Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

14381. The Russian Northern Fleet – Extended Status and Geopolitical Ambitions

Author:
Giorgi Surmava
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
On December 21, 2020, by Decree #803 of the President of the Russian Federation, the Northern Fleet became the only one throughout the history of Russia to have the authority of a military district. In particular, the decree states that in order to ensure the integrity and inviolability of the territory of the Russian Federation, the Northern Fleet should be considered a strategic-territorial interdisciplinary union of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation which has the tasks of a military district. The Northern Fleet is responsible for the largest territorial zone of Russia. This territory is mostly an ice desert which has strategic importance for Russia. It runs along the North Sea Route which is 7,300 nautical miles from Yokohama to Rotterdam (11,200 nautical miles through the Indian Ocean). In addition, this territory contains a large supply of hydrocarbons and other mineral or marine resources. The shorter lines between the US and Russian strategic missiles and their intended targets also pass through this area.
Topic:
Natural Resources, Military Affairs, Geopolitics, and Navy
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and Georgia

14382. On Total Defense

Author:
Giorgi Surmava
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Recently, the world has faced new threats and challenges which have revitalized "total defense," somewhat forgotten after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Socialist bloc. Russia's military activities (in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria) and other challenges have made some states rethink this concept and total defense has once again become a topical issue. In general, in its essence, total defense is not a novelty - the Great Patriotic War waged by the Soviet Union was an example of mobilizing all of the available resources of the state to win the war. However, the challenges, threats and conceptual approaches of the Cold War period and, especially, of the first decade of this century significantly differ from that of the previous ones. During the Cold War, European countries, especially northern states, gained some experience in total defense and developed new approaches to this concept. Their experience was shared by the Baltic countries which later developed their own methods. Recently, due to the current situation, the issue of a comprehensive approach to security has become topical in Northern Europe; it is based on the doctrine of total defense developed during the Cold War and combines military and non-military components of national security. A multifaceted approach to security is a way to maintain the resilience of the state and society in the event of external pressure and war. It also implies the provision of the best possible environment for the operation of the armed forces. Along with the traditional approach, this involves creating additional capabilities to respond to threats that were hard to perceive in the past (e.g., cyber threats).
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, History, Crisis Management, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:
Europe, Eurasia, Georgia, and Singapore

14383. The Harmonization of Russian and Abkhazian legislations and Its Significance for the Abkhazian Society and Official Tbilisi

Author:
Aleksandre Kvakhadze
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
On November 25, 2020, a document titled "Plan of measures for the formation of a common socio-economic space between the Russian Federation and Abkhazia" was published on the government websites of the Russian Federation and internet resources belonging to the unrecognized Abkhazia. The document was signed by Aslan Bzhania, the de facto president of Abkhazia, Alexander Ankvab, the prime minister, and Dimitri Kozak, the deputy head of the Russian presidential administration. The document consists of 45 paragraphs and covers issues such as customs and tax legislation, energy, healthcare, education, social security, economy and real estate. Alongside every paragraph in the document, the relevant responsible agency and the estimated years of its implementation is indicated. Most of the agreement provisions entail the harmonization of the legislations of Russia and Abkhazia. This document is a logical continuation of the recognition of Abkhazia's sovereignty by Russia in 2008, and the subsequent agreements. Notable among these agreements is the 2014 "Alliance and Integration Agreement", which, among many other clauses, includes the transfer of command of Abkhazia's de facto armed forces to the Russian General Staff. The aforementioned document was met with mixed assessment in Abkhazian political circles and media. Inal Khashig, a journalist and editor-in-chief of the “Chegemskaya Pravda” newspaper, positively assesses the prospect of an increase in pensions and budget salaries under the agreement, but is wary of a number of points in the document.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Government, Governance, Legislation, and Society
Political Geography:
Russia, Caucasus, Georgia, and Abkhazia

