The Russian ideologist, philosopher Alexander Dugin told the Armenian media that the next proposal on Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, in particular, the existence of an agreement on the liberation of the five regions, as well as the idea that Iran-Turkey-Russia format will be successful as a mediator.

The solution model of Dugin, as well as the expressions used in the presentation of this format, were not unambiguous. The Russian ideologist justifies this format with Turkey's national factor, Armenia's connection with Iran's "historical roots", and that Russia will remain neutral in solving this conflict.

Famous Russian historian and political analyst Oleg Kuznetsov give an interview to Axar.az about the solution of Dugin.

- How do you think if Armenia is really connected Iran with "historical roots"?

- As for the introduction of the format, I can say that each specialist belongs to a certain academic school, which is based on the common interpretation of popular historical facts, which is related to their educational and scientific career. For example, according to Russian orientalism associate Iran and Armenia with "historical roots", but from a scientific point of view, this is not unambiguous. The British theories about the area are contrary to this position.Modern Iranian politicians see Armenian lands as their own land, claiming that the Iravan Khanate was under Persian rule until 1828. But this claim is not the basis for commitment to historical roots.In other words, these "historic traditions" referenced in the presentation of the format cannot be applied in modern conditions, generally governed by transnational monopolies around the world.

The visual example of this is the existing Russian-Ukrainian relations: twenty years ago the generality of linguistic and religious traditions was in the interests of transnational corporations and nobody could imagine that there would be a sharp contradiction between two ethnic and religious communities. I do not think that in the modern world, some states are more important than the state interests of sovereign states. Therefore I say with certainty that no historical source is above the geopolitical interests of different countries. Iran has interests in relations with Armenia.

- So, what is your approach to the solution of the conflict through Russia-Turkey-Iran mediation?

Very positive. I talked about it six months ago at an international conference in Brussels, and I repeated this idea repeatedly in various publications. Personally, I think that regional leaders should resolve regional problems, not some foreign "peacekeepers" who are driving the resolution into conflict. It is not a secret that Nagorno-Karabakh is regarded as an independent territory under Article 907 of the US National Law on Freedom Support, calling it Azerbaijan an aggressor and considering Armenia a victim of aggression.Will the US then become an impartial mediator in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Of course not. The United States seeks to extend the conflict to the extent possible. Because at that time it provides the military and political presence in that region. This contradicts the interests of all South Caucasus countries, except Armenia. Therefore, I am convinced that peace in the region will be settled through Russia, Turkey and Iran if the United States and France are removed.

- Dugin tried to argue that Russia would abstain in the mentioned format. Russia is Armenia's strategic ally, grants it free military equipment, and provides economic and political assistance. Do you believe that Russia will take an impartial position when we take these into account?

-Being neutral in any armed conflict - is a very relative concept. Take the example of the Second World War: Sweden has declared itself impartial, but it was the main supplier of strategic products, such as iron ore for fascist Germany. Turkey was not involved in this war, but in the reality, it was a springboard for Hitler's special services. The regional conflicts of the last half-century create a similar picture for us. Let's remember the war between the two socialist states - China and Vietnam, which protected the neutrality of the USSR in the early 1970s. The USSR was neutral, but sympathy for Vyetnama was felt. Here's what I consider more important than what I have to say: Neutrality can be in many forms, so it's important to know exactly where the conversation goes. If Azerbaijan is concerned about the restoration of territorial integrity, Russia will never interfere in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but I am convinced that Armenia will be closer to Russia than it does in Azerbaijan.