The joint statement by Russia, France and the United States calling on the conflicting parties to immediately cease fire in Nagorno-Karabakh was the first such document signed by the leaders of the three powers over the past seven years.
The last time the presidents in this composition expressed their solidarity, they signed a common communiqué back in 2013 - following the G8 summit.
Then it was about Syria.
The fact that the interests of the three countries converged again after such a long pause is an extraordinary event.
Its reason is in the position of Turkey, which is actively trying to change the balance of power in the region and in the world as a whole.
By the way, shortly before the promulgation of the statements of Putin, Macron and Trump, Erdogan, apparently knowing the essence of the document, tried to disavow its content on the fly, rejecting the very idea of peace, which is extremely unusual for a public politician.
“It is unacceptable that now the Minsk Group is demanding a ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh.
They must demand that Armenia first withdraw from the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh, ”the Turkish president said.
Even if someone is interested in keeping the theater of war warm, he will not talk about it publicly.
These are the rules of modern diplomatic etiquette.
However, Moscow has its own levers of influence over Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The OSCE Minsk platform, where negotiations on the Karabakh crisis are held, suits the Kremlin quite well.
To give the leading role to other players in the peace process bypassing, or even minus Minsk (whereas now it is Russia that is the main guarantor of security in the region), would mean voluntarily giving up the existing political resource - and not only - the resource of Russian influence on the situation in Transcaucasia.
Why did Russia, France and the United States make a joint appeal for peace?
With Russia, everything is clear, Paris's relations with Ankara are ruined because of Libya, where they support different sides of the conflict.
As for Washington, it has many reasons to be dissatisfied with Turkey - from the purchase of Russian weapons to Erdogan's unwillingness to be content with the secondary role of a conductor of American interests.
Russia, Europe and the United States are not interested in trying to construct a new negotiating format, similar to the "Astana triangle", within the framework of which negotiations on Syria took place.
Therefore, the joint statement of the leaders of the three powers can be seen as the implementation of a well-thought-out political line aimed at achieving an end to hostilities and bringing the OSCE Minsk site back to life, activating Moscow's mediating role.
In fact, this is the only line of the Kremlin that can be today.
And support from Paris and Washington does not seem superfluous in this case.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.