Diplomat Special Issue

Russia’s War Against Ukraine: Implications for NATO and the Global Order

July 2023

Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly

Cover Story

COUNTERING DISINFORMATION AND STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS: AN INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR JOËLLE GARRIAUD-MAYLAM, PRESIDENT OF THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

INTERVIEW WITH AUDRONIUS AŽUBALIS: EXPLORING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATO’S OPEN DOOR POLICY IN TODAY’S GEOPOLITICAL CLIMATE

RUSSIA’S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE: ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS FOR NATO AND THE GLOBAL ORDER

UKRAINIAN MP IVANNA KLYMPUSH-TSINTSADZE DISCUSSES NATO PA SPRING SESSION, SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AND PATH TO LASTING PEACE

ADAM KINZINGER URGES INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND HIGHLIGHTS CONCERNS OVER GEORGIA’S ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR RODRIGUE DEMEUSE: FIGHTING IMPUNITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RUSSIA’S RENEWED INVASION OF UKRAINE

ASSESSING THE IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF RECENT SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA: INSIGHTS FROM PROFESSOR JULIAN HINZ

CHINA’S GROWING INFLUENCE: A CALL FOR VIGILANCE IN THE AFTERMATH OF RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

SEA CHANGE: ENSURING BALTIC SECURITY AND NATO’S EVOLVING DEFENSE POSTURE - AN INTERVIEW WITH JEROEN VAN WIJNGAARDEN

Countering Disinformation and Strengthening Partnerships: An Interview with Senator Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly

In this interview with the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Senator of the French Republic Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, we delve into the pressing security challenges faced by NATO in the context of the ongoing developments in Ukraine. With Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in mind, the President discusses the strategic implications for the region and the importance of standing together in support of Ukraine. We also explore the progress of Georgia in its pursuit of NATO membership and

the specific areas requiring attention in implementing necessary reforms. The President shares insights on countering Russian disinformation campaigns and emphasizes the significance of strengthening NATO’s partnerships with other countries and international organizations to address common threats and enhance collective security.

The situation in Georgia has significant strategic implications. Could you provide us with an overview of the current challenges and complexities

faced by Georgia, particularly in the context of regional security?

Since the start of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Georgia – like NATO Allies – finds itself in a profoundly changed security environment. Russia is not a new threat to Georgia. Since 2008, it has illegally occupied some 20% of Georgian territory – an occupation our Assembly has denounced time and again. But Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has laid bare its imperialistic ambitions and its determination

to challenge the international rules-based order. It has highlighted, once again, the systemic challenge which autocracies pose to democracy. With its assault, Russia sought to prevent Ukraine from exercising its free choice, as a sovereign nation, to determine its future: a democratic future within the European and Euro-Atlantic families. This should be of grave concern to Georgia, where successive governments have reiterated their continued commitment to a democratic path and their wish to join these two families as well. Faced with Russia’s challenge, all democracies must stand together in support of Ukraine and join forces to help defeat Russia’s aggression.

Since the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine, NATO and our Assembly have reaffirmed our support for Georgia as well. NATO has stepped up its assistance to Georgia to help it strengthen its defences and its resilience against Russia’s destabilising activities. At the same time, NATO and our Assembly have made clear to our Georgian friends, that staying the course of democratic reforms is even

more important at this critical moment.

During the press conference, you mentioned several key factors affecting Georgia’s path towards NATO membership. Could you elaborate on these factors and their potential impact on Georgia’s aspirations?

Over the years, our Assembly has strongly supported Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and trajectory. The Assembly – and I personally in my various roles over the years – have recognised Georgia’s progress and expressed our support for Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic integration in numerous reports, statements and policy recommendations as well as through our engagement with the Georgian parliamentarians in the Georgia-NATO Interparliamentary Council and other formats.

As parliamentarians, we tend to be direct by nature. And we can be even more frank with our closest partners. This is why, over the years, in our exchanges with our Georgian colleagues, we have

been able to raise any issues openly, amongst friends and partners.

Today, we must recognise that Allies have some concern with regard to the consolidation of Georgian democracy. I have myself raised some of these directly with our Georgian members: the ongoing polarisation of the political environment, the attempt earlier this year to enact a “foreign agents” law, the treatment of former President Mikheil Saakashvili, the importance of full implementation of international sanctions on Russia and the resumption of direct flights between Russia and Georgia.

Shared democratic values are the foundation of the Alliance. If the government and parliament want to demonstrate Georgia’s readiness to join NATO in the future, they must not stray from the path of democratic reform and democratic consolidation. As ever, the Assembly stands ready to support Georgia. But Georgia must do its homework.

How do you assess the progress made by Georgia in implementing

necessary reforms to meet NATO standards? What are the specific areas that require attention?

The breadth and depth of the NATO-Georgia partnership is quite extraordinary, as is the overwhelming popular support for NATO integration, which has been remarkably consistent and cross-party over the years.

Over the past two decades, Georgia has made huge strides towards adopting NATO standards. It has modernised its defence and security sector, including by strengthening civilian and parliamentary control of the armed forces. It has punched above its weight in its contributions to NATO missions and operations – contributions which have made a real difference to our shared security. Today, instruments such as the tailored support measures, the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package, the Annual National Programme and the NATO- Georgia Joint Training and Evaluation Centre as well as regular joint exercises are crucial in continuing to drive reforms and build interoperability of Georgian and NATO forces.

During this time, Georgia has also undergone a remarkable political transformation. Adopting and consolidating democratic standards is essential for any NATO aspirant. Because NATO is not just a military organisation. It is a political alliance of nations committed to democracy, freedom and the rule of law – as NATO’s founding treaty makes clear.

As I just mentioned, there are genuine concerns today that, on this political track, Georgia is going back on some of the achievements of the past two decades. Georgia’s partners are looking to its authorities to address these.

Given your expertise in the ongoing developments in Ukraine, what are your insights on the current situation and its implications for regional security and NATO’s role in the region?

Russia’s criminal and unprovoked war against a sovereign country has sent shockwaves across our continent and beyond. NATO Allies have been united

and resolute in their response to Russia’s aggression. Our nations have delivered unprecedented amounts of military, financial and humanitarian assistance. And we are committed to standing with Ukraine for however long it takes for it to prevail.

At the same time, NATO is undergoing a profound adaptation too. It has made clear its determination to defend every inch of Allied territory and is building up its deterrence and defence.

