The 16 soon to be 19 allies really do see their vocation mostly in providing security for the center of Europe, now that's not just the old countries that belong to NATO, its also into the heartland and also including Russia, but there really is virtually no support for an active NATO role in providing security, as far east as the trans-caucuses.

Well I don't think the United States has ever wanted NATO to have security guarantees for the trans-caucuses. I don't think the United States has ever wanted NATO to extend security guarantees to the trans-caucuses it is simply too far and you would never get a consensus to do it. Now that doesn't mean that this area is unimportant, in fact all three of these countries belong to Partnership for Peace, which has a lot to do with the transformation of their militaries, demonstration of their independence, the opportunity for crisis management and even conflict resolution in the region, but to bring them within the actual protective umbrella of NATO, this is not an American aspiration or a NATO aspiration. At the same time if there were conflict there that were threatening oil supplies or really did threaten to become something even wider, the United States and perhaps for the coalition of other willing allies might have to consider active engagement.

Well to begin with there really isn't any threat to the oil supplies at he moment except if there was a resurgence of the fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and there is an interest there on humanitarian and political and every kind of ground to try to keep that or from restarting and to try to resolve the conflict of Nagorakarobak. But frankly I think at this point the question of having to use military force in the Caspian is simply moot.

Well, as Ambassador to NATO in Azerbaijan when the request was made that NATO actually taken active role in protecting pipelines. This is not something the alliance as a whole is likely to do, except in terms of providing advice, perhaps individual countries would be willing to help provide some support for efforts by any country in the region that is trying to protect a national asset, or in fact an asset that has bordered international implications like Anora pipeline. But I don't think you are going to see NATO as a whole doing this.

Well obviously there has been no direct request for assistance, no plan has been has been drawn up, no understanding on what the threat might be. But indeed I suspect the United States and other countries concerned with the free flow of oil would be available to provide at least advise if not support in insuring pipeline security.

Well actually NATO knows a lot about energy pipelines, not so much about providing the security but how about to manage them economically because it does have its own extensive pipeline system with a number of countries that belong to it but that is mostly an economic and logistics management question, it is not a security question.