Mr. President, taking into account the frequency and periodicity of your visits, do you notice changes each time you visit Karabakh? What is your esteem of force performance?

These visits aim at familiarization with progress at the operational site and military units, as well as course of problems’ solution that occur in army’s daily routine or were assigned during my previous visits. I can hardly imagine someone speaking of force performance, fighting spirit and moral-psychological environment simply pacing up and down the office. I consider these visits crucial. Present visit differs from previous ones also by the fact, that followed an unexpected monitoring in one of the units conducted by main military inspection. It showed that the unit is combat-capable, its elements perfectly know their job. Some elements highly assessed, however there were those getting opposite esteems.

It proves that we have trained soldiers, educated officers and our army is efficient. I think that our armed forces undergo the development stage. They are established and indeed we have battle-worthy army unlike other regional countries that have just groups of armed people, things that utterly diverse. The current state of military units, their armament, high morale and the feel of moral-psychological atmosphere enable to definitely state that our armed forces, particularly in this sector are ready to fulfill tasks they are assigned. I visit the units once every few months, but changes occur each day, each month and this certainly pleases me.

Mr. President, the other day Azerbaijani President stated that the agreement on return of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh was reached. He asserted that these arrangements had been achieved years ago and accused Armenia of protracting the negotiation process. How will you comment on this?

I have already commented on the matter and have nothing to add. I just wish to restate that we take the negotiation process seriously and with all responsibility. There is no more interested party in the process than Karabakh and than Karabakhi people. Specifically, Nagorno-Karabakh wishes to have this issue settled as soon as possible. I am confident that there are sensible solutions, that can be found only in case if the negotiators take the situation rationally and their expectations are realistic. We are seeking for long term decisions that can bring to lasting peace. I do not consider it makes sense to make conclusions and decisions that might be acceptable for some time, but can not provide lasting peace. Certainly, in any talks, each party wishes to benefit maximally, but I cannot understand the side that is seeking to get everything, guided by the “All to me” principle. Under these circumstances, the talks can become unpleasant for this side and the results — unsatisfying. But that’s not our fault.

We live in the 21st century when it is impossible to conceal a lot. The situation is seen to many, not only to us and negotiators. As soon as our negotiating partners come to the conclusion that it is necessary to reach logical solution, the decision can be found easily. Whenever they consider the issue from a realistic standpoint and would like to tackle it, except for voicing the declarations, the problem will be solved. One can definitely express discontent and boast after the talks, but it does not contribute somehow to the approximation of the final decision. On the contrary, it prevents the negotiation process and exacerbates distrust.