The outcome of the war will define not just Ukraine’s future, but also the future of the rules- based international order. All nations which believe in a world ruled by right over might must stand with Ukraine and help bring Russia’s pattern of aggression to an end.

The stakes are very high for Georgia too. A victorious Russia would be emboldened in its imperialistic ambitions. It is

Ukraine since the start of Russia’s war of aggression. The Assembly will continue to advocate for that support to be maintained and bolstered for as long as it takes Ukraine to prevail.

My second priority is for the Assembly to continue to support NATO’s adaptation to the new geopolitical reality. The Assembly contributed extensively to the 2022 Strategic Concept, which lays out the roadmap for this adaptation. In particular, we have urged Allies, in light of the rising threat posed by autocracies, to place shared democratic values at the heart of NATO’s response to today’s challenges. NATO must now accelerate its adaptation on two fronts. First, Allies must strengthen their deterrence and defence posture, reinforce their military capabilities and increase their defence investments. Second, having reiterated

The outcome of the war will define not just Ukraine’s future, but also the future of the rules- based international order. All nations which believe in a world ruled by right over might must stand with Ukraine and help bring Russia’s pattern of aggression to an end.

therefore also in Georgia’s interest to do all it can to support Ukraine.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly plays a crucial role in shaping NATO’s policies and priorities. As the President of the Assembly, what are your key objectives and priorities during your tenure? How do you plan to address the emerging challenges and ensure NATO’s effectiveness in a rapidly evolving security landscape?

I have two main priorities as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. First, I will do my utmost to support Ukraine in its courageous fight for its territorial integrity and independence, but also for our shared values of freedom and democracy. NATO member states have shown exceptional solidarity with

its foundational and unwavering commitment to shared democratic values in the new Strategic Concept, NATO must now operationalise it. This is the reasoning behind the Assembly’s proposal to establish a Centre for Democratic Resilience at NATO Headquarters. This centre would serve as a resource and a clearinghouse of best practices available to Allies as well as to partners such as Georgia.

I will be privileged to represent the Assembly at the Vilnius Summit and present our recommendations to Allied Heads of State and Government.

The report of the NATO PA Committee on Democracy and Security, titled ‘The Russian War on Truth: Defending Allied and Partner Democracies Against the Kremlin’s Disinformation Campaigns,’ and authored by you

highlights the importance of countering disinformation. What are your views on the significance of this report, and how can NATO effectively address the disinformation campaigns conducted by Russia?

Russian disinformation poses a dual threat to Allied societies: a security threat and a democratic threat. Nowhere is this threat more visible today than in Ukraine where Russia intensified its efforts to spread disinformation in preparation for and in parallel to its illegal and brutal renewed invasion of Ukraine.

The objectives behind the Kremlin’s disinformation operations are manifold. They aim to weaken democratic societies and erode social cohesion, undermine the confidence of Allied citizens in democratic institutions and processes as well as ensure the Russian regime’s survival. The Alliance cannot afford to stand idly by in the face of attempts by the Kremlin and its puppets to destabilise our countries by inundating them with false information. The Allies have already taken a range of measures to strengthen the resilience of their societies against Russian disinformation. However, given the increase in destabilising attempts in this area, it is crucial that they redouble their efforts. Here again, the creation of a Centre for Democratic Resilience within NATO would be a useful resource. Allies must also strengthen their collaboration with partners in order to better combat disinformation together.

In your opinion, how can NATO

Deepening the Alliance’s dialogue and cooperation with established partners across the Alliance’s neighbourhood – from East to South – as well as strengthening links with new and existing like-minded partners across the globe is also critical to defend the rules-based international order in the face of increasing attempts by authoritarian countries, such as China and Russia, to undermine its tenets.

strengthen its partnerships with other countries and international organizations to enhance collective security and address common threats?

NATO’s partnerships already contribute greatly to the shared security of NATO Allies and partners. However, as the Strategic Concept has recognised, NATO can also better leverage its partnerships to support Alliance values and goals. Partnerships must promote shared democratic values and the rules-based international order. In this regard, continuing to further develop NATO’s unique strategic partnership with the European Union is essential.

Deepening the Alliance’s dialogue and cooperation with established partners across the Alliance’s neighbourhood – from East to South – as well as strengthening links with new and existing like-minded partners across the globe is also critical to defend the rules-based international order in the face of increasing attempts by authoritarian countries, such as China and Russia, to undermine its tenets.

Lastly and importantly, the Alliance’s

Russia’s criminal and unprovoked war against a sovereign country has sent shockwaves across our continent and beyond. NATO Allies have been united and resolute in their response to Russia’s aggression. Our nations have delivered unprecedented amounts of military, financial and humanitarian assistance. And we are committed to standing with Ukraine for however long it takes for it to prevail.

door must remain open for all European democracies that share its values. We look forward to welcoming Sweden as the 32nd member of NATO hopefully very soon.

As a member of the Senate of France, how do you perceive the role of France in NATO and its contributions to the alliance? What are your expectations for France’s engagement and cooperation with NATO in the coming years?

France is one of the founding members of the Alliance and is a reliable, responsible, and committed Ally. Following Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine in 2022, France has further strengthened its contribution to the security of Allies most exposed to Russia’s aggressive and illegal actions. It deployed new contingents in Romania and Estonia and fighter aircraft in Poland to carry out air policing activities. At the same time, France is providing robust, multifaceted support to Ukraine.

In full complementary with NATO’s own efforts, France contributes to the development of European initiatives through which European Allies invest more in their defence and develop their military effectiveness and capacity.

In the face of the multiple threats facing the Euro-Atlantic community today, France will maintain its strong commitment to the Alliance. Our Senate just passed the defence programming bill for the years 2024-2030. This will further strengthen our contribution to Euro- Atlantic and global security for the years to come.

Interview with Audronius Ažubalis: Exploring the Significance of NATO’s Open Door Policy in Today’s Geopolitical Climate

In this interview, we sit down with Lithuanian Member of Parliament, Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships (PCNP), Audronius Ažubalis, to discuss the NATO Open Door Policy and its significance in today’s geopolitical climate. Ažubalis shares his thoughts on the current stagnation of the policy, the need for NATO expansion, and the challenges and opportunities presented by Ukraine’s potential membership. He also addresses the situation in Georgia, the role of European leaders in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the need for NATO reform, and the future of NATO’s economy.

Let’s start by discussing the NATO Open Door Policy and its significance in today’s geopolitical climate. What

are your thoughts on this matter?

