There were lots of talks about the so called "reboot" of the US-Russian relations. Both countries have their own interests, concerning South Caucasus. How does this "reboot" process affect the conflicts in the region, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in particular?

Foreign experts express their opinions on the question above.

Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Research Professor S. Frederick Starr: The "reboot" is focusing on arms control, which may produce concrete results,the transport of certain goods across Russia (and also Latvia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) to Afghanistan; and on Iran, which is extremely unlikely to yield results because Russia has far less influence in Teheran than the Obama administration thinks. 

Beyond this the famous "reboot" is more Pakazukha than reality.  Under these circumstances, it would be especially inappropriate,  and in fact a moral disgrace, to hold progress in the Caucasus hostage to such a "reboot." t is always bad when large powers negotiate "over the heads" of smaller states.  This is a formula for ischief and for failure. There is no evidence to date that the "reboot" process has in any substantial way affected the Caucasus, or that it is likely to. This is so because the Russian government seems absolutely unwilling to change its behavior in either the South or North Caucasus as part of some "rebooting" proposed by Mr. Obama.

Professor of Political Science, Providence College (USA), Douglas Blum: Briefly, in my view the “reboot” process – which is quite limited – will have no significant effect on the region’s conflicts. Russia and the US will continue to compete for access to the region’s oil and gas resources, and they each have fundamentally different orientations toward international integration and globalization. With respect to Nagorno-Karabakh specifically, Turkey’s decisions regarding normalization with Armenia, ties with the EU, and energy partnership with Russia will be far more important than the “reboot” in US-Russian relations.

Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens, Rene Wadlow: It has taken 20 years to establish new, less automatically-hostile reactions between the US and Russia. 20 years in sociology is considered a generation, and it has taken a generation for those involved in the analysis of foreign policy to be replaced by a generation less marked by the Cold War. However, mind sets change slowly, and one generation passes on its forms of analysis to the upcoming generation of analysts. It would be a mistake for other States to wait for Russian-US initiatives.  On issues such as Nagorno-Karabakh or the energy routes, initiatives have to come from the States most directly concerned and especially from their civil societies which can take initiatives more quickly than governments.

Political observer, U.S. Bureau Chief of “Business People” magazine in Washington, Yuri Sigov: I don’t think that the positions of Russia and the United States in the Caucasus in some way for the foreseeable future may be closer, because, in concept, they are diametrically opposed. For Russia, South Caucasus – is a zone of important “abdominal interests”, which primarily is dependent on maintaining its military (Armenia) and the strong energy (Azerbaijan) presence. Moreover, Russia still has very bad relations with Georgia, and they are unlikely to improve in the near future.

The United States in this region have a desire to ensure problem-free reception of energy from both Azerbaijan and transiting through Central Asia, and not to allow Russia to regain its influence on Georgia. There are no "special interests" in the CIS for Russia, the United States does not recognize and will never accept. But on Nagorno-Karabakh situation - both sides could very well find a concrete solution, and move forward. But an exact plan is still needed, a specific version of a compromise between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which Russia and the US could have to push for, of course, with the good will of Baku and Yerevan.

T. Teymur
Day.Az