Euro-Atlantic Integration

At the moment, there are good reasons to give consideration not only to the Alliance’s open-door policy but the proposed roadmap for Ukraine’s future membership (sort of Ukraine’s Compatibility plan with NATO) as NATO develops its Strategic Concept for 2030. Such a roadmap would confirm the destination point set within the Bucharest Summit as to Ukraine and Georgia’s future membership in the Alliance and allow the sides to determine Ukraine’s best route towards this point through the implementation of a certain array of reforms.

The concept of 'strategy' is making a remarkable comeback in the 21 st century, as balance-of-power politics is being played again, this time truly at the global level. This essay investigates the genesis of 'Strategy with a capital "S"' in the writings of Jomini and Clausewitz in the first half of the nineteenth century and the dynamics of its theoretical interpretation and practical application from the Napoleonic Era to today. It does so by applying the '4 As' of interpretive hermeneutics-prefigurative Alignment, configurative Application, refigurative Adaptation and transformative Articulation-to this iterative investigation of Jomini's and Clausewitz's work. This methodology results in the emergence, from the interstices of their competing and complementary approaches to War and Strategy, of a three-dimensional concept of 'Strategy' aligning Policy Process, Power Praxis and Political Purpose. It also gives rise to a corresponding analytical framework of the deployment of 'Strategy' in various spatio-temporal environments, that combines various leadership modalities with a full continuum of conflictual systems. This essay concludes by arguing that both these elements of the Strategy-as-practice toolkit remain remarkably current and eminently applicable to the rapidly evolving geopolitical ecosystem of the 21 st century. (190 words)

This paper seeks to compare the energy policies of the three Southern Caucasian states and examine the interdependence of their energy and security policies. The particular focus is the impact of energy-related issues on their Euro-Atlantic integration tendencies.

While examining how the states in the region ensure their energy
security, three aspects form the focus of this research - operational and planned oil and gas pipelines in the region, energy disputes of the three states with Russia, and the current and intended use of nuclear energy.

Two groups of oil and gas pipelines in the region have either been built since the collapse of the Soviet Union or are being planned. The first includes U.S.-backed multiple pipelines. The benefits of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) pipelines for Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as Europe, have been examined by many analysts. This paper also analyses the implications of Armenian exclusion from those pipelines, and argues that non-inclusiveness of the multiple pipelines results in the formation of dividing lines along energy alliances, which affects the tendencies of Euro-Atlantic integration of the region.
The second group of pipelines in the region are the new Russian and Iranian pipelines. Within this group, the focus of research is the extent to which the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline – and its potential transit role – contributes to energy security of Armenia.

Many experts point out that symptoms similar to those of “Dutch disease” are already evident in Azerbaijan. Recently the increase of military expenditures based on oil and gas revenues, along with bellicose rhetoric from Baku, as well as Armenia’s response to it, have been sufficiently explored. This article touches upon the implications of “Dutch disease” for the internal security of Azerbaijan and also for Georgia, which, as an oil and gas transit state, also seems to be affected by Dutch disease.

All South Caucasian states had energy disputes with Russia in 2005-2007. Gazprom announced gas price hikes not only to Georgia at the time of growing tensions between Russia and Georgia but also to Azerbaijan, with which Russia has had quite balanced relations, and Armenia, with which Russia has a strategic partnership. The paper examines the ways in which each of the three countries reacted to price hike announcements and handled the disputes, whether by political statements, negotiations and energy deals with Russia or alternative gas supplier states.

Another way of ensuring energy security in the Southern Caucasus is the use of nuclear energy. Currently Armenia is the only country in the region that has a nuclear power plant (NPP). Armenia has committed to shutting down the plant in its Action Plan within the EU’s Neighborhood Policy. Simultaneously, Armenian authorities have announced the decision to construct a new NPP as the only alternative to the old one. Georgia has also announced its intention of constructing an NPP, and Azerbaijan intends to develop a nuclear research reactor. Additionally, Turkey plans to develop nuclear energy, constructing more than one NPP.

After two decades of negative approaches by the international community, especially Western Europe, towards nuclear energy, mostly as a result of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the opposite trend has started all over the world, including the Euro-Atlantic space. The main triggers are climate change debate, power cuts in Western Europe and growing oil and gas prices. It is increasingly recognised that in addition to other advantages, nuclear energy reduces dependence on energy imports, particularly hydrocarbon fuels.