I believe the Open Door Policy is currently experiencing some stagnation due to a paradoxical situation in the world. Unfortunately, world leaders, including NATO leaders, wrongly believe that NATO expansion could provoke Russia or other countries. I think this perception is flawed and lacks wisdom.

Expanding NATO is a positive step that helps ensure regional stability and security. The hesitation and lack of leadership in this regard are concerning. For example, there is prevailing thinking about providing weaponry to Ukraine but not taking decisive action. This approach is flawed as it lacks a comprehensive political dimension and ignores the need for political correctness. We cannot simply wait and expect a peaceful resolution. We

must have the courage to take necessary steps.

If we look at the situation with Finland, we know that its NATO membership would not fundamentally change the geopolitical picture with Russia. It is crucial to differentiate between countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states. Russia views these countries as belonging to his sphere of influence, and NATO’s Open Door Policy challenges that perception. Despite this, some differences and historical memory persist among these countries.

Your recent NATO PA report is urging NATO members to accept Ukraine and make a decision on the matter. Can you provide more insight into your arguments and your feelings regarding the acceptance of Ukraine?

Yes, indeed. I am advocating for a push to prompt countries and leaders to take decisive political action by issuing an invitation to Ukraine. This would send a strong message to President Putin that Ukraine’s membership is not up for negotiation and has already been decided.

To make the process more manageable for certain member countries, we propose a gradual approach that could commence in Vilnius and gain momentum at the Washington summit. This could be followed by further steps. However, it seems that the current leadership is reluctant to accept this invitation due to concerns about provoking Russia. I often wonder how we could provoke Russia any further.

I agree with Henry Kissinger’s assessment that the West made a grave mistake by providing military assistance to Ukraine without matching it with adequate political support. The report highlights several arguments emphasizing the need for action now, considering the challenges we face.

In your report, you mention the challenge that the West needs to face regarding Ukraine. Could you elaborate on this challenge and whom it poses it for?

The challenge for the West is to rise

above its comfortable position, take calculated risks, and persuade voters of the importance of the situation. I recall that when I proposed partially covering Ukrainian Special Operations Forces, some people asked if I was pushing us towards war. This reaction stemmed from a lack of understanding that our current inaction is a continuation of aggression and failure to deter further aggression.

This understanding is slowly gaining ground, although progress is gradual. Even during recent discussions and debates, I have noticed some countries no longer opposing the idea, indicating that they are starting to reconsider their positions. This was not the case six months ago. We need to challenge the prevailing perception regarding Ukraine’s integration into NATO and work diligently to

change minds and promote the cause.

Russia’s actions should not hinder our progress. NATO, as an organization, moves at a disappointingly slow pace, which would be unsustainable in a business context. We have ample resources and the capability to act decisively, yet the decision-making process within NATO is slow. We lack true leadership that can provide clear direction.

Opponents argue for compromise and finding common ground, suggesting that our disagreements might weaken NATO’s eastern flank. In my opinion, such thinking only benefits Russia and China and not our collective interests. We should not confuse misunderstanding or hesitation as an effective strategy.

Can you provide a list of countries

I believe the Open Door Policy is currently experiencing some stagnation due to a paradoxical situation in the world. Unfortunately, world leaders, including NATO leaders, wrongly believe that NATO expansion could provoke Russia or other countries. I think this perception is flawed and lacks wisdom. Expanding NATO is a positive step that helps ensure regional stability and security.

that you believe support Ukraine’s membership in NATO, aside from the Baltic states and Poland?

Yes, I believe that Poland’s leadership is supportive, as well as partially Czech Republic and Slovenia. However, it’s important to note that there are supporters of NATO enlargement in every country, but the balance of political power varies. For example, in Italy, there are supporters, but it’s uncertain where the balance of power lies. The same goes for the UK and Germany. The slowness in decision-making is detrimental to Ukraine and exhausts global public opinion. As for those leaders who are undecided, it’s unclear why they are against Ukraine’s membership, as the arguments presented are often baseless and lacking political will.

In your report, you do not recommend Georgia’s membership in NATO, but considering the pressure and aggression from Russia, how do you think Georgia can fulfill the necessary requirements?

It is true that Russia is creating tensions and pressures in order to manipulate the situation in Georgia. Certain unfriendly forces aim to push for a restoration of relations with Russia, which poses a significant challenge. Regarding Georgia’s internal affairs, it is not for me to judge, but there are concerning indications of a hostile political landscape that does not align with European values. For instance, Georgia has failed to accept numerous sanctions measures against Russia, which raises questions about its commitment. Additionally, the treatment of former President Saakashvili raises eyebrows and may be perceived as an attempt to provoke negative reactions from the EU and NATO. These actions by certain forces in Georgia are counterproductive and hinder the country’s European aspirations.

Georgian government presents arguments to justify resuming direct flights to Russia, claiming that countries like Israel and Turkey have direct flights with Russia too. How would you

respond to these arguments?

It is important to acknowledge the political reality and context. While one can find various arguments, the main point is that Georgia aims to align itself with the West and become a more solid Western partner. Comparisons to Israel or Turkey are not applicable since Georgia does not possess the same geopolitical position or influence. Moreover, the concerns about provocation or potential Russian reactions should not hinder Georgia’s progress. The country has made significant strides in developing its democracy and armed forces, with substantial support from NATO. It is crucial to remember that the current military focus for Russia is in Ukraine, and launching an attack on Georgia would be irrational and counterproductive.

Some argue that imposing sanctions on Russia would have a mini-

crucial to stand up against aggression and defend democratic values, even if the impact of individual sanctions may be limited.

When it comes to Georgia, do you think Russia could use NATO’s hesitation to promote the idea that NATO doesn’t need Georgia, especially considering the disinformation and propaganda campaigns they’re running?

It is possible that Russia could exploit NATO’s reluctance to support Georgia’s membership as evidence that NATO is not interested. The disinformation and propaganda campaigns they are running in Georgia, such as promoting the idea that Russia will return South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgia, further complicate the situation. These campaigns may affect public opinion and create a dangerous narrative.

I am advocating for a push to prompt countries and leaders to take decisive political action by issuing an invitation to Ukraine. This would send a strong message to President Putin that Ukraine's membership is not up for negotiation and has already been decided. However, it seems that the current leadership is reluctant to accept this invitation due to concerns about provoking Russia. I often wonder how we could provoke Russia any further.

mal impact and could provoke further aggression. What is your response to this line of thinking?