14384. Security Review: Black Sea Security

Author:
Giorgi Surmava, Zurab Batiashvili, David Batashvili, and Nika Petriashvili
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The following anthology is dedicated to the Black Sea security situation, an issue that drew particularly focused attention following the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia, when the Kremlin began rapid militarization of the peninsula, while also strengthening its military capabilities in the entire Black Sea basin. The Russian-Ukrainian War was soon followed by the active intervention of Russia in the Syrian conflict, further emphasizing the importance of the Black Sea, as it was precisely through the Black Sea that Russia aided hostilities in Syria and established communication lines with a Russian naval base there. Russia's active engagement in the Black Sea precipitated increased NATO interest towards the region. In recent years, NATO experts have been actively discussing the so-called "Black Sea dimension", that is, the need to develop a new strategy for the region which reflects the improved capabilities of NATO and its individual member states in the Black Sea, forging closer ties with local partners, increasing visits of naval vessels to the Sea, and resisting Russian military domination in general. The exacerbation of the situation in the Black Sea is a significant challenge for Turkey, in particular. The Montreux Convention grants Turkey a special role, which it is trying to maintain, and yet the Russian aggressive policy in the region cannot but trouble it. What role can Georgia play in this situation? What challenges or opportunities does the return of the Black Sea to the strategic map of the world bring for Georgia? This anthology presents the views of four experts from the Rondeli Foundation: General Giorgi Surmava reviews the military capabilities of the Black Sea countries; the Turkish perspective is introduced by Zurab Batiashvili; David Batashvili discusses the Russian point of view; while Alex Petriashvili deliberates the Western approach and the role of Georgia.
Topic:
Security, Military Affairs, Conflict, and Annexation
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Ukraine, Crimea, and Black Sea

14385. Security Review: Russia-Ukraine Confrontation

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili, Zurab Batiashvili, Nika Petriashvili, and Giorgi Surmava
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
After the occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014, the epicenter of hostilities shifted to eastern Ukraine, specifically to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Russian-speaking population was not loyal to Kyiv even before that but the events in Crimea and the Russian assistance invigorated the local separatists who, along with adventurers backed by the regular Russian troops, managed to gain control over parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The fighting turned out to be quite bloody and long lasting. There were large casualties on both sides, including civilians. Coupled with a high-profile incident of the downing of a passenger plane, it caused a wide international reverberation and world interest in resolving the conflict. The efforts of the leading OSCE countries had led to a certain agreement and the cessation of intense hostilities by September 2014. A quadripartite agreement (Germany, France, Russia, Ukraine) was achieved on the separation of the parties and a ceasefire. The line of contact was divided into sectors and precincts where a group of OSCE military observers began to monitor the “silence” regime. Since then, the intensity and scale of the hostilities have been significantly reduced. However, every now and then the situation would worsen which was followed by a new agreement on a ceasefire and the establishment of a “silence” regime. It should be noted that since March 2021, the number of incidents has increased dramatically. At the same time, regular Russian troops began to gather along Ukraine's eastern borders and Crimea.
Topic:
International Relations, National Security, Military Affairs, Conflict, Separatism, and Annexation
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Crimea

14386. After the Karabakh War: Key Issues of Politics and Security

Author:
Aleksandre Kvakhadze
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
As a result of the 40-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan established control over certain areas of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and seven adjacent districts. In particular, after this war, the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan fully extends to the districts of Jabrail, Fizuli, Zangilan, Qubadli, Aghdam, and Kalbajar, while control over the Lachin district is only partial, excluding the highway connecting Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the so called Lachin corridor. Azerbaijan also controls most of the Hadrut and Shusha districts, and a small part of the Martuni and Askeran districts. According to the ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani cargo will be able to enter Nakhchivan through the Armenian territory, while Armenia will be supplied from Russia via Azerbaijan. After the end of hostilities between the parties, the processes in the region continue to develop dynamically. Tensions have been mounting along the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border since May 2021, in particular in the vicinity of the Black Lake. In the following publication, we review the new political status-quo in the region and the Azerbaijani initiatives in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Topic:
Security, Politics, Treaties and Agreements, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

14387. On the New National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
On June 2, 2021, the new National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation was approved. It is a guiding document for Russia's security policy planning process; however, as a public document, it also has a significant political implication as it is saturated with political messages reflecting Russia's position on various important issues. Russia's new National Security Strategy is the fifth such document. The first document, which was approved as early as in 1997 by then President of Russia, B. Yeltsin, was called the Concept of National Security. At the beginning of 2000, the decree on the amendments to this document was signed by V. Putin who, at the time, was only the acting president of the Russian Federation. Afterwards, at a meeting of the Russian State Council in September 2008, then President, D. Medvedev, declared the need to develop a new strategy. It should be noted that this session was officially dedicated to the "conflict in South Ossetia." As a result, the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, which was supposed to be active up until 2020, was approved in May 2009; however, this strategy did not last as far as 2020 - in late 2015, it was replaced by a new national security strategy developed by Russia after the annexation of Crimea and the armed aggression in eastern Ukraine. These events created a whole new reality which also strained relations between Russia and the West, eventually reflected in the strict tone towards the West in the 2015 National Security Strategy. As for the National Security Strategy, it was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Law on Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation adopted in 2014. According to this law, the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation must be adjusted every six years. A new National Security Strategy was developed and approved on July 2, 2021, precisely in line with the requirement of this six-year period of the law.
Topic:
International Relations, National Security, and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Georgia, Crimea, and Russian Federation

