- Mr. Nalbandian, recently there have been quite a few statements made on the domination of the principles of territorial integrity of states. What will your comment be?

- A few days ago, I enumerated the principles of Helsinki Final Act, basing on which the talks on peace settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are held.

If one of the negotiation sides presents only the principles, which is beneficial for itself, pretending that the two other principles do not exist, this seriously hinders the negotiation process. And the countries, which yield to Azerbaijan’s provocations, not only avoid assisting the negotiation progress, but they also endanger it.

- Do you think this is done deliberately?

- Irrespective of whether this is done deliberately or not, in any case, it seriously hinders the negotiation process. No one should doubt that the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh is possible only through recognition of the right of Artsakhi people for self-determination.

- Azerbaijan, meanwhile, argues that the realization of the right for self-determination is possible only within the framework of territorial integrity.

- Let me give a simple example. In 1950s, there were about 8 dozens of internationally recognized states in the world, and now 192 countries are members of the UN, most part of which gained independence by means of realization of the right for self-determination.

- From time to time, the Azerbaijani officials make statements, which contradict your words.

- Those certain officials become similar to the dummy participants of auctions, which try to raise the price by shouting. However, during diplomatic talks, the trade tricks, used in markets, do not give results.

- They more and more often talk in Azerbaijan about the might of their state, which allegedly will allow solving the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh to the benefit of Baku.

- You are right… Allegedly. It is clear that the gains from sale of oil and gas became a reason for certain giddiness, which caused the illusion of omnipotence. The same motives guided Azerbaijan in 1991 as well, when it launched a war in Nagorno-Karabakh. The consequences are well-known.

- There is an opinion that the Armenian Foreign Ministry does not always react to contoversial statements.

- Diplomacy is like an iceberg - only the small part of it is visible, and the most part, which is hidden, is the real work. I do not think that each occasion requires a public reaction.