It is important to consider the bigger picture. While it is true that Georgia’s individual sanctions may have a minimal impact, they contribute to the broader international effort to address Russia’s aggression and deter further destabilization. By joining sanctions, Georgia demonstrates solidarity with the international community and sends a clear message to Russia. The argument that imposing sanctions would provoke Russia is flawed because it implies that Russia’s aggressive behavior should go unchecked. It is

Could intensifying the case for Georgia and urging NATO member countries to consider its membership be a better approach rather than the current realistic and objective assessment that Georgia is not ready for NATO yet?

The report’s main goal is to provide a clear picture, even if it may not be completely objective. It aims to present an honest opinion rather than a blurred image that hinders decision-making. While the current assessment suggests that Georgia is not ready for NATO membership, intensifying the case for Georgia’s membership and pushing NATO member

countries to consider it could offer a more comprehensive and informed discussion.

What are your expectations for the upcoming NATO Summit, and what do you think will be the main messages and highlights?

It will likely be challenging to achieve the 2% defense spending target. Some countries, like Luxembourg, currently contribute only 0.67% of their GDP to defense. However, there will be efforts to reach a more realistic agreement on military financing and security arrangements, given the pressure from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries. Regional defense plans will also be discussed and approved. As for enlargement, it will depend on how far supporting countries are willing to go against potential opposition from certain NATO leaders.

Do you anticipate any practical support for Ukraine and Georgia during the NATO Summit, considering the focus on offering practical assistance instead of political support?

It is difficult to make specific predictions, but it is likely that some practical support will be offered to Ukraine, such as the establishment of a NATO-Ukraine Council, granting Ukraine a seat in the

North Atlantic Council, and sharing intelligence information. However, the level of support will depend on the willingness of countries like the Baltic states, Poland, and other supportive nations to push for stronger decisions.

]How would you define victory for Ukraine?

The definition of victory should be determined by the Ukrainian people themselves. However, in my opinion, victory would entail securing Ukraine’s borders according to the situation that existed in 1991. The future of Ukraine and the course of events remain uncertain, but for me, true victory lies in ensuring the freedom and territorial integrity of the entire country.

Do all European leaders understand the threat posed by the conflict between Ukraine and Russia to European security?

Unfortunately, not all European leaders fully grasp the magnitude of the threat. While some countries, like the United States, demonstrate a comprehensive understanding, others remain less attuned to the interconnected nature of security challenges. It is disconcerting to encounter parliamentarians who fail to recognize the potential consequences of

the conflict. They might perceive themselves as distant from the conflict, but they fail to acknowledge that the spillover effects, such as refugee flows and disruptions to trade, have far-reaching implications. It is crucial to cultivate a shared understanding among European leaders that no country can remain immune to the ripple effects of regional conflicts.

What were your expectations regarding the actions of European leaders when the conflict started? Have they met your expectations or fallen short?

Initially, I had doubts, but the overall reaction of European leaders was commendable. Some leaders, such as Mr. Borrell, surprised me with their decisive and proactive actions. Their leadership was evident, and they responded effectively to the situation. The establishment of the foundation for providing assistance was a positive step, even though it initially served different purposes. Despite facing sanctions and pressure from lobbyists, the European Union managed to unite its 27 member countries with diverse economies and interests. While there is always room for improvement, considering the circumstances, I believe they have done well thus far.

Do you think there is a need for

reform within NATO? Can you elaborate on your thoughts regarding the current structure and the creation of alternative defense formats?

Yes, there is a need for reform within NATO. The current structure has its limitations and shortcomings, as demonstrated by the creation of alternative defense formats. The NATO organization should address these issues to ensure its proper functioning. For example, the emergence of the Ramstein format, which seeks to bypass certain NATO countries, indicates that something is amiss. Although any reforms would require unanimous decisions rather than vetoes, it is evident that NATO’s current approach falls short. The focus should shift from political wrangling to practical concerns such as ensuring medical supplies and humanitarian aid. It is essential to rectify these shortcomings and maintain a strong and effective NATO that can address contemporary security challenges.

What should be the future of NATO’s economy, considering Russia’s trend towards a wartime economy and the need to secure defenses?

It is crucial for NATO to reconstruct its economy with a focus on wartime needs. Russia’s shift towards a wartime economy highlights the urgency of the situation. Merely relying on financial contributions from member countries is not enough, as we cannot expect Ukraine or any other country to solely bear the burden of fighting. A common understanding and

Unfortunately, not all European leaders fully grasp the magnitude of the threat. While some countries, like the United States, demonstrate a comprehensive understanding, others remain less attuned to the interconnected nature of security challenges. It is disconcerting to encounter parliamentarians who fail to recognize the potential consequences of the conflict. They might perceive themselves as distant from the conflict, but they fail to acknowledge that the spillover effects, such as refugee flows and disruptions to trade, have far-reaching implications.

commitment to supporting the defense industry are necessary. Political signals should be sent to defense industries, assuring them of sustained support for independent armament and supply. Maintaining credible armed forces requires ongoing investment and procurement. It is essential to acknowledge that defense production cannot be halted or reduced to occasional purchases. It is a continuous process, demanding consistent investment for the long term.

There have been discussions about the future of the Open Door Policy. What are your hopes and suggestions regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership?

The Open Door Policy discussions raise important questions about the future. Ultimately, the success of Ukraine will determine the course of action. Some countries may be hesitant to take

the risk of accepting new members, and even though they may publicly express support, doubts might linger beneath the surface. It is crucial for Ukraine to become an unavoidable challenge by showcasing its democratic values, adherence to the rule of law, and commitment to NATO standards. Ukraine must eliminate any factors that could be used by opponents to undermine its candidacy. The focus should be on political stability rather than economic prosperity, as opponents primarily target the political situation. Establishing order within the country is a significant challenge that must be addressed. It may sound simple, but in reality, it requires diligent efforts. Looking back, I recall a conversation with a prominent politician from a Western country in 1990. When we expressed our desire to become associated members of NATO, their response was one of ignorance. They didn’t even know what “refrain” meant. This highlights the importance of a NATO format and the need for ongoing efforts to overcome such barriers. Despite obstacles, unity has been a prevailing theme. Reaching a consensus on the need for NATO and EU integration has always been a primary goal. Regardless of the political parties in power, the focus has remained on moving in the same direction. Recent resolutions in Parliament, such as the unanimous invitation to Ukraine, demonstrate this unity and determination, despite differing opinions. We can draw inspiration from the examples set by the Baltic States and Ukraine, learning from their experiences and achievements.