14388. Afghanistan – Opportunities and Challenges for the Russian Federation

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Lately, the discussions about a possible weakening of US influence in international politics has become more frequent. Parallel to this, there is talk about the activation of Russia and, especially, China in this regard with their influence growing on the international stage. The increasing confrontation between these two countries and the United States has also become one of the most pressing matters. Given all of this, it is now stated more frequently that the world order is changing and a new multi-polar international system is being formed which will be followed by the redistribution of the spheres of influence in the world, leading to increased roles played by China and Russia. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan is considered to be a development of such importance that it could influence the aforementioned international processes and, therefore, commands special attention in that regard as well. Apart from this, the political and security situation in Afghanistan concerns a multitude of states which includes the great powers of the region such as India, China, Russia, Iran and Turkey that play important roles regionally or globally. The interests of these countries, including with regard to Afghanistan, converge in certain cases while diverging in others. At the moment, it is largely unclear how the relations of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan created by the Taliban may develop with its neighbors. Experts assess the prospects of Afghan-Indian and Afghan-Iranian relations especially unfavorably. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan’s leadership is also important in terms of international security. In this regard, the main cause of concern is the threat of the activation of international terrorism. All of the things mentioned above comprise an incomplete list of the important aspects of the current situation in Afghanistan which, as a whole, create a complex and multi-dimensional picture. For Russia, therefore, Afghanistan also does not have a single dimension. It is, on the one hand, a certain opportunity for the Russian Federation in order for it to bolster influence on the international arena. At the same time, however, the threats that have increased in Afghanistan given the new realities naturally cannot stay outside of Moscow’s attention.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Conflict, and International System
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, South Asia, United States of America, and Russian Federation

14389. US Foreign Policy Challenges and Achievements in the First 8 Months of Joseph Biden's Presidency

Author:
Nika Petriashvili
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
September 20 will mark exactly eight months since Joseph Biden took over the presidency of the United States. The purpose of our review is to assess the activities of his administration in the international political arena, which obviously cannot be understood in isolation from the ongoing processes within the country and the decisions made in domestic politics. When assessing the steps taken by President Biden and his administration in international relations, we must first look at the legacy he inherited from the previous president and his administration. This will be one of the primary elements based upon which we will assess the performance of the 46th President of the United States and his administration. To put it very modestly, the situation that Joseph Biden faced inside the country and abroad after Donald Trump was really not simple: A polarized society within the United States and a complicated relationship with international partners. Naturally, all this was further complicated by the very difficult epidemiological state in the country precipitated by the pandemic, and the significantly deteriorating socio-economic situation. Clearly, the citizens of the United States expected the Joseph Biden administration, first and foremost, to deal quickly and effectively with the major domestic challenges. Tensions reached a peak in American society after radical and extremist groups penetrated the Capitol on January 6. As a result, Joseph Biden's main message and first steps were aimed at calming and uniting society within the country. Of course, it would not be right to discuss these dramatic processes only in a domestic context. The tensions within the country have been closely monitored by both US partners, including Georgia, as well as its rivals and enemies. We cannot really say that Joe Biden was able to heal the American public during these 8 months, as he promised in his inaugural speech, but the situation has calmed down somewhat, and the processes have indeed shifted towards a quieter and more professional course.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and United States of America

14390. The Interests of Turkey and Iran in Afghanistan: Threats and Challenges

Author:
Zurab Batiashvili
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
In the summer of 2021, as the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, the balance of power in the country changed rapidly, and by August 15, the Taliban was able to capture the capital, Kabul, almost without a fight. On September 7, the Taliban formed a new "government" steered by Sharia Law. The Taliban also renamed the country, and, according to them, Afghanistan is now called the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." There are no women or members of the Shiite minority in the new government.Of the 33 members of the still-incomplete government, only three belong to ethnic minorities. Interestingly, the four new "ministers" of the country are former inmates of Guantanamo Bay, having served time there for organizing terrorist activities. Sirajuddin Haqqani, the "Minister of Internal Affairs" of the new "government" of Afghanistan, is still wanted by the FBI on the same charges. A reward of $5 million is being offered for his capture. There is already the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe (food shortages), and instability (internal strife) in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans are fleeing their homes, many of them heading to Iran and Turkey. This poses a number of threats and challenges to these countries, especially since they have their own interests in Afghanistan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Government, Taliban, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iran, South Asia, Turkey, and Middle East

