RHETORICAL SUPPORT

- According to the media, the United States Congress has passed a law to avert Russian aggression which has granted Ukraine together with Moldova and Georgia major non-NATO ally status. It was also proposed that military co-operation with Azerbaijan should be enhanced. How would you comment on this? What kind of help can the US provide to Azerbaijan in this context?

- I would like to clear something up: the bill has been introduced into the Senate and then put to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Right now, its passage through the Senate looks unlikely, since the Democrats, who control the Senate, look unlikely to pass it. Moreover, it would effectively force President Obama's hand in terms of his Russia policy - something that he is unlikely to look at positively.

Nevertheless, even if this were to be passed, it would be more symbolic than substantive. Although it comes with some military benefits, such as greater access to certain military supplies, it does not mean that the USA will undertake any commitments to defend these countries. This step might exacerbate relations between these countries and Russia, but would not lend to these countries a greater ability to defend themselves or to substantially affect Russia's military thinking.

- How probable is it that the customarily strong Armenian lobby in Congress will create obstacles to this military cooperation? 

- Of course, the Armenian lobby is going to oppose anything that will promote better US-Azerbaijani relations. However, its influence in Washington as waned significantly ever since 9-11, when America's relationship with a secular, pro-Western ally took precedence over a domestic lobby that has been unable to connect their agenda to American security interests. This disconnect will continue to hamper the Armenian lobby.

- Is it in Azerbaijan's interests to get the status of US ally which the congressmen are offering Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova?

As long as Baku is willing to live with the consequences of this action. This would include irritating Russia without any substantial military benefit. The key thing to keep in mind is that the US is only committed to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of non-NATO allies in an abstract sense. However, the Russians are fully committed to maintaining their sphere of influence in the Caucasus. The U.S. is not going to come to the defence of Azerbaijan, should it get into a diplomatic or military conflict with Russia. Baku should always remember the lessons of 2008 in Georgia.

- On the whole what impact are the events in Ukraine likely to have on the Southern Caucasus?

- Particularly after the downing of the "Malaysian Airlines" aircraft, Europe has been put on notice that Putin's Russia is a malevolent force in Europe and cannot serve as a constructive one. This may have some impact on Europe's and America's reaction to Russia's evolving relationship with the Southern Caucasus. However, the lesson of what is going on in Ukraine should be very clear to the peoples of the former Soviet Union: the United States is not going to take any actions beyond the merely symbolic; as for Europe, its actions will be even less forceful.

- But can we count on the USA being more active in achieving a Nagornyy Karabakh settlement after the events in Ukraine? In general, how productive might that involvement be?

- No. As long as open fighting does not start again, the US will maintain its two-decade-old pattern of 'engagement' with the Nagornyy Karabakh frozen conflict: rhetorical support for a solution, including the continuation of the Minsk process, but no expenditure of political or diplomatic capital to move toward a settlement.

- So, what role do you see for the USA in the Southern Caucasus in the foreseeable future?

- The South Caucasus is, to put it simply, not a top-tier region of American interests. This has to be put in context. The Middle East has exploded with the current fighting between Israel and HAMAS and a terrorist organization (ISIS) which appears to be even more extreme than al-Qaeda and has taken over swathes of territory in both Syria and Iraq. This is in addition to the overall chaos in the Middle East. The situation in Europe is complicated by civil war in a country of 45 million people (Ukraine), which is also the second largest country in Europe. China is racking up its activity in East Asia, claiming huge areas of the South China Sea, and the new Japanese prime minister has adopted a more assertive foreign policy. America's attention and diplomatic capital are finite. Although this is contrary to the views of Baku, Tbilisi, and Yerevan, it is obvious that Washington does not regard this region as a priority.

- It would also be interesting to learnhow you view the future development US-Azerbaijan co-operation in view of the new US ambassador to Baku, who will, to all appearances, be Mr. Robert Cekuta?

Ultimately, I do not set too much store by any particular ambassador over another. In the end, the ambassador is taking his marching orders from the State Department and the White House. Thus, American interests, and not diplomatic personnel, will determine the depth and scope of US-Azerbaijani cooperation.