to remind you of just one fact.

Today Armenia is paying off its debts to Russia with its industrial enterprises of strategic importance. And by doing so, Armenia is not becoming more independent. Therefore, we should agree today on those parameters for which preconditions exist. At the initial stage we should adhere to the principle of "precise international security guarantees and economic cooperation in exchange for evacuation of a part of the occupied territories." In this case no one loses anything, if, of course, Armenia is not going to keep for itself all the "liberated-occupied" territories. And the question of the status on which we cannot agree today - mostly because of internal problems - should be left for the future. Who knows, perhaps then in parallel to regional integration and the subsequent integration into the European structures, after a while the time will come when various international legal principles to which the parties refer so persistently will lose their present meaning. If we don't follow this path, two variants of successive events are likely: Uncle Sam or someone else will get tired of waiting, and they will simply impose on us a settlement plan as is happening today in some post-Soviet countries vis-à-vis democratization.

Yelena Kurdiyan. On European integration.

To Rauf Mirkadirov. The formula, "integration will promote the peaceful settlement of the conflict" is not quite correct. Instead, "integration will make the essence of the conflict insignificant." That is, the main questions hindering the resolution of the conflict will not stand out as rigidly as now- territorial integrity or the right of nations to self-determination . That may sound utopian, but there is something in it, isn't there?

Laura Baghdasaryan. On political correctness.

To Rasim Musabekov. I wouldn't call it political correctness, but an approximation of reality. For political correctness, in fact, can be understood in different ways, depending on what contents it is encoded with. Judging from the Azerbaijani media, they are politically correct since they reflect exactly the policy conducted at the state level. I would call Rasim's appeal to be an adherence to universal values, and a dissemination of loyalty. Rasim writes: " It is useful to analyze the real situation together and to react to excesses in the media."

Certainly. But it is even more useful, I believe, if the reaction is not general and not during discussions that the public at large will hardly learn about in Azerbaijan (at best, professionals, journalists, NGO-activists - a limited circle of people will read about it). What would be more welcome would be statements- separate and defiant-regarding publications in the media within the same society. And claims that Azerbaijani society is, as a whole, tolerant, made, for example, by representatives of the government and political parties during the failed NATO meeting in Baku , were not welcomed here in Armenia , you know. As a matter of fact, Azerbaijani society may well be very tolerant, you know better. You live there, but I, for example, as I have already said earlier, have no way to make sure of it either by visiting you or through your media.

Here within the framework of this project, we have conducted research, we are preparing two documentary films about stereotypes of the enemy and the partner that are disseminated and propagandized in Armenia and Azerbaijan , and we are going to publish a collection of the research materials. So the purpose has not been just chamber discussions, not just revealing the things that are already clear at first sight (who is considered an enemy and who is considered a partner in Armenia and Azerbaijan, what this partnership is based upon, how strong the actuation of search for internal enemies is when external ones are present, what the mechanisms of changing the signs of stereotypes are, etc.). The purpose was to carry out research and to show its results to as many people as possible. What do you think-will we be able to show these films in Armenia and Azerbaijan ? Who will be interested in published books we publish? Only experts? Frankly, I myself don't know the answers to these questions. But it would be interesting to get your predictions. I promise to inform you whose predictions come true once the project is complete.

Karine Nalchadjyan

When I say that our peoples do not want war, I refer to the fact of their sincere collective attitude. I don't mean folk wisdom. On the contrary, a people as a whole (especially when it is neuroticized) can well be mistaken! I mean the basic, ordinary human needs for security, to live in peace, etc. Thank God, as the survey shows, these needs have been preserved among the Azerbaijanis as well despite the strident revanchism of certain layers of their society and making zombies out of the young people (the "heroic" murder of someone who was asleep is a vivid example of that). Naturally, various moods prevail among various groups. But, first, it is very important to have a general, average picture, and, second, moods, as everyone knows, are changeable.