14391. The Problem of the Growth of Georgia's Public Debt During the Economic Crisis Under the Covid-19 PAndemic

Author:
Vladimer Papava and Vakhtang Charaia
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic and the global economic crisis caused by it presented the world with numerous severe problems. This economic crisis will henceforth also be referred to as the “coronomic crisis” which is based on the concept of “coronomics.” This term was created through the combination of the two words corona and economics and introduced in order to draw attention to the problem of the influence of the spread of the coronavirus on economies. One of the problems exacerbated by the coronomic crisis is the quick and significant growth of the public debt (the sum of the government’s domestic and external debts). It must be pointed out that according to standards, the overall external debt of a country is divided into several components: government, central bank, commercial banks, company loans and other sectors. The traditional question is as follows: should certain states fear the growth of the public debt despite the fact that the interest rate of the loans may not be particularly high? In a standard case, the answer to this question is yes;4 however, certain specific issues require clarification. For example, the proven indicator of public debt – its ratio to the gross domestic product (GDP),5 does not allow for the comparison of specific countries with one another, let alone being an impeccable measure of their success or failure. The analysis of a state’s economic capabilities is absolutely necessary as debts are taken both by rich as well as poor countries during extreme difficulties (like a pandemic) and economic advancement alike (for example, for infrastructural development).
Topic:
GDP, COVID-19, Public Debt, and Economic Crisis
Political Geography:
Eurasia and Georgia

14392. Baku Parade Whispers Geopolitical Complexities in the South Caucasus

Author:
Rahim Rahimov
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended a military parade in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku on December 10 to celebrate Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia in the war over the Karabakh region that ended with the Russia-brokered armistice on November 9-10. The Russian historian, Andrey Zubov, describes the Baku parade as an occasion “rather to celebrate the birth of a new geopolitical alliance than the victory over Armenia”1 . Following the parade, Russia imposed a ban on tomato imports from Azerbaijan in its flagship manner and Russian peacekeepers attempted to do something around the town of Shusha in Karabakh resembling what they have done in Georgia: “borderization”. Azerbaijani state TV, other media outlets and public figures widely and explicitly condemned such behavior of the Russian peacekeepers as a jealous response to the parade demonstration of Armenia’s Russian-made weapons and military equipment captured by the Azerbaijani armed forces or destroyed using Turkish-made Bayraktar drones . Erdogan and the Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, watched Turkish soldiers march alongside with Azerbaijanis on the central streets of Baku to the joy of local residents who took to the streets despite the COVID-19 related restrictions in order to salute them. This scene shows a major Russian weakness vis-àvis Turkey in Azerbaijan. Unlike Moscow, whose perception in Azerbaijan is controversial, Ankara enjoys nation-wide support. Recently leaked Russian secret files reveal that it is much more difficult for Moscow to develop proRussian civil society organizations and soft power instruments in Azerbaijan than even in staunchly pro-Western Georgia.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Turkey, France, Georgia, and South Caucasus

14393. Artificial Intelligence and National Security

Author:
Levan Bodzashvili
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The purpose of the following article is, on the one hand, to introduce the current trends in the utilization of artificial intelligence in the field of national security and defense and, on the other hand, to initiate a research discussion in order to determine the necessity and the feasibility of the use of artificial intelligence for small countries like Georgia. We will also seek to define its importance at the strategic level in terms of ensuring integration and military compatibility. The article also incorporates strategic initiatives of a recommendatory nature which should be discussed in the security sphere as well as at the level of research organizations and the government. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the fastest growing field of technology which is already one of the top priorities in the national security strategies of most countries. The reason for this is that artificial intelligence technologies can alter the ways war is conducted.1 It enables defense, military, cyber security, intelligence and counterintelligence, information and cyber operations, logistics, manufacturing and strategic management/control of autonomous military vehicles. It has already been used by the United States, Israel, China, Russia and many other countries. Artificial intelligence also plays an important role in anticipating and planning national and geopolitical events such as, for example, the program of the director of the United States Intelligence Agency (IARPA)2 which conducts constant research in this area as well as more than 140 operational and research projects of the Central Intelligence Agency which use artificial intelligence. An important and also revolutionary project is SAGE3 which was developed by the Universities of Fordham, Stanford and Columbia in conjunction with the Intelligence Agency and which predicts geopolitical events through artificial intelligence-based projections. High-precision algorithms enable the predicting of events which is a crucial factor in reinsuring national security risks and threats.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Science and Technology, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14394. "The Great Wall of the Caspian Sea": The Geographic Nature of Russia's Attitudes Towards the Post-Soviet States