How do energy policy trends in the region affect Euro-Atlantic
tendencies? The Southern Caucasian states were the pioneers of IPAP, launching political dialogue with Allies, and advancing defence reform aimed at interoperability with NATO forces, already being pursued within the Planning and Review Process (PARP). They intend to be not only security consumers but also providers via their contribution to NATO-led peace-support operations. However, the purposes and the style of cooperation of the three states with NATO fluctuate. Georgia seeks a more advanced relationship with the Alliance. NATO membership is not on the agenda of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both countries are trying to keep the balance between the U.S. and NATO, on
one side, and Russia and Iran on the other. A main underlying difference between their foreign policies is their relationship with Turkey.

If the relationship between Azerbaijan and Turkey is based on the “one nation, two states” notion, Armenia and Turkey do not have diplomatic relations. This reality informs Armenian threat perceptions and maintains the need for Armenia’s strategic partnership with Russia. Blockade of land routes for Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan as well as exclusion of Armenia from the regional energy projects keeps Armenia dependent on Russia and Iran for its energy supply, which places limitations on Armenia's efforts to advance its Euro-Atlantic integration.

This research examines the possible ways to diminish the effects of the division of the region along energy alliances. It also examines how NATO can contribute to the energy security of its Partners in order to advance their Euro-Atlantic integration.

After the big bang enlargements of the EU and NATO in 2004, the Southern Caucasus was recognized as an important region for the further strengthening of stability, security, and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic space.

The Caucasus, along with Balkans, has always been the hotspot of wider Europe. The states in the Western Balkans started developing regional cooperation and deepening their reconciliation only after the EU reiterated its determination to fully support their European prospects at the 2003 Thessaloniki Summit. Even being subjected to the EU’s conditionality principle, discarding old policies and mentality is not a smooth process in the Western Balkans, and it is difficult to predict whether the region will stabilize or destabilize after defining the final status of Kosovo.

The policy of both the EU and NATO toward the Southern Caucasus is obscure and raises a range of questions. How they can achieve better complementarity in the region? Do the proposed Action Plans offer sufficient incentives to encourage reforms? What will follow the implementation of those Action Plans? After the EU and NATO digest their big bang enlargements,
will they offer pre-accession instruments to those countries? If so, what will be the scenario of enlargement in the region—will the EU and NATO adopt a regional approach, trying to integrate all three countries at more or less the same rate, or take an individualized approach contingent on their willingness, conditional on their performance, and dependent on their interstate relations? What will be the consequences of extending the enlargement policy to the Southern Caucasus for the EU, NATO, the region as a whole, and its individual states? All these questions need answers both from the Union and the Alliance, as well as from the three states in the region.

Estonia and Georgia, the two former Soviet republics, at the time of the collapse of the USSR, had quite a similar experience of statecraft: they both lived under communist rule, did not have any experience of democratic development and market relations, were approximately at the same level of development among the 15 Soviet republics and also experienced the same pressure on awakening national identity and orientation towards European values. However, with the collapse of the USSR, very distinct tendencies emerged in these two states. If Estonia, together with other post-Soviet Baltic countries, took a course towards deep reformation of the country and integration with Europe and ensuring security through joining the North Atlantic alliance, then Georgia, under the newly elected nationalist government of Gamsakhurdia, chose the path of confrontation with national minorities and its closest neighbors, and the building of a Common Caucasian Home (primarily with the North Caucasian republics being part of the Russian Federation), which led the country to a civil war, self-isolation and alienation from the West. This led to two completely different trajectories in the conduct of these countries in the international arena in the next three decades. The paper compares the two Euro-centric post-Soviet states, Estonia and Georgia, in the context of NATO integration. By drawing a variety of parallels, the research refers to both historical experiences, transformational abilities, the readiness of political elites to carry out radical reforms and explores several reasons explaining differences in the Euro-Atlantic international path of Estonia and Georgia. At the same time, the article examines several external factors and particularly the Russian one, that influenced the integration path of these countries: in one case, giving the green light to joining the alliance (a case of Estonia) and, in the other, all kinds of opposition to NATO membership (a case of Georgia).

The present research study will explore the unresolved issues in the Western Balkans, which cross the way to the Euro-Atlantic integration. The approach of this study will be theoretical and will encroach upon two pillars: the challenges that the countries of this region are meeting, regarding the integration processes, as well as the consequences that would arise, in the case of non-integration. The study shall analyze in detail both the internal challenges of each country and the regional cooperation challenges of the Western Balkan countries. In the same level, it shall state the consequences that would arise out of non-integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic community.