Russia’s War against Ukraine: Assessing the Implications for NATO and the Global Order

In this interview, we have the honor of discussing the findings of Tomas Valasek’s report on Russia’s war against Ukraine. Mr. Valasek, a member of the Slovak National Council and the General Rapporteur of the Political Committee of NATO MP has provided valuable insights into the conflict and its implications for NATO and the global order. We will explore the key points highlighted in his report and compare them to the previous year’s findings, shedding light on the evolving political landscape.

What are the key points of your report on Russia’s war against Ukraine, and how does it compare to last year’s report?

These reports serve as snapshots of the most pressing political themes and issues faced by NATO and its allies. The current report highlights the issue of Ukraine fatigue, as it has been over a year since the conflict began. While the Allies initially responded admirably

and provided significant military support to Ukraine, there is a growing sense of waning resolve. Some have suggested negotiating a peace track, but the report emphasizes that now is not the time to relent in our support for Ukraine. The report argues that as long as Ukraine remains resolved and capable of fighting, we must continue supporting them. It is not only a matter of helping the victim against the aggressor, but also of setting a precedent for other countries, including Georgia, as well as ensuring our own security. So the main message of the report is to maintain our support for Ukraine and recognize that how the war ends will have significant implications for the European

security order.

What tangible results can we expect for Ukraine, and what are your expectations?

Discussions regarding military support for Ukraine take place on a daily basis, with over 50 countries meeting in a Ramstein format, which extends beyond NATO. The EU is also heavily engaged and generous in providing macroeconomic aid to Ukraine. One potential game changer, which remains uncertain, is a clear signal from the Alliance in Vilnius that we have moved beyond the Bucharest Summit in terms of Ukraine’s NATO

The report argues that as long as Ukraine remains resolved and capable of fighting, we must continue supporting them. It is not only a matter of helping the victim against the aggressor, but also of setting a precedent for other countries, including Georgia, as well as ensuring our own security.

membership. Since 2008, we have been repeating the same mantra, stating that Ukraine will eventually become a member of the Alliance. However, little has been done in practice to make this a reality. This policy has sent a signal of uncertainty and vulnerability to Russia, implying that it will eventually lose Ukraine. This lack of unified action has contributed to the Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine. We missed an opportunity in Bucharest to send a strong message that we are committed to protecting Georgia and Ukraine. Therefore, it is crucial not to repeat the same mistake in the future. The responsibility now lies with the Allies to prevent further Russian aggression by providing Ukraine with security guarantees through NATO membership. As former opponent of NATO enlargement, Henry Kissinger himself acknowledged, there is no better security guarantee than NATO membership. Bringing Ukraine into

larger and play a significant role in providing security guarantees. They have the capabilities needed to back those guarantees. However, we are seeing a shift in the security landscape, with countries like Poland increasing their defense spending and becoming providers of security guarantees themselves. On the other hand, countries in Eastern Europe, including

One potential game changer, which remains uncertain, is a clear signal from the Alliance in Vilnius that we have moved beyond the Bucharest Summit in terms of Ukraine's NATO membership. Since 2008, we have been repeating the same mantra, stating that Ukraine will eventually become a member of the Alliance. However, little has been done in practice to make this a reality.

NATO now is necessary to prevent another war and ensure lasting security. My expectation is that the Allies will move beyond Bucharest and clearly outline the path towards Ukraine’s NATO membership once the war ends.

Usually when these reports are written, or when we advocate for Ukraine’s NATO membership, it’s primarily countries from Eastern Europe that speak out. Do you think there is a need to reassure partners in Western Europe about the importance of supporting Ukraine’s membership?

The difference in perspectives is natural due to the balance of responsibilities within NATO. Western European countries, particularly the United States, are

Slovakia, Lithuania, and Poland, are more vocal about supporting Ukraine’s membership because they face a more immediate risk of Russian aggression. The geographic proximity plays a role in their strong advocacy. As for Western Europe, there is ongoing dialogue and discussions to ensure that the importance of security guarantees and NATO membership is understood. The war itself serves as a powerful reminder of the need for these guarantees.

How do you assess the current situation in Georgia, considering the government’s stance on closer relations with Russia and their actions that may not align with support for NATO integration?

The main concern in Georgia is to preserve people’s right to choose their alignment. It is important to respect their decision, whether it is to align with the EU, NATO, or any other choice they make. Russia has no right to deny them that freedom. However, it is equally important for the government of Georgia to reflect the will of the people and not manipulate elections to favor their own agenda. If Georgian society is clearly set on joining the EU and NATO, the government should align with the will of the people and ensure transparent and fair elections.

When the war started, there was a realization that it is not just Ukraine’s issue, but a concern for the entire Europe. How do you think Western Europeans perceive the threat and understand the importance of supporting countries like Ukraine and other Eastern European allies?

While the impact of the conflict may differ depending on geography, no country in Europe has been spared the consequences of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Western European countries may feel a lesser immediate impact due to their distance from the conflict, but they are fully aware that without a strong response to Russian expansionism, the repercussions will be felt across the continent. Whether it is energy blackmail or the disruption of supplies, the consequences would be significant for all of us. It is crucial to recognize that relenting on our support to Ukraine would only embolden Russia and lead to further conflicts. Therefore, it is in the best interest of all NATO allies to draw a clear line and stand united against such behavior.

Ukrainian MP Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze Discusses NATO PA Spring Session, Support for Ukraine, and Path to Lasting Peace

While it is a step forward, it may not be as ambitious as Ukraine requires at this moment. The key points we would have liked to see in the resolution include a clear path towards Ukraine’s future membership in NATO, as we believe this is necessary for durable and sustainable peace in Europe. We acknowledge that there is little appetite to go beyond the language agreed upon in the Bucharest summit 15 years ago, which stated that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members. The next logical step is granting a Membership Action Plan (MAP). However, we believe that the MAP is currently irrelevant, given the experiences of countries like Finland and hopefully Sweden. Unfortunately, there is also a lack of readiness at the political level to provide guidance to governments on upgrading the relationship between Ukraine and NATO, such as extending an invitation.

In this interview, we sit down with Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, an Ukrainian MP, to discuss the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) spring session and the ongoing efforts to garner support for Ukraine from Western European countries and NATO allies. As a staunch advocate for Ukraine’s security and integration with Western institutions, Klympush-Tsintsadze shares her impressions of the NATO PA session, highlights positive developments, and outlines areas that require further improvement.

What was your impression of the NATO PA spring session? Did it meet your expectations, and what were some positive developments during

those days? What areas would you like to see improvements in?