A lot depends on leaders and on propagandists, in general. This is an especially important factor in the present state of public opinion in Azerbaijan . Dear Azerbaijani Colleagues, you are "mirror-imaging" everything too much in order to display some unclear and inutile objectivity. Let's agree, it's a very superficial and counterproductive approach. The trouble is that you divide the truth, i.e. the facts into "ours" and "yours". The transcript of our conference, by the way, is good material for revealing well-disguised stereotypes. I agree with Alexander-the situation in our societies corresponds well enough to the situation at the negotiations and, I would add, the same is true here, at the conference.

To Rasim Musabekov. The thing is that a psychologist's professional boundaries are much wider than it seems at first glance and besides sociology, there exists the social psychology, in which, by the way, the psychological essence of stereotypes and stereotyping is thoroughly studied, and it is revealed that it is not limited to consciousness. As a result of war, losses are unavoidable for both sides. But if in Armenia they are felt in the economy, in the living standards of the population, in the demographic situation, in Azerbaijan the real threat of the disintegration of the country should be added to all this. Thus, let us not threaten each other with war. You talk about ways out: "The exchange of the so-called 'security zone' for international security guarantees, for a contractual agreement guaranteeing non-resumption of the war, real disarmament and the implementation of confidence building measures, the restoration of communications and cooperation," etc. Perfect, but for some reason, very one-sided. See, you have not found a compromise either. Sooner or later the realization of the inevitability of the independence of Karabakh will ripen within Azerbaijani society. And here, in Armenia , the understanding that it is necessary to return the most of the liberated territories which comprise the security zone. Yes, this is painful for both parties but it is inevitable. It will be tragic if we come to this conclusion only after the next war, when Armenians will have to reconcile to the idea of conceding even more territories from an expanded security zone, and when Azerbaijanis will have to consider the return of the territories comprising the security zone as a significant success, and the recognition of independence of Karabakh as the lesser of two evils.

Alexander Iskandaryan. The powerful armies of Kuwait and Nigeria .

To Rasim Musabekov. The idea that oil-producing, or at least rich, states have powerful armies seems doubtful. I, too, have been listening to arguments about the future boundless financial prosperity of Azerbaijan that is going to result in such wide development of the army for some ten years now. And I keep remembering the "Dutch syndrome" and other powerful oil-rich states with a similar system of public management. It doesn't matter what's going on in reality. What matters is what's perceived as reality. But no one believes here that Azerbaijan will turn into Kuwait and, moreover into a Kuwait that can wage war (unlike the real Kuwait ). Do they in Azerbaijan ? Are you serious? So here we are with our "real politik" and "correctness". And who says that it's easier to produce weapons from oil rather than from Russia or from the Diaspora? I don't understand, frankly. And it's not only arms; as I wrote before, the balance is much more multifaceted.

To Rauf Mircadirov. I don't agree with you. The present situation is closer to order than to chaos and to peace than to war, I believe. The border nevertheless lies between war and peace and not between the peace with some documents and peace without them. Don't provoke God's wrath, gentlemen; people have not been killed for eleven years. Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Our compatriots. Just people, after all...

Rasim Musabekov

To Karine Nalchadjyan. Azerbaijan has endured defeat but will Armenians endure it if the outcome of a new military collision is unsuccessful for them? The day may come that you will be forced to beg for the proposals that you and other Armenians, drunk with the temporary success, scornfully reject today. But I don't see any sense in persuading you. Life will put everything in its place; it is the best teacher and judge. The fact that Azerbaijan has the opportunity to use its growing economic might to strengthen its army is not to your liking? Then remain confident that Armenians will always be the winners. So much the better. Self-confidence has never been to anyone's advantage. Think also about the fact that after the construction of the railways connecting Georgia with Turkey and Azerbaijan with Iran , Armenia will find itself in a transport and communication dead-end. Though that is not important to you, either. If one is a priori confident in one's own correctness and strength everything else has no importance...

To Alexander Iskandaryan . Do you really imagine Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh as a kind of ever-victorious Israel , and Azerbaijan as an ever-defeated kind of Arab country or Nigeria ? Perhaps, while assessing the geopolitical balance, a derivative of which is the balance of power between Azerbaijan and Armenia, it is worth considering that Russia is far away and with every passing year it weakens, loses its former power and influence, and Turkey next-door is, in contrast, becoming stronger? In fact, even in neighboring Iran the inevitable democratization will lead to the strengthening of the Azerbaijani ethnic component in the policy of this influential regional power. You can say, in your characteristic manner, that when that happens we will talk. Right, but under very changed conditions the declared demands of the parties change as well, or often become tougher. This too is an element of real politik.