Author:
Mariam Mikiashvili
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
As far as the contemporary Russian perspective is concerned, the former Soviet states can be categorized into two geographic groups. The states other than the Baltics, that is. We shall call Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan “the Western Six.” The former Soviet Central Asian countries – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan – shall be included in “the Eastern Five.” The basis of such a grouping is a country’s geographic location vis-à-vis the Caspian Sea. It would be no news to claim that the prevention of the color revolutions and the democratization of the post-Soviet space has always been the fundamental aim of Russia.1 This translates into the objective to preserve the Russia-approved social and political “stability.” However, the specific Russian actions for the maintenance of the “stability” in various post-Soviet states differ fundamentally. In some of them, “stability” is to be ensured by the internal destabilization of a country as well as subversive actions towards a central government, whereas in others the task is implemented through Russia’s constructive approaches towards a central government and state consolidation. So, to what extent are Russia’s attitudes towards a post-Soviet state influenced by the state’s own politics or regime type? What are the places where “central government,” “state” and “regime stability” are synonymous in the eyes of Russia? What does this “stability” even imply and how is it different from simple “authoritarianism,” the most acceptable model of governance to Russia? Would “democratization” be a precise labelling as the alternative to “stability?” Does democratization in every post-Soviet state cause a similar reaction from Russia?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Democratization, Political stability, Geography, and Post-Soviet Space
Political Geography:
Russia and Caspian Sea

14395. The Three Seas Initiative and Georgia: Perspectives and Challenges

Author:
Grigol Julukhidze
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Three Seas Initiative (3SI) aims to strengthen ties in the region of the wider Central Europe (between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas) which creates a solid foundation for economic development in terms of energy, transport, digital communication and the economy. It was established as a forum for cooperation between 12 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Hungary. The area comprising the countries belonging to the Three Seas Initiative constitutes almost one-third of the total area of the European Union. Over 112 million people live there. The region is experiencing stable economic growth and a limited unemployment rate. The priority for the 3SI is to build a coherent and well-integrated infrastructure in Central Europe which will render the possibility to make up for development lags resulting from historical events. As a result, the infrastructural and economic inequalities of the common European market will be reduced and this will limit the division of the EU into less and more developed areas of integration. The most important added value of the Initiative is the assurance of political support at the highest level of state authorities for investments which have so far been a neglected field of cooperation between the Central European countries. The Three Seas is, therefore, pro-European and complementary to the existing regional cooperation formats (Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych, 2020).
Topic:
Energy Policy, Communications, Infrastructure, and Economic Development
Political Geography:
Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Georgia, Croatia, Latvia, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Slovakia

14396. The Regional Security Dynamics of the South Caucasus After the 2020 Karabakh War

Author:
Benyamin Poghosyan
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The 2020 Karabakh war has significantly shifted the geopolitics of the South Caucasus. Armenia suffered a tough defeat while the non-recognized Republic of Artsakh (Republic of Nagorno Karabakh) lost almost 80 percent of its territories. Azerbaijan won a decisive victory and took not only territories outside of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) but 30 percent of NKAR itself. The November 10 trilateral statement signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia not only stopped the war in Karabakh but ushered in a new era in regional geopolitics.1 The key features of the new status quo are the increased role of Russia and Turkey and the significant reduction of Western involvement. However, the South Caucasus is far away from stability and, most probably, volatility will continue. We will seek to analyze the main interests of the key regional and external players and what may play out in a short/mid-term perspective.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, War, Geopolitics, Political stability, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

14397. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Between the US And Russia