Iryna Musiienko. Russian Imperial Discourse Overcoming in Intellectual Space of Europe as a Prerequisite for Ukraine’s Civilizational Choice Implementation

Civilizational choice of Ukraine in favor of Euro-Atlantic integration is outlined in its political conceptual legal documents - "National Security Strategy of Ukraine", the Laws "On Foundations of Domestic and Foreign Policy of Ukraine". They determine the integration into the political and economic structures of the European Union as a priority direction of foreign and domestic policy of Ukraine which shares common with the EU values and strategic goals. Prerequisites of Ukraine’s civilizational choice implementation is a new positioning of the state and its rebranding, creating of an integrated communication policy, strong international lobby, its positive image as a European country, overcoming the stereotype of "Alien, Different" in perceptions of Ukraine by foreign target audiences, European supranational identity designing, strengthening its presence in European social and cultural space.
In modern socio-humanistics there is a growing interest both to the civilization and imperial matters. Investigation of the outlined problem is multidisciplinary, based on the principles of ethnocentricity and state-centricity. The scientific exploration is aimed at solving the following problems: 1) to determine the impact of the Russian imperial discourse and Russian policy in Ukraine imaging on perception of Ukraine in Europe and making strategic political decisions by Europeans concerning our country; 2) to make recommendations on prevention of manipulation of public opinion and anti-Ukrainian informational operations and impact operations; 3) to outline the ways and mechanisms for correction of European perception of Ukraine and its image in accordance with the national interests.
The main external factor preventing Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine as its civilizational choice is neo-imperial revanchist Russia's position that seeks to restore its imperial status.  The war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine includes a large-scale information-psychological war, one of the target audiences of which are foreign public. The key purpose of this war is "obstructing the will of the Ukrainian people to have European future", i.e. negation of its civilizational choice, destruction of subjectivity and independence of Ukraine, the dismantling of the state, compromise of domestic and foreign policy of Ukraine, creation of the enemy image (which after R. Jervis should be considered as a way to influence decision-making on foreign policy of third countries with regard to Ukraine), return in the neocolonial status to the bosom of the newly created Eurasian empire. The means of specified purpose implementation is declaring within the imperial Russian discourse of Ukraine, its people, language and culture as "non-existent", "artificial", a "Project of western special services", Ukrainians – sub-ethnos of Russians, the Ukrainian language – as a dialect, the Ukrainian project unviable, and the Ukrainian state – the State that failed. The denial of the right of Ukrainian to have their own statehood most actively is performed in the field of history and culture. West society is imposed on Russian historical development scheme in which Ukraine has the role of history and territory object which is the area of the Russian national interests. Thus, the urgent threats to Ukraine's national security, its existence as a state and civilizational choice implementation are according to the National Security Strategy of Ukraine (2015) "the formation by the Russian means of mass communication of alternative to reality distorted informational picture of the world", "humiliation of the Ukrainian language and culture, falsification of the Ukrainian history".
The loss of Ukraine is a challenge to identity of Russia and according to Russian political scientist S. Havrov means the end of the imperial project, because without Ukraine new Russian neo-imperial project may be only the project of "returning to the Horde" ideological and military-political distancing from the West, the breakaway from Europe. Therefore the struggle for Ukraine is for Russia a struggle for survival and establishment as of an empire, it has the nature not only of a local or regional war, but it is a part of civilizational confrontation, a war of senses.
It should be recognized, that targeted anti-Ukrainian propaganda work of Russian ideologues that systematically was carried in Europe since the Petrine era, and is particularly relevant in the early twenty-first century, not prevented and not neutralized by the Ukrainian party, has borne fruit. In the humanitarian space of Europe there is still a monopoly presence of Russia, but Ukraine is absent; persistent stereotypes of Ukraine dominate; the image of the country is biased, prejudiced, politically committed, incompetent, fundamental Ukrainian Studies is at the stage of formation.
The lack of deep interest in the history of Ukraine and other Eastern European countries, double standards in attitude to them, led to uncritical assimilation by the western world of the imposed to it Russian scheme of East European history, Russian imperial discourse. Extremely slow "opening of Eastern Europe" contains great dangers for Europe. Indeed, the historical experience of European policy in this region has not been analyzed and considered by the society, the real correction work has not been performed. Consequently, there is no guarantee against the repetition of old scenarios of Munich consent or Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when Eastern Europe was sacrificed for the sake of calm and peace in Western Europe, but instead of peace Europe got world war.
Today Ukraine is in the midst of ideological confrontation, collision of two civilizational ideas - Western European and Eurasian. In the European humanitarian space, as S. Datsiuk accurately noted, the war or struggle between two discourses – Russian imperial and Ukrainian anti-colonial is continuing. Russia's neo-imperial discourse is embodied in theory of neo-eurasianism. Ukraine can stand up with dignity for its anti-colonial discourse and civilizational choice, by means of opposition to neo-eurasian conception of Russia its own theoretically grounded scientific direction – Ukrainian Studies (Ukrainistics), which Hrushevsky called "policy and philosophy of state." The fundamental foreign ukrainistics has to become a translator of the image and national idea of Ukraine in the world humanitarian space.
Russia allocates significant funds to promote its own image as a regional power and new empire center; it has great communicative resource that was partly inherited from the Soviet Union, quite skilled personnel that actively uses the achievements of Western science and experience; tries to own initiative; behaves in the communicative space rather aggressively. Russia has managed to create a strong lobby of "Putin’s friends" and so-called "persons who understand Russia", cooperating with the Russian special services, politically and economically biased.
However, the political elite of Ukraine failed to develop a national strategy on protection of national interests in the international arena. Experts point out serious shortcomings and mistakes in creating a coherent communication policy, implementation of effective foreign management of the state, qualified state imaging, strengthening Ukraine's presence in socio-cultural space of Europe, state support for fundamental Ukrainistics and Ukrainian Studies. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop science-based strategy of Ukrainian national discourse protecting, foreign state image promoting, which will guarantee the implementation of civilizational choice of Ukraine – Euro-Atlantic integration.

