Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 3 Years

11961. 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

11962. 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

11963. 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

11964. 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

11965. "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

11966. 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

11967. 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

11968. 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

11969. 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

11970. 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