Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Eurasia Publication Year within 10 Years

91. Hybrid Threats in EaP Countries: Building a Common Response

Author:
Kakha Gogolashvili, Valeriu Pasa, Mikayel Hovhannisyan, Viktor Ohiienko, and Julya Sahakyan
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Four non-governmental organisations from Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and Ukraine conducted a joint study assessing hybrid threats that the EaP countries are currently facing. The project aimed to study the hybrid threats which affect Eastern Partnership states and elaborate recommendations to actively engage civil society in countering them. The project envisaged the creation of a team of experts from Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and Ukraine, which would travel to the capital cities of the mentioned states and meet all relevant stakeholders from government, parliament and civil society. The meetings resulted in the collection of all necessary information, opinions and ideas on the state of institutional and legal measures taken in the countries on countering existing hybrid threats. The team of experts also undertook desk research based on accessible open sources and interviews conducted with different stakeholders, among them government officials, experts and civil society organizations. The research and study visits provided the ground for four country reviews to be written by the experts. Their reports have been integrated mutatis mutandis into the present policy paper, followed by a comparative analysis of threats and institutional responses, similarities and distinctions in the policies of the four mentioned countries. The paper also explores the role and areas of potential engagement of civil society. To effectively counter the hybrid threats, a joining of efforts of official bodies and non-state actors is required. It also needs reinforced international cooperation on a government and civil society level. The paper recommends the governments establish active cooperation among and with the EU countries with the aim of analyzing, exchanging knowledge and countering jointly, where appropriate, hybrid threats. The cooperation should target the development of an appropriate legal environment and adequate institutional capacity. Civil society itself should become more organized and consolidated. The paper advises the EaP CSF to conduct work on consolidating the efforts of civil society in the direction of strengthening the resilience of EaP countries, especially in countering attacks aiming to discredit and weaken the Europeanisation of the mentioned countries. It was advised that the EaP CSF contribute to facilitating the capacity building of civil society organizations so as to help them to actively engage in countering hybrid threats. Despite the existing differences between EaP partner states as regards their foreign policy priorities and geopolitical orientation or trade arrangement, all of them seek closer cooperation with the European Union, peaceful co-existence, and the chance to develop efficient economic ties within the wider region. Continuation of Europeanisation and interaction with EU institutions, supporting democratic transformation, economic and regulatory convergence, social cohesion and human capital development, institutional and state build up, has become irreversible thanks to the success of the EaP. The sources of the new hybrid threats predominantly aim at discrediting and weakening the motivation of the EaP partner states to further integrate with the EU. Indeed, EaP partner states understand the importance of this cooperation and are interested in countering, jointly where possible, any adverse action or attempt to disengage them from that process. Based on the results of the study, we propose a set of recommendations for the governments of EaP states, EU and NATO institutions and their member states.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia

92. Countering Hybrid Threats: Stronger Role for Civil Society in Post 2020 EaP Roadmap

Author:
Kakha Gogolashvili, Mikayel Hovhannisyan, Elkhan Mehtiyev, Andrei Yahorau, Valeriu Pasa, and Viktor Ohiienko
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The objective of the project, in the framework of which this policy paper was developed, is to promote the wider involvement of civil society in the policy area that can and should benefit from a multi-stakeholder approach through all stages of the policy cycle in the upcoming period in order to maximize the impact of joint actions and activities. The paper has an ambition to advise on how civil society should and could be involved in formulating, implementing and monitoring the future deliverables in the area of hybrid threats in the post-2020 Road Map for the EaP policy, including developing specific deliverables with concrete benchmarks for individual countries in a regional perspective. The paper feeds directly into the debate on the new EaP Road Map and structured consultation opened by the EU institutions, and builds directly on the recommendations from the EaP CSF policy paper "Advancing Eastern Partnership: 23 Civil Society Ideas for the Policy beyond 2020". It will be distributed to its target audience in Brussels, EU member states and EaP countries. Further advocacy and discussion with stakeholders in Brussels is planned during the 11th EaP CSF Annual Assembly on December 6, 2019. The paper is a result of the joint research conducted by a team of experts representing CSOs from all six EaP partner states. The team conducted desk research and held consultations with stakeholders and experts in their respective countries. Each of them contributed to country reports and proposed recommendations for the development of cooperation on prevention and countering hybrid threats throughout the EaP area. The findings of the study covered the comparative analysis of hybrid threats in EaP countries, the response of the governments, cooperation between EU and EaP countries on countering hybrid threats, civil society engagement and, finally, the suggestions on the development of cooperation between EU and EaP partner states. The research resulted in concrete recommendations for the governments of the respective countries, EU institutions and member states and for civil society, which is advised to intensify its engagement in countering hybrid threats and in developing a common response.
Topic:
Civil Society, Government, European Union, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, and Georgia

93. Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy ( III Quarter, 2018)

Author:
Merab Kakulia, Nodar Kapanadze, and Lela Bakhtadze
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy is an electronic publication of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (Rondeli Foundation), which aims at informing readers about the ongoing processes within the country’s economy. The review is based on data of official statistics and on expert estimates.
Topic:
Debt, International Trade and Finance, Foreign Direct Investment, Budget, Employment, Economic growth, Banks, and Inflation
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, and Georgia

94. Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy (IV Quarter, 2018)

Author:
Merab Kakulia, Nodar Kapanadze, and Lela Bakhtadze
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy is an electronic publication of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (Rondeli Foundation), which aims at informing readers about the ongoing processes within the country’s economy. The review is based on data of official statistics and on expert estimates.
Topic:
Debt, International Trade and Finance, Foreign Direct Investment, Budget, Employment, Economic growth, Banks, and Inflation
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, and Georgia

95. Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy (I Quarter, 2019)

Author:
Merab Kakulia, Nodar Kapanadze, and Lela Bakhtadze
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy is an electronic publication of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (Rondeli Foundation), which aims at informing readers about the ongoing processes within the country’s economy. The review is based on data of official statistics and on expert estimates.
Topic:
Debt, International Trade and Finance, Foreign Direct Investment, Budget, Employment, Economic growth, Banks, and Inflation
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, and Georgia

96. Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy (II Quarter, 2019)

Author:
Merab Kakulia, Nodar Kapanadze, and Lela Bakhtadze
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
The Quarterly Review of the Georgian Economy is an electronic publication of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (Rondeli Foundation), which aims at informing readers about the ongoing processes within the country’s economy. The review is based on data of official statistics and on expert estimates.
Topic:
Debt, International Trade and Finance, Foreign Direct Investment, Budget, Employment, Economic growth, Banks, and Inflation
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, and Georgia