Azad Isazade. Our conference has become a kind of reflection of the perception of the problem in society.

Eight intellectuals, not the worst ones, from the two countries have not often understood each other and are picking on small things in the statements, missing the main idea. Perhaps we all need to learn to listen to each other, and only then can we start searching for ways out, of which, in my opinion, there are more than enough. All the more so since I agree with the opinions of many that the war is not as real as it can seem in the media. The resumption of military operations is possible only when there is a threat of government change, and as an attempt by the present authorities to hold out using patriotic sentiments.

It's probably nothing original to say that in the absence of a mutually acceptable resolution of the Azerbaijani-Armenian problems, including the Karabakh conflict (perhaps you would agree with me that Karabakh is not the only problem in our relations) any solution will be painful. Only governments that have genuine legitimacy, i.e. individuals who have the real confidence of their peoples, will be ready for such a resolution. So the governments of both countries have to have legitimacy for this. This, in my opinion, is the only real path that we should traverse together. And the reduction of hostilities should, naturally, develop in parallel. Otherwise, the risk of a resolution by force will remain. To the argument that presidents Elchibey and Ter-Petrossian were legitimate, I would respond that both came to power at the peak of antagonism and were able to contain the situation to some extent. In addition all of us, perhaps, needed the negative experience of the war.

Alexander Iskandaryan. Is it important what Alexander Iskandaryan thinks?

To Rasim Musabekov. No, Rasim - I would not say "always" - Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh have won only once. And the region is going to change, no doubt, I agree with you on that. I just take the talk about oil and its direct influence on the strength of the state extremely skeptically. Strictly speaking, I know only one such oil state. It's Norway . But it first "became" Norway and then found the oil. What am I talking about? You understand perfectly what a specific role in the economy and, accordingly, in politics, oil plays. But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not me who is important but others. And they think so, yes. They think that Azerbaijanis are not capable of waging a war, that if they couldn't win the war when there was no corridor, no real weapons, and the borders were ragged and Azerbaijanis were in the rear, then they cannot win the war now all the more. They - yes, yes, yes, and yes - think that Azerbaijanis are stupider than them. Excuse me for political incorrectness, but for analysis, the truth is more important than politeness and also I respect my interlocutors and hope they will understand. And if they won't - it doesn't matter. You are suggesting that I convince these people that times can change? But they don't reason with such categories in principle. They are not as loud as your people, because yours have no intention of fighting, but they are at least ready. It is dangerous to not take this into account. Both for me and for you.

Arif Yunusov. A new, serious Karabakh, more precisely, Armenian-Azerbaijani battle has unfolded at the forum.

There is no need to clarify mutual relations, at least because in life everything is much more complex. And after all, each side strongly underestimates the other.

To Karine Nalchajyan. It is not necessary to say so often that our peoples do not want war. You have mentioned the science of social psychology. I have always wanted to study the Karabakh conflict by studying letters written by soldiers, to look at the conflict from within, instead of statements by politicians. If you were familiar with letters by Germans both prior to the beginning of the Second World War and in the course of it you would have seen that they too wrote about and wanted peace and, strange as it may sound, quiet in their families. It is one thing to go to the rallies and shout "Heil Hitler" and another thing what a person wishes for himself and his people. And, by the way, they trusted in God, and the soldiers even wore the inscription "God is with us!" on their belt buckles. I am confident that if there had been a sociological survey at the time, its results would have embarrassed many people. This is regarding the potential of sociological surveys, they should not be considered separately from many other factors. Therefore, if we consider ourselves not to be representatives of "ordinary people" then let's talk on the subject.

