So-called autumn expectations have emerged in the Karabakh settlement – the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group brokering a solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh are again expected in the region this fall. And before that, in August, Yerevan will be visited by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who, as media write, could bring new proposals on the Karabakh settlement.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has also stated that he expects some progress in the Karabakh settlement until this fall. Turkey’s top diplomat said earlier this week that immediately after the settlement of the Karabakh problem it will become possible to proceed to the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. Notably, the Turkish Foreign Ministry openly requested that the local authorities in the country’s eastern areas bordering on Armenia, namely Kars and Igdir, submit an estimate for the possible opening of the border.

World leaders have largely backed Armenia’s position that its rapprochement with Turkey should proceed without preconditions. Yet, there seems to be a consensus that resolving other disputes in the South Caucasus will only help establish a more durable peace and stability in the region.

In one of the latest displays of such an approach, at a daily State Department press briefing on July 6, when asked whether U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the Armenian-Turkish relations in Azerbaijan in view of Baku’s reservations regarding the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement connected with the Karabakh conflict, acting Department Spokesman Mark Toner said that “the two [Armenian-Turkish normalization and Karabakh settlement] obviously aren’t mutually exclusive, but are mutually supportive.”

More active efforts of superpowers in the Karabakh settlement raises the question of whether Karabakh’s status quo will change. Expert from the Armenian Center for National and International Studies Manvel Sargsyan is convinced that the international component of the Karabakh conflict has changed and that one has to understand what to expect from such changes.

Armenian experts say that a swift settlement is not excluded. But it is still unclear according to what scheme it should be implemented. Azerbaijani President Ilham in his speech on July 6 talked about the return of areas around the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region and about a corridor between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Following such a statement, experts began to say that Aliyev appeared to have conceded the loss of Karabakh and sought to prepare his society for that.

“First of all, the occupying forces are withdrawn from all districts around Nagorno-Karabakh. Five districts are to be liberated immediately, two districts – Kelbadjar and Lachin – after a certain period. A road, i.e. a corridor will be functioning between Karabakh and Armenia. Peacekeeping forces should be deployed along the administrative border of Nagorno-Karabakh,” said Aliyev.

He said the issue of granting a provisional status to Nagorno-Karabakh was under discussion.

Armenia, meanwhile, insists on determining the final status for Karabakh as the first step of a peace agreement. And the statements of Aliyev, in which he puts the determination of the status last, bringing to the forefront the issue of territories and refugees, go against the position of the Armenian side. And that is why the Armenian Foreign Ministry speaks about an attempt to thwart negotiations by Baku.

“Trying to walk away from the agreements reached in St. Petersburg, Azerbaijani leaders make a show before their own people, replacing the substance of the negotiations and the agreements reached, including a possible five-partite meeting in about 10 days in Almaty, Kazakhstan,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Tigran Balayan.

Manvel Sargsyan noted that unlike the statement at the L’Aquila Summit of the Eight (2009, Italy), in their statement at the 2010 G8 summit in Canada, the U.S., Russia and France gave a rather vague wording of handing over the territories, without specifying to whom the ‘occupied territories’ should be returned.

“The absence of a recipient in this wording allow for different interpretations, for example, to whom they should be returned, or what territories these are, it can be Shahumian, part of Martakert and other territories now occupied by Azerbaijan,” he concluded.