97. Beyond populism: European politics in an age of fragmentation and disruption

Author:
Dalibor Rohac, Matt Browne, Max Bergmann, Ismaël Emelien, Karin Svanborg-Sjövall, Andreas Johansson Heinö, and Agata Stremecka
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
Since 2016, concern over the resurgence of illiberal populist political parties and movements has been palpable in Europe and the United States. The election of Donald Trump, the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union, and the electoral advances of far-right parties in many European states, including France and Germany, created the sense that populist parties were a new, unstoppable political force in democratic politics.1 Yet in 2019, the notion that populist parties are the future of European politics seems far less certain. The term “populism” itself may have outlived its usefulness. Originally, it referred to parties and leaders who described themselves as true voices of the people against self-serving, out-of-touch elites—and it was prone to run roughshod over established political norms and institutions. Over the past three years, differences in approaches, tactics, and outlooks between different populist parties have emerged, making it clear that there is no clear populist governing strategy. Accordingly, beyond disrupting the current order, anti-establishment political forces in Europe share no actual transnational policy agenda. Yet populist and anti-establishment forces have upended European politics and contributed to fragmentation and uncertainty. As the example of the record turnout in the 2019 European parliamentary election illustrates,2 the EU itself has become an important dividing line for voters. The high turnout and raucous nature of the 2019 election portends animated debates over European policies. Gone are the days when the EU could move initiatives forward without much public attention or concern. In short, Jean Monnet’s “salami-slicing” method of incremental, technocratically driven European integration3 is dead. A more engaged and aware European public is in itself a positive development. Yet simultaneously, for better or worse, the sudden salience of European policies can present an obstacle to policy initiatives that otherwise would be seen as uncontroversial. Just as partisan divisions in the United States have plagued Washington with significant policy paralysis, the emergence of a similarly contentious and partisan politics in Europe may make it hard for Brussels to act. Europe has proven resilient over the past decade, but that resilience should not be taken for granted. The EU largely has failed to address its structural weaknesses that were exposed following the 2008 financial and fiscal crisis, meaning that the EU would confront a future economic crisis with the same limited toolbox it had in 2008.4 To make matters worse, influential populist actors could also obstruct swift action while benefiting politically at home from the EU’s failings. Unlike only a few years ago, fears of the EU’s sudden unraveling seem farfetched. Yet a protracted death by a thousand cuts, caused by populist leaders undermining EU rules and norms, remains a distinct possibility. The new instability of European politics poses a real challenge to the trans-Atlantic alliance. Unity among free and democratic states of the West is hard to sustain in the current political environment on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet at a time when the alliance faces a rising challenge from autocratic powers such as China and Russia, the case for unity and cooperation is stronger now than at any point since the end of the Cold War. This report seeks to chart a course for the EU and for the trans-Atlantic alliance, while acknowledging that the anti-establishment sentiments that reverberate through European politics are here to stay. While there is a strong case to be made for a Europe that works together to defend democratic values at home and abroad as well as a trans-Atlantic alliance that is willing to work in proactive partnership to tackle big global challenges—from climate change to terrorism to nuclear proliferation—that goal is still a long way off.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Authoritarianism, European Union, and Populism
Political Geography:
Europe and Eurasia

98. DONBAS PEACE TALKS 2.0: Russia’s Objectives and Ukraine’s Limits

Author:
Cristina Gherasimov and András Rácz
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
On October 1, 2019, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy agreed to meet Russia’s conditions for holding peace talks already this autumn. Moscow’s readiness to play, however, should not be mistaken for willingness to solve the conflict. So far, the Kremlin has not made any concessions in Eastern Ukraine that would be irreversible; consequently, it seems to only be testing Zelenskiy’s limits. Both Zelenskiy and the EU need to be cautious not to reward easy-to-reverse steps with major, strategic benefits.
Topic:
Diplomacy, European Union, Conflict, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and Ukraine

99. Security First, Technology Second: Putin Tightens his Grip on Russia’s Internet – with China’s Help

Author:
Andrei Soldatov
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Since his return to the Russian presidency in 2012, Vladimir Putin has sought to bring the Russian internet under his control. Digital businesses in Russia pay dearly for his expensive system of surveillance and censorship. This slows down the pace of innovation and puts the modernization of the economy at risk. Even then, technical control over the internet remains shaky. The Kremlin is seeking Chinese assistance to enforce restrictions and be able to cut Russia off from the global internet.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Internet, Surveillance, and Censorship
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

100. Astana Club 2019. Summary - Day 1

Author:
IWEP
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Institute of World Economics and Politics
Abstract:
This video provides a summary of the first day of the 5th annual session of the Astana Club, the largest venue where its participants discuss the issues of geopolitics and security in the region, which took place in Nur-Sultan. The 2019 session of the club was themed Big Eurasia: On the path to the new architecture of global cooperation. The session focused on the issues of security and strategic future of Big Eurasia. The event brought together over 50 world’s top politicians, experts from Eurasia and experts in international relations. Among those participating were former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, former President of Slovenia Danilo Türk, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei, Chairman of JP Morgan Chase, International Jacob A. Frenkel and many others.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Eurasia and Kazakhstan