To Rauf Mirkadirov. You don't believe that a settlement is possible through integration into Western structures, for there is a conflict and we will have a vicious circle. Excuse me, but there still are lots of unresolved conflicts in this very Europe . Remember Corsica , the Basques, Northern Ireland . In total, the Europeans talk about 25 conflict zones, they just don't write about them and they don't stand out against the background of ours and other non-European conflicts. Perhaps not enough blood is shed there. But in fact there are conflicts there as well, and first of all on an ethnic basis. And as the states change, changes occur not only in the system of political and other relations occur, but also in the mentality, and these conflicts lose their urgency. They remain as stereotypes, jokes. They have learned to RESOLVE ethnic conflicts. This is where they differ from us. We, like children, want EVERYTHING and NOW; waiting is not one of our characteristics, we have gotten used to taking everything by force. We are smart only in arguments and in jokes about the Armenian radio, but not in life.

I hope I haven't offended anyone. It is clear that the desires of Armenians not only don't correspond to the desires of Azerbaijanis, but also to their own potent ial. And the same is true of Azerbaijanis. So I still think that the conflict will be resolved when it simply loses its urgency, when it is no longer profitable for the Armenians from Karabakh to aspire to independence from Azerbaijan , and for Azerbaijan it is no longer profitable to impose its authority over Karabakh. What tolerance between Armenians and Azerbaijanis can we talk about at all if our peoples simply do not understand this word?! What are you arguing about here, colleagues?

Is it Armenia that is a tolerant country? Or Azerbaijan ? If for geopolitical reasons we have been admitted to the Council of Europe it doesn't mean that we have said goodbye to our former mentality.

Laura has asked a very interesting question: Predict who will make use of and show an interest in our film and the book?

I believe the film will be shown by Internews and will arouse interest in society, but in Baku . In the regions, no one will see it. And the book will be read among the NGO people and representatives of parties, but opposition ones. Pro-government NGOs and other organizations will see the book and raise a clamor about how venal we are. Though, it may happen that they will pay no attention at all. That's possible too. There will be more interest in the book in the West.

Rauf Mirkadirov

Our discussion in general can be reduced to the following: One side at least tried to state its understanding of certain trends within the current situation and within the development of the conflict. Naturally, none of us has made any claims about the ultimate truth, and it should not be ruled out that in all our judgments there was an element of subjectivity. In exchange, we often received responses to specific details of our statements, mostly pulled out of context and with a clear-cut accusatory bias. As a result, it was necessary to make historical excurses to try to explain that everything is not the way, or not absolutely the way, it was conceived by some of our Armenian colleagues. But everything, forgive me, to no purpose. And now during the fourth day of our discussion we again face unequivocal judgments that tolerate no objections.

Lena, read your message once again and try to figure out what you wanted to say and how it turned out. I have nothing more to add.

Laura, tolerance in general is determined not only by the behavior of a certain nation in a specific limited period of time. Most likely, on the contrary. Do you want some examples? Certainly! Yes, in Azerbaijan as against Armenia today they talk incessantly about the war more than they really do anything in particular. In Armenia , they talk about peace more. The reasons for this behavior are what I, anAzerbaijani blockhead, have tried to somehow explain. But is this a parameter of the tolerance of Armenians and the aggressiveness of Azerbaijanis as a whole? No and no again. Besides, I shall suggest that you turn to the statistical data on population census during even the last century. I would ask you to pay attention to the dynamics of the change in the ethnic structure of the population in the territory which today is referred to as modern Armenia . I advise to pay special attention to Yerevan . An interesting picture will open up before your eyes, I would say. I say this since it was you, Laura, I gather, who was offended by Arif Yunusov's statement about ethnic cleansing in Armenia . Arif will tell you how Armenia has turned into a mono-ethnic country with facts from sources not friendly to Azerbaijanis, and will even give these documents to you.

Yelena Kurdiyan

To Rauf Mirkadirov. I have carefully read and re-read your last message. And as you have advised I also carefully re-read everything I have written. And you know what, my impression is that while reading, you have been translating my messages into the language of your own already shaped stereotypes. Try once again to re-read what I wrote carefully, without bias- try to read my words, instead of the images which arise in connection with my words. I hope you will then understand me correctly. For according to the tone and contents of your last message you have understood the reverse.

Arif Yunusov. A few remarks.

