The initial author of the title for this op-ed was not me, of course. I am not an optimist unfortunately. But the author is honorable Mr. Matthew Bryza, who seemed to be paying his farewell visit to Yerevan, Armenia. After being received by the President Serzh Sargsyan, PM Tigran Sargsyan and former President Levon Ter-Petrossian, the outgoing U.S. mediator of OSCE Minsk Group had a long-awaited meeting with Armenian youth in a small resort city of Tsaghkadzor, 60km away from Yerevan.

At least as it seemed to me, the meeting was far beyond being a goodwill gesture from an American diplomat towards Armenian civil society. Mr. Bryza unveiled a lot of details concerning the current round of negotiations which, as he told, was outlined and partly agreed during Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents meetings in Zurich, Prague and Moscow this year. As always, American mediator was quite optimistic about the outcome of the ongoing process and expressed a hope for a "breakthrough" in the nearest future. As usual, Mr. Bryza's appearance to the people raised many questions rather than answered them.

RFE/Radio Liberty was very helpful to refresh my mind and to cite the right words by Mr. Bryza. For example, in Armenian oppositional press and media analysis after the Moscow meeting in July very large number of articles popped-up insisting that indeed the Presidents signed some kind of agreement in Moscow and the co-Chairs' meeting in Krakow was to prepare the "Big Deal". Matt Bryza commented on this in a very questionable manner: "There was no formal agreement [at Moscow], but they are very close". And later he concluded that "we will be at the point of this agreement on the last few elements of the basic principles that remain not yet agreed" in late September when co-Chair will be visiting the region to prepare for the Presidents' next meeting. By the way, he also noted that in the last meeting in Moscow after a face-to-face discussion the Presidents told the mediators to "update" the Madrid document. But most importantly, the "updated version" of the peace plan which, in essence, has minor and cosmetic changes and keeps on respecting the Karabakh Armenians’ right to legitimize their independence from Azerbaijan in a future referendum, being "a legally binding expression of will". "What I can not tell you today is when the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh will be determined through a vote", Mr. Bryza said. "But you did not hear me say that Nagorno-Karabakh will be returned to Azerbaijan".

And here comes probably the most interesting question. Having no other reliable source of information we "unfortunately need to trust Mr. Bryza" as he put it himself. Now, as he proposes, "legally binding expression of will", that is a key point in the unveiled Madrid principles, is about a referendum which will be held "in accordance with the last USSR population census" (1989), 75 % of Armenians and 23 % of Azerbaijanis resided in Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region. And Mr. Bryza joked that they cannot hold the referendum today as the outcome is obvious when nearly 100% of residents are Armenians. But the most interesting point is that minimal knowledge of arithmetic would let us realize that no real difference between 100-0 and 75-23 in this case. Anyhow, the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh independence will be reached if we follow this logic. "The interim status will be determined now and the final legal status will be determined by the people of Karabakh", concludes Mr. Bryza.

And here we reach the point. In recent times the mediators have begun to speak about peacekeepers more and more often. I suggest that the dislocation of a peacekeeping mission in Nagonro Karabakh is the hidden agenda of the OSCE Minsk group. It is more than evident that having peacekeepers under command will be much easier to secure real influence upon the parties and, most importantly, have the hydrocarbon pipelines safer and operate reliably. And let's not forget, that Iran is also not very far from there. The institutional problem to make this come true lies within OSCE - the only organization that has the mandate for this conflict. The tools under OSCE are very few. It has police-related activities that are limited to police education and training, community policing and administrative and structural reforms. For Nagorno Karabakh this feature is still of no need. And the other tools are conflict prevention activities which are maintained under OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. But Mr. Bryza hints that the peacekeepers will be unarmed and this is an additional headache for Armenians as far as it is obvious that the military build-up in Azerbaijan has reached the level that after any peace accord they simply cannot disappear from the conflict zone in a moment. Instead of this, however simultaneously, EU must be urged to start confidence-building measures among the parties, for example, within the frameworks of Eastern Partnership. The sad truth is that the hostility between Armenians and Azerbaijanis reached a level of no return. And the authorities are promoting the "enemy image" by everyday statements. Taking this into account, I have a concept for this to present.

Democratic dimension of Nagorno Karabakh conflict is yet not well explored and quite underestimated issue. Observing the dynamics of the negotiations and frequently announced but failed "breakthroughs" one can assume that the never-ending "cold war" is in favor of governments. Cutting the long story short, the conflict and the idea of Nagorno Karabakh itself is an invaluable gift to incumbent regimes to seek permanent re-elections in quite democratic way. Then, why to risk? To prove the right of this opinion for existence, we can recall that the major chops and changes in the negotiations have been taking place right after general elections: OSCE Lisbon statement dated back to 1996 is a clear example. In short, as long as authoritarian tendencies in Yerevan and Baku continue to develop, the conflict will be essential to enable the legitimate re-election of regimes. The mediators would rather have to deal with the current governments, make them more democratic and that will transform the conflict much easier than other measures. In the end, over time, democratic means of governance proved to be a stabilizing force. Democracy provides nonviolent means for resolving disputes.

And I had an unasked question to Mr. Bryza which seems to be very crucial nowadays: "What does he feel being a top-ranked diplomat in the world whose statements are misquoted, misinterpreted and misunderstood most often of all"?