Author:
Giorgi Surmava
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
On January 26, 2021, during a phone conversation between the President of the United States, Joseph Biden, and the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, a decision was confirmed by the parties to extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START, CHB-3) without any preconditions for five more years from February 5, 2021 to February 5, 2026 after which the sides exchanged diplomatic notes. New START was the last treaty still in force with regard to nuclear armaments as the United States left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) under the Trump administration. At the same time, the Trump administration was also against extending New START without changes as it was set to expire in February 2021. Russia, on the other hand, was opposed to any kind of changes to this treaty. In a very short while after Biden’s arrival to power, the treaty was extended by five years without any changes. What was the reason for this decision? Why was the prior presidential administration against this and why did the new one make efforts to achieve an agreement in a short period of time? What can we expect to happen next? These are the questions that we will attempt to answer in this publication.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America

14398. How Nato Enlargement Strengthens the Security of the Euro-Atlantic Region: The Case of the Baltic States

Author:
Megi Benia
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, with five waves of its enlargement, NATO remains committed to the open door policy. Even though these decisions have significantly strengthened the security of the Alliance, skepticism towards NATO enlargement stays on the agenda of debates in academic and policy circles. After regaining independence from the Soviet Union, each of the Baltic States clearly stated their desire to become members of European and EuroAtlantic organizations. In 2004, each of these states became full-fledged members of the North Atlantic Alliance. However, similar to the current situation, the accession of the Baltic States was not widely accepted in the academic and political circles of the time. While the Clinton administration did commit to “keep the membership door open” for the Baltics, neither official bodies nor professionals viewed the decision as a positive sign.1 Even George Kennan had made his case against the Baltic entrance into NATO underlining that historically these nations had been “part of Russia longer than they were part of anything else.”2 Despite all of the difficulties, the Baltic nations joined the Alliance and thus proved that this enlargement and the open door policy overall is a guarantor of the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. Therefore, using the example of the Baltic States, the paper will try to emphasize the importance of NATO enlargement for peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. The paper will demonstrate three main areas where the Alliance benefited the most from this wave of enlargement: a) enhanced peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region by the increased number of democratic, economically sustainable countries in Europe; b) the increased defensibility of NATO’s eastern flank and c) the increased ability to strengthen NATO’s resilience towards non-traditional security threats.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Baltic States

14399. The Montreux Convention and Its Importance for Georgia

Author:
Zurab Batiashvili
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Montreux Convention signed on July 20, 1936 strictly regulates the presence of naval warships of non-Black Sea nations (including the United States) in the Black Sea, limiting their aggregate tonnage (thereby limiting their number), their maximum period of stay within the Black Sea and so on. Such a regime creates a problem of access by Western powers to the Black Sea which negatively influences Georgia’s security environment. However, much has changed in the Black Sea after the Convention was signed – the Second World War took place, the Cold War was concluded, the Soviet Union collapsed and new states arose in its place – Russia, Ukraine and Georgia while Romania and Bulgaria became member states of NATO, Russia annexed Crimea, Turkey distanced itself from the West and so forth. In such conditions, a document signed in the 1930s remains a militarypolitical anachronism, unable to address new requirements and realities. That said, the issue of reviewing it remains problematic as it depends on numerous factors.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, History, Military Affairs, and Trade
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Georgia

14400. Modus Operandi of the Largest Russian Cyber-Intelligence Operation of Recent Times – Attack On Solarwinds

Author:
Giorgio Uzarashvili
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The 2020 attack on SolarWinds is one of the largest cyber-intelligence campaigns in US history which inflicted significant damage on agencies such as the US Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).1 Incidentally, SolarWinds is a US-registered company that provides a wide range of IT-related services to the private and public sectors, including tools used for the remote management of the network’s infrastructure.2 Later, in April of this year, the attack was officially attributed to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (СВР - Служба Внешней Разведки). Its consequences were severe not only due to the fact that the attacker, with high probability, gained access to at least part of the information held by the above-mentioned US agencies, but also primarily for the demonstrative effect of this operation. In particular, the attacker demonstrated that no one is protected against Russian cyber-intelligence actors, including the agencies directly in charge of ensuring the information security of the national critical infrastructure throughout the country. Consequently, the attack on SolarWinds negatively affected the US not only in terms of security, more specifically cyber security, but it also poses a significant challenge to its reputation. Namely, this incident questions whether or not US security forces have highly qualified personnel and appropriate technical equipment to protect significant information assets and prevent similar attacks. Moreover, there is a threat that this precedent will encourage similar actions by other hostile actors against the US in the future, primarily China and Iran.
Topic:
Security, Intelligence, Science and Technology, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America