The object of analysis of this article are the journalistic texts that deal with the Macedonian Euro-Atlantic integration issue. The corpus is represented by journalistic texts
published in different written media or on web portals. The analysis focuses on the structure of these texts, on their lexical characteristics, morphosyntactic aspects and on the figures of speech. The objective is to find if there is a pertinence in the use of certain language tools and
the pragmatic aspect of their usage.
Key word: journalistic texts, Euro-Atlantic integration, language tools, pragmatic aspects

The future of the ex-Soviet republics represents a central point of contention between NATO and Russia. The article analyzes the situation in the post-Soviet space since the collapse of the USSR. It refers to NATO and Russia's strategies towards the eastern European states. The piece explains the motivation behind the pro-Western objectives of ex-Soviet states, particularly the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia. The paper consists of three major parts. These include the aspiration of post-Soviet republics to join NATO (1), the eastward enlargement of Euro-Atlantic structures (2), and the Russian response to NATO eastward enlargement (3). The study is organized around the following question: What has been the nature of the NATO-Russia clash over the pro-Western post-Soviet republics? Its primary method, literature review, examines scholarly articles and books. As for the scientific relevance of the paper, the issue of NATO integration is still unachievable for particular ex-Soviet states. Hence, explaining the roots of confrontation and finding the ways of solution are likely to fill the existing gaps and give an impetus to the pro-Western states to realize their objectives.

The annual conference  from 2017 of the Regional Studies Association will be held at the Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca. The deadline for submitting a proposal is 23rd May 2017. Whoever is interested, can access the link I give and follow the instructions.  If you have further questions, you are welcome to send me an email.  See you in Cluj!

A Külügyi és Külgazdasági Intézet 4:1 című sorozatában négy kutató válaszol röviden ugyanarra – a nemzetközi politikát és gazdaságot érintő – kérdésre. Célunk a magyarországi tudományos viták elindítása és a szakértők közötti párbeszéd elősegítése. Jelenlegi (angol nyelven megjelent) számunkban a következő kérdésre kerestük a választ: "What Role Do the External Actors (Russia, China, Turkey, and the European Union) Play in the Western Balkans?".

Xin Chen – China–CEE Institute
Zoltán Egeresi – Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Anna Orosz – Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Artyom Ulunyan – Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences

On June 18-20, 2015, NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly held the 89th Rose-Roth seminar in Armenia’s capital Yerevan. It mainly covered the current status of the Armenia-NATO partnership,
security issues and challenges that recently emerged in the post-Soviet region and the Middle East. It was declared that the seminar would be unprecedented and firmly reflect positive developments in contrast to the setback in Armenia’s EU integration. The three-day meeting brought together a range of
experts, representatives of alliance members and officials from different states, but was conducted against the backdrop of Armenia’s consistent albeit implicit “vassalization” by Russia.