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has shown leadership by being the first assembly to expel the Russian delegation in 2014, demonstrating a strong understanding of the ongoing conflict that has lasted over nine years. Our expectation was that this political assembly could help us achieve an ambitious agenda for the Vilnius Summit. We hoped that resolutions and reports presented during the spring session could outline additional steps to upgrade the relationship between Ukraine and NATO. The resolution although it is strong, supportive, and comprehensive, is still less ambitious than we would have preferred.

Realistically, we understand the challenges in reaching this higher point at this stage. Nonetheless, we will continue to work towards it leading up to the Vilnius summit, engaging with different countries and delegations to understand their perspectives.

During the session, there were several reports presented by different committees that provided clear explanations of Russia’s war against Ukraine. These reports highlighted the impact of the war on various aspects of Ukrainian society and different regions. It is crucial that this understanding is widely recognized, analyzed, and kept in focus. The consequences of this war extend beyond our well-being and the European continent, making it essential for the free world to address and confront it. Therefore, it was incredibly positive to see each committee addressing specific issues related to this war and emphasizing the need for further attention and action.

We have noticed that advocates for Ukraine often refer to the experiences of countries like Georgia and Eastern European nations when seeking support from Western European countries. Why do you think this is the case, and how do you propose working together with Eastern European countries to garner more support, including from the US?

It is true that advocates for Ukraine often draw attention to the experiences of countries like Georgia and other Eastern European nations when seeking support from Western European countries. This approach stems from the shared challenges and historical context that these countries have faced in dealing with Russia’s aggression and interference. By highlighting the struggles and successes of Eastern European nations, we aim to

Furthermore, it is crucial to engage Western European countries, including the United States, in a constructive dialogue. We appreciate the supportive comments we have heard from the US delegation. To garner more support, we must emphasize the significance of Ukraine’s struggle in the context of broader regional security and stability. By highlighting the potential impact on Western European countries and the free world as a whole, we can foster a better understanding and gain stronger backing for Ukraine’s aspirations.

Do you believe there has been a positive shift in the support for Ukraine from Western European countries and NATO allies?

Yes, we have seen an incredible positive evolution in the Western support for

We understand that peace can only be achieved when Russia is defeated, isolated, and weakened to the point where it cannot launch another attack on any country. It's not just about Ukraine; if Russia is not held accountable, it poses a threat to others as well. The first step would be the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territories. Then, hopefully, negotiations can take place to ensure Russia's weakness and willingness to pay reparations for the destruction it caused. Only then can we expect to see an end to the war.

create a sense of solidarity and demonstrate that Ukraine’s fight for freedom and security is part of a broader regional context.

To work together with Eastern European countries, we need to strengthen cooperation and coordination among our nations. By aligning our efforts, sharing experiences, and supporting each other, we can present a united front to Western European countries and the international community. This solidarity will help convey the urgency and importance of supporting Ukraine in its quest for peace, stability, and integration with Western institutions.

Ukraine over the past year. We deeply appreciate the increased support in military, humanitarian, financial, and sanctions areas. There has been a growing recognition of the threat that Russia poses to the security of the continent and a realization that Ukraine’s success is crucial for their own security. More representatives from Western European countries are expressing the need for Ukraine to win and for Russia to be defeated. This shift in thinking is significant and demonstrates a stronger backing for Ukraine.

What are some challenges you still face in garnering support from West-

ern countries, and how can these challenges be addressed?

One of the challenges we face is the fear of escalation and provoking Russia. Some countries are hesitant to provide Ukraine with additional weapons, fearing it may provoke Russia further. However, it is important to understand that Russia does not need provocation to attack, and Ukraine requires the necessary defensive capabilities to protect itself. We must continue to emphasize that unity and support are essential to prevent further aggression from Russia.

Another challenge is the influence of business interests that undermine the united effort in supporting Ukraine. Some countries prioritize their economic ties with Russia over the strength of alliances and unity within NATO and the EU. It is crucial for all member states, including Western countries, to address this challenge and find solutions that prioritize the collective agenda and the security of the entire bloc.

How do you assess the current level of support from Western countries, and what more can they do to assist Ukraine?

The level of support from Western countries has shown positive tendencies, but it is too early to consider the job done. We still need further assistance, particularly in terms of additional weaponry. The decision-making and delivery processes for providing weaponry need to be expedited to address the urgent needs of protecting civilian lives and ensuring the efficiency of the Ukrainian armed forces.

There have been delays in discussions and preparations for important equipment, such as tanks and F-16s. These delays result in lost time and prevent us from adequately preparing and training our troops. To support Ukraine effectively, there needs to be an upscaling of production capabilities in the Western military industry to ensure the timely availability of necessary instruments.

Moreover, there is room for further action in terms of sanctions. Strong and unified sanctions, without exemptions or weak links, can have a significant impact. Closing loopholes, expanding sanction sectors, and increasing pressure on Russia’s nuclear power generation sector are

some areas that could be explored. Additionally, lowering the price cap for oil and implementing wider sanctions beyond the G7 can exert further pressure on the Russian Federation.

In summary, Western countries can continue to enhance their support for Ukraine by expediting the delivery of weaponry, strengthening production capabilities, and implementing robust and unified sanctions to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

Everyone asks when the war will be over and what is your sense considering the current support?

We are the nation that is most interested in achieving peace as soon as possible. No other nation or politician expresses concern about ending the killing and suffering of people as deeply as we do. However, we understand that peace can only be achieved when Russia is defeated, isolated, and weakened to the point where it cannot launch another attack on

government, such as withdrawing the ambassador?

I must say that the current government of Georgia seems to be trying to balance multiple positions simultaneously, which is not a practical approach. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is clear-cut, black and white, and a battle between good and evil. The people of Georgia and its society have shown their solidarity with Ukraine and its efforts to defend itself. However, the government needs to align with the sentiments of its people.

I do appreciate that the Georgian government consistently supports Ukraine on the international stage, and we can

The level of support from Western countries has shown positive tendencies, but it is too early to consider the job done. We still need further assistance, particularly in terms of additional weaponry.

any country. It’s not just about Ukraine; if Russia is not held accountable, it poses a threat to others as well. The first step would be the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territories. Then, hopefully, negotiations can take place to ensure Russia’s weakness and willingness to pay reparations for the destruction it caused. Only then can we expect to see an end to the war.

