The inability and most likely unwillingness of "Minsk Group" to actively participate in the conflict settlement, to point out who is the aggressor in this conflict, and who is the victim, forces to look for other formats of mediation. 

Even the composition of the "Minsk Group", which in Azerbaijan is sometimes referred to as "touring artists", is a source of annoyance and distrust. France in the Azerbaijani society has always been perceived as a close ally of Armenia and the country not very friendly to Turkey and Azerbaijan. Indulging Armenian terrorism, the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide", an absurd attempt to adopt a law on criminalization of the Armenian Genocide, and other unfriendly steps firmly entrenched pro-Armenian image of France in Azerbaijan.

Throughout the conflict, Russia supported Armenia, and therefore its occupation policy, in a number of issues including military. Currently, Armenia is entirely dependent on the will of the Kremlin in political, economic and military terms, including the Karabakh issue.  Today, Armenia is a de facto colony of Russia or, as the Russian politicians like to call it, "Russia's outpost". Finally, the third co-chair, the United States of America, naturally also have their own interests in the region, which do not always coincide with the interests of Azerbaijan. But in comparison with France and Russia, Washington is more civilized and can be more objective.  

Considering a negligent composition of "Minsk Group", it would be highly naive to believe that the co-chairs can achieve significant progress in the peace settlement. Regular trips, ridiculous statements have become the hallmark of periodically changing co-chairs. 

Not only that the co-chairs cannot take any actions themselves, they have recently increased the degree of destructiveness in their activities. 
It is about a destructive and anti-Azerbaijani statement of the co-chairs that they made the other day. The last statement of the co-chairs concerns the two reports that will be discussed at the Winter Session (from 26 January) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 

It is a report of the British MP Robert Walter "The escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan" and the report of a Bosnian MP Milica Marković “Inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water." Both reports contain information, publicity of which is not favorable to the Armenian side, as it clearly demonstrates the fact of occupation of Azerbaijani territories, as well as the facts of ecological terrorism by Armenia against the Azerbaijani population. In this regard, in order to prevent the adoption of the documents reflecting the real situation, the Armenian side used its government and diplomatic resources, as well as the resources of the Armenian Diaspora. Apparently, the co-chairs are the last trump card, a kind of "heavy artillery" of the Armenian side. They declared that "OSCE Minsk Group remains the only acceptable format for negotiations".  That is, the co-chairs, on the one hand, are trying to monopolize the negotiation process, and on the other hand, are trying to blackmail the PACE. This is beyond the scope of diplomatic ethics. I think, by this statement the co-chairs ripped off their masks. 

 On this basis, it can be concluded that the format of the OSCE Minsk Group has completely exhausted itself. Azerbaijan should either change the format, achieving  A) Either increasing the number of co-chairs, with including Turkey as an ally of Azerbaijan and the UK as a major and adequate European power and mandatory exclusion of France or B) Either the full rejection of OSCE and the format of co-chairmanship and return of the Karabakh conflict under the aegis of the UN. 

One thing is clear; it cannot continue like this, the co-hairs/touring artists cannot even hide their sympathy and antipathy; how they can help to resolve the conflict? Their real task is the protraction of the status quo, and torpedoing of any external peace initiatives. 

Ali Hajizade, political analyst, head of the project “The Great Middle East”