Thank you for the question.
To pick up on the last point made by the previous speaker, the OSCE did not send a fact-finding mission because the decision was poorly taken and without terms of reference.
The reason the Minsk Group has no chance, I'm sorry to say, is that its terms of reference have become obsolete. The Minsk Group's terms of reference were predicated upon the peaceful resolution of conflict, which has not come to pass. You are probably familiar with the six points in the so-called Madrid principles that were drafted in 2007 and revised in 2009. A reading of those six points shows that on their face they are obsolete. Either they have been accomplished or they have been overtaken by events. I think that's the way to say it. Also, if we look at the three co-chairs—Russia, France and the U.S.—none of them are interested in the Minsk Group anymore.
The U.S. Secretary of State just yesterday insisted that only direct bilateral contacts between the two parties was the way to proceed. France is not a neutral party due to very public proclamations by President Macron. For example, after the war broke out in the fall of 2020, he told his French co-citizens that France would not allow—this is almost a direct quote, because I wrote about it—Azerbaijan to reconquer upper Karabakh and that France will play its role to prevent this from taking place. That's a very close paraphrase, almost a direct quote. France is not trustworthy, and one can understand Azerbaijan's mistrust of France in this respect.
Finally, Russia doesn't want to give the U.S. or France a voice in things because they had been, until Charles Michel began his mediation or convocations in December 2021, which were very successful to a point.... Russia, following the November 2020 trilateral statement, was monopolizing the interactions between the two countries. None of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group have—