Regarding Georgia, there was some frustration expressed in our previous conversation about the level of support. What is your assessment of the current relationship with Georgia and the actions taken by the Ukrainian

Moreover, there is room for further action in terms of sanctions. Strong and unified sanctions, without exemptions or weak links, can have a significant impact. Closing loopholes, expanding sanction sectors, and increasing pressure on Russia's nuclear power generation sector are some areas that could be explored.

count on them in various fora. Yet, I believe Georgia could be more proactive in joining sanctions and countering Russian propaganda. There is an ongoing concern about Russia’s offer to reopen communication channels, and I strongly urge Georgia to reject this suggestion as it seems like a trap. Russia should withdraw its troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia before any restoration of connections. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of clarity and unity within Georgia regarding priorities and decision-making. I am also concerned that the Georgian government has not taken any action to limit the stay of Russians fleeing from the conflict in Ukraine, which is causing dissatisfaction among the Georgian population. It’s crucial for the government to address these issues to prevent potential societal tensions. As for the withdrawal of the Ukrainian ambassador, I personally disagree with the decision made by the President of Ukraine. I believe Ukraine should maintain a high-level presence and continuous dialogue with Georgia, considering that Georgia is not only a strategic partner but also a dear friend to Ukraine.

Adam Kinzinger Urges International Support for Ukraine and Highlights Concerns Over Georgia’s Economic Relations with Russia

Adam Kinzinger, former American politician and CNN senior political commentator, provides updates on the training of Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 aircraft. Kinzinger emphasizes that the war between Ukraine and Russia is unprovoked and urges adequate international support. He warns against appeasing aggressive leaders like Putin and believes NATO membership or a defense association is crucial for Ukraine. Regarding Georgia, he disagrees with their government’s economic relations with Russia, emphasizing that the future lies with the West.

Can you provide an update on the training of Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 aircraft? How long did the process take, and when can we expect to see

F-16s in Ukraine?

Well, it’s good news that the training on F-16s has finally started, although it would have been preferable if it had happened earlier. The procedure took approximately one year to put in place. Currently, it appears that we can train a well-qualified Ukrainian pilot in about four months, which is a standard timeframe when transitioning to a different aircraft for pilots who already know how to fly. I am confident that we can accomplish this. Once we initiate the training for these pilots, it will take around four months for them to become qualified to operate the F-16s. However, logistical considerations, such as training, mechanics, and other factors, need to be taken into account as well. Realistically, we could start seeing F-16s in the service of Ukraine within

four to six months, depending on how the coalition comes together. There must be a country willing to relinquish their F-16s to make room for F-35s as replacements. I hope this happens soon because it not only benefits the ongoing conflict but also strengthens Ukraine’s defense against potential future aggression. The F-16 is a highly capable aircraft, after all.

Let’s discuss the war between Ukraine and Russia. You mentioned the term “unprovoked war” in your Twitter posts. Can you elaborate on the situation and evaluate the international support received? Do you believe it is adequate?

Russia has made its intentions clear regarding the expansion of its empire.

They often use justifications like protecting ethnic Russians or manufacturing crises to achieve their goals. However, it’s important to look at what Vladimir Putin himself has been saying. He has long desired to take control of Ukraine or destabilize its government. Ukraine, on the other hand, has done nothing to provoke this conflict. Even when part of its territory, Crimea, was annexed, Ukraine continued to seek peaceful negotiations. Unfortunately, after a period of isolation due to COVID, Vladimir Putin made the decision to wage this war. However, he is now realizing that determined people defending their homeland cannot be easily overcome by machines or weapons. Ukraine has stood strong and adapted rapidly to the challenges it faces, including the use of NATO-standard equipment such as the Patriot missile system. Western and proUkrainian support appears to be holding firm, and we hope it continues to do so. My concern is that changes in political dynamics might weaken the West’s resolve to support Ukraine. Nonetheless, as long as Ukraine receives the necessary support, I am confident they can not only resist Russia but also achieve victory. The human cost of this conflict is significant, so a swift resolution is desired. This situation serves as a lesson for countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. By demonstrating unity, setting aside differences, and calling out aggression, the likelihood of a Russian invasion or attack decreases because Vladimir Putin knows he will ultimately lose.

Some people draw parallels between the current situation in Ukraine and the events preceding World War II. What is your perspective on this, especially from the Western point of view?

The lessons from history are clear when dealing with strong leaders like Vladimir Putin. We must pay attention to their words and actions. When Putin expresses his desire to rebuild aspects of the USSR, we should take it seriously. Back in 2014, when he attacked the

eastern regions of Ukraine and annexed Crimea, the international response was slow. This was reminiscent of the lackluster reaction to the Russian occupation of South Ossetia in Georgia. Putin is a smart individual, regardless of one’s opinion of him. He understands that he cannot defeat the military might of the West or the determination of people to defend their land. If there are no obstacles in his way, why wouldn’t he continue his aggressive actions? The lesson here is similar to what we learned 80 years ago during the Munich Agreement. We cannot appease a strong leader. This doesn’t mean that we actively seek war or conflicts. The United States and the Western countries, in general, do not desire war. However, history has shown that if we do not stand up against aggression when it is relatively easy to do so, we will inevitably face a much harder situation in the future. Just look at past instances where Hitler occupied Austria, expecting a response from France and the UK, but when they failed to act, it only emboldened him. The same applies to Vladimir Putin’s ambitions.

And when the war started in Ukraine, the first messages were that Ukraine is not just fighting for itself, but for the Western world as a whole. However, over a year has passed, and some Western leaders and societies may not perceive this as a threat that they need to address. They believe that because it’s happening at a distance, it’s happening somewhere far away. What is your perspective on this? How is the situation perceived in the US?

Well, the US population is still very much behind the Ukrainians and anyone who stands up against this aggression. However, on the political side, things are a little strange at the moment, not just in the US but also around the world. There seems to be a concerning strain of nationalism and isolationism gaining attention, particularly on platforms like

Twitter. This is something that worries me. For example, if Donald Trump were to become President again (which I don’t think will happen), or to some extent, if Ron DeSantis or other Republicans who are supportive of Ukraine come to power, it would be positive. It’s crucial for leaders like President Biden to continue discussing this issue with the American people. We are investing a significant amount of money, and Europe is doing the same. It’s important to remind people why we are doing so. In the 21st century, where everything is interconnected, as we’ve seen with the COVID-19 pandemic, borders are no longer barriers. If we believe that what happens in Ukraine will never affect the United States, we are mistaken. I think most Americans have learned that lesson. Therefore, it’s essential for us to support Ukraine when they are willing to fight and defend themselves. We don’t have to send US or NATO troops or escalate the war. If Ukraine is willing to defend itself, it’s crucial to provide them with the necessary weapons so that hopefully, we can avoid having to send troops.

