Wednesday, June 29 2016 06:33

Do you expect voicing of definite answers to the questions and challenges posed by Russia to some of the Alliance member states during the NATO Summit 2016?

 

NATO Article 5 states that threat to “some of the alliance member states” is the threat to all of the members, therefore, I think Warsaw Summit will give definite political and military answers to the Russia’s attempted aggressive revisionism. Baltic States and Poland as well as all the other NATO member countries are covered by NATO Article 5 – therefore any measures of collective defense or deterrence should be reflected on member countries based on joint defense planning.

Do you think Russia can be a real support for NATO in the fight against international terrorism? What can appear promising and stimulate NATO’s interest in Russia under the current circumstances?

International terrorist organizations are challenging the key values and principles of the free world. These values represent the foundation of NATO as well. Russia’s current regime is violating all of these principles and questions the values of the free world domestically as well as internationally – applying the same terrorist methods. Therefore I do not think that Russia is intended or capable of positively contributing in the fight against international terrorism.

Describe NATO's current policy towards the South Caucasus. Do you think we should expect a change of its vectors towards one or another country of South Caucasus?  What NATO perspectives do these countries have?

I do not think that in geopolitical dimension South Caucasus is qualifying as the region (though it has the potential for it), due to many national discrepancies, therefore it is impossible for NATO or any of the Allies having common policy.

 

I would argue that for NATO South Caucasus is the geographic overlap of two geopolitically important regions: Black Se region and Caspian Region.

 

Concerning one particular country of South Caucasus – Georgia, I think Georgia has clear perspective of NATO membership – the question is not “if” but “when”.

As historical experience shows, NATO enlargement in any region has ONLY brought peace, more security, more stability and more economic prosperity. After the Russian war against Georgia and Ukraine, as well as hybrid challenges posed by Russian revisionism to European security, Black Sea region has indeed become strategically very important issue in the NATO agenda and I would expect major decisions in this regard at the Warsaw Summit.

 

 

What factors hinder NATO from strengthening its presence in the South Caucasus? Do you think there are any effective alternatives to Russian security system for Armenia?

 

NATO is strengthening its presence in the countries with clearly expressed political will for it. As NATO SG mentioned policy towards Georgia is “more NATO in Georgia and more Georgia in NATO”.

 

Regarding the alternatives for Armenia, I think in the long term perspective, Armenia needs much wider space for defense and security policy choices and as in every democracy these choices should be reinforced by strong public opinion. NATO has no plans to attack or violate air space of Armenia therefore abovementioned joint air defense arrangement impossible to consider as the measure against NATO unless parties (Armenia or Russia) will declare so. 

 

All existing or future Russia led formats, organizations, security arrangements will fail because they are not based on common values of freedom of choice, universal human rights and principles of democracy, international law and transparency.