To Elena Kurdiyan. You are very wrong in assuring us that in the modern world it not he who has tanks that is strong but he who has technology and advanced methods. It depends on what you mean. If you mean war, not always. Each of us has something Japanese at home and the Japanese are considered to be most advanced in the field of modern technology. But their army is very mediocre. And some time ago, the Vietnamese, who were greatly inferior to the Americans in these spheres, nevertheless won. I can give tons of examples like that. War has its own laws and everything is not always so simple. If you don't mean the military factor but something totally different, let's say, the standard of living and so forth then yes, we should aspire to this. But the main thing is, Lena , I can't quite understand why you brought up this subject at all? What do terms like "high technology and methods" have to do with our countries? What new technology in Armenia are we talking about? If perhaps I don't understand something or I don't have information, then explain it to me. Well, I remember a few factories and enterprises left from the times of the military-industrial complex of the USSR . But, to tell you the truth, they are good in comparison with similar enterprises in, let's say, Turkmenistan , Georgia , or Azerbaijan . A minor difference. But to compare them to Japan or the USA ?! Or should we recollect Armenicum ? And should I remember our factories and enterprises dealing with space communications in response. Is that what we should do? New technology is great, but let's come back down to this sinful earth and talk about real problems.

By the way, I have noticed the following: Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, during all meetings and conferences, and also during arguments among themselves, refer to victory in the war. I have always wanted to know what it means. Total victory in a particular battle? That's one thing. Or total victory over the opponent? And what does that mean? That Armenians will occupy Baku , will divide Azerbaijan in two (three, four, five, etc.) parts? Or that Azerbaijanis will occupy Stepanakert, and what after that? Shall we begin liberating " Western Azerbaijan ", i.e. Armenia ? All this smells of unconcealed irrationality and elementary rural boasting from both sides.

There will be no total victory since it is basically impossible today and also no one will allow it. They still can allow us to fight, but not to kill each other - no. Is that so hard to understand? And the passages about the Talish and other national minorities who are ready to rebel and that the Azerbaijanis will face a guerrilla war are absolutely ridiculous. It just reminds me of scenes from horror films.

Dear Karine, sometimes it is necessary not to take the words of your patients seriously and just to relax, as your colleague and my friend Azad often likes to do. Let's talk about things that we know better, instead of drawing a picture of the next Apocalypse according to the Azerbaijanis.

Yelena Kurdyan

Arif, perhaps I am naïve and I understand military science badly, but not so much as to completely dismiss the power of tanks. The fact that you cite Japan as an example is an illustration of what I have said. The world has changed unrecognizably in the last ten years and keeps changing at an increasing speed, and I think that the strategy of Japan better conforms to these processes. And that's all. I brought up the subject in response to the talk about the arms race, only to express my opinion: an arms race is not the most effective strategy in the modern world. That doesn't mean that I completely exclude the value of a well-armed army, but an army armed to the teeth is an unreasonable and inefficient expenditure.

It is much more efficient to invest in the development of high technologies and methods. When at the very beginning of our conversation you supported the idea about European integration, I thought we understood each other. But when you write, " Let's come back down to this sinful earth," I see that we don't really. No, I am not up in the clouds, but it is impossible to solve a complicated problem from within it. It is necessary to be able to rise above it, to try to understand it in its entirety, to find a solution not for the particulars but for the problem as a whole. What I have written is sketchy and simplified. Everything is, of course, more complex, but I've tried to convey the principle which leads me to understand (as you have so perfectly formulated) that "we are the children of the past who want to live in the present."

Laura Baghdasaryan. As the curtain falls.

Much still remains to be discusses, but I see that this material too can add to our research. True, not all the participants have answered the questions I put forward, preferring to react to the statements of their colleagues but perhaps that is because they considered these questions less important than their reactions.

On thing is clear to me: however tense the relations between our countries and peoples are, contacts between at least some of their representatives should always take place. Even if later it will be declared that these contacts were intellectual perversity. Rauf, I am grateful to you for your frankness. By the way, franker discussions take place at such Internet forums like this than in personal, live contact. Because, first, nobody interrupts anybody else and each word reaches the audience; secondly, it is possible to read and re-read statements by participants and to use the material later as well. But I won't bore you with a lecture on the advantages of Internet discussions. I am very much interested not only in this material but also in how it is going to be used hereafter.