What about NATO membership? Do you believe it could be a solution, or is providing military aid enough?

If I could wave a magic wand, I would make Georgia and Ukraine members of NATO today. However, we must also consider the realities and challenges associated with border disputes. According to NATO’s charter, membership is off the table when such disputes exist. Nevertheless, I believe that once this war is over, Ukraine’s path to NATO membership becomes highly likely, or at least some security construct that fulfills their needs and helps attract investment for rebuilding. There is always a risk of the war resuming, making it difficult to attract outside funding for reconstruction. Therefore, even if it’s not full NATO membership, some form of association that enables Ukraine to defend itself in similar cases is crucial.

The NATO Vilnius Summit is upcoming. Do you have any expectations regarding what might happen? What is your outlook on this war, given your military background and understanding of the situation?

At the NATO Summit, I anticipate the introduction of more aid packages, including tanks and missile defense systems. There will likely be a plan to not only train Ukrainian pilots but also equip Ukraine with the necessary resources, such as F-16s, to defend itself. I also foresee a renewed commitment to defense. While there are still some unpredictable actors within NATO, the alliance remains largely united. As for the future prognosis of this war, I see two possibilities. The worstcase scenario is a continued stalemate with high casualties and limited territorial gains for Russia, resembling aspects of World War One. In this situation, if you are Vladimir Putin, you are concerned about losing power. Using human lives as a means to buy time, he becomes less threatened as the war prolongs. However, when this war ultimately ends in defeat for Russia, whether sooner or later, it will pose a threat to Putin’s future because the Russian people will not be supportive of such an outcome. On the other hand, my hope, and something that is quite possible, is the collapse of the Russian army. No one wants to die for a futile cause, and if soldiers see no hope of victory or if their leaders abandon them amidst internal conflicts, such as those between Wagner forces and the Russian Defense Ministry, it becomes less likely for them to put their lives on the line. In such a scenario, the Russian army could collapse entirely, resulting in a complete rout and the eventual necessity for Russia to seek peace. Ideally, Ukraine would regain control over both the eastern provinces and Crimea, which rightfully belong to them.

Let’s discuss Georgia now. You have been following the events in Georgia closely, and you often express your opinions on the matter.

Currently, there are flights between Russia and Georgia, and the Georgian government states that they want to have economic relations with Russia without implying a lack of support for Ukraine. They argue that it’s purely business and economics. What is your take on this situation? What has been happening since the war?

First and foremost, I believe that the majority of the Georgian people do not

support their government’s stance on this issue. While it can be argued that economic relations can be beneficial, including with Russia, it’s important to stand against aggression, especially for a country like Georgia that has experienced firsthand the loss of territory and occupation. This move seems to be in violation of sanctions, and it’s puzzling why the Georgian government, specifically the Dream Party, is so eager to please Russia. Russia is a failing country, and

My hope, and something that is quite possible, is the collapse of the Russian army. No one wants to die for a futile cause, and if soldiers see no hope of victory or if their leaders abandon them amidst internal conflicts, such as those between Wagner forces and the Russian Defense Ministry, it becomes less likely for them to put their lives on the line. In such a scenario, the Russian army could collapse entirely, resulting in a complete rout and the eventual necessity for Russia to seek peace

even if they were to succeed in the war in Ukraine (which I highly doubt), their future prospects, demographically and otherwise, are grim. Choosing Russia over a closer relationship with the West makes no sense to me, unless there are hidden motives at play.

I understand the frustration regarding Georgia’s NATO membership and integration issues. However, the United States and the West have made it clear that they consider Georgia a partner and an ally. We have provided aid and training, and our troops have trained alongside Georgian troops in Afghanistan. The notion that the US is abandoning Georgia is false and disingenuous, propagated by the country’s leadership. It is equally absurd to suggest that the United States wants to drag Georgia into a wider war with Russia. Our objective is to support Ukraine in maintaining its territorial integrity and achieving peace, not to escalate the conflict.

Let’s talk about your new organization, Country First. What is its mission, and where does it stand in US and international politics?

The mission of Country First revolves around prioritizing the interests of the country over partisan interests. I am deeply interested in democracy and democracy-building, which is why I hold Georgia in high regard. The people of Georgia have shown immense courage in their pursuit of freedom. Democracies should not be defined solely by their bad

days, rather, they are defined by how they recover and uphold their democratic values. Country First aims to teach individuals to prioritize their country’s interests above those of their political party. I want to emphasize that one can identify as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, but the well-being of the nation should always supersede partisan loyalties. My ultimate goal is to expand this mission be-

have a deep love for Georgia. Whenever your leaders suggest there is a hidden agenda to involve Georgia in a wider war, please disregard such claims as baseless. The last thing the US desires is to escalate the conflict in Georgia. I must stress again that Russia is not the future for Georgia. The future lies with the West, whether it be the United States, France, Germany, or any other Western country. Russia is a failing country, and the Georgian leadership should recognize this and guide the nation toward a better future—one that does not involve Russia.

Additionally, I would like to address the concerns raised by some Western politicians about Georgia’s current orientation. While there may be skepticism regarding Georgia’s alignment, it is crucial for the United States and the West to understand that the views expressed by the government may not necessarily represent the sentiments of the Georgian people.

My concern is that changes in political dynamics might weaken the West's resolve to support Ukraine. Nonetheless, as long as Ukraine receives the necessary support, I am confident they can not only resist Russia but also achieve victory.

yond the United States to other countries, fostering a broader perspective that emphasizes the future of the country rather than specific individuals or parties. Many democracies struggle with this issue, including our own, and I believe it is crucial to place the country first and focus on ideas rather than personalities.

Is there anything else you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?

I want to reiterate that the United States holds great affection for the country of Georgia. One only needs to look at the aid, training, and partnership Georgia receives to understand the level of attention given by the US. Personally, I

Peaceful demonstrations are essential for expressing your voice and making it clear that your leaders do not speak for you on this matter. Whether through social media or other means, it is important to emphasize that Georgian politics should revolve around the people and the future of the country, rather than being centered around specific personalities or individuals controlling the parties. By participating in every election and putting pressure on the government to stay aligned with the West, you can make a significant impact. The recent attention drawn to events such as the wedding attended by the Russian Foreign Minister’s Sergei Lavrov’s daughter and the resumption of flights is a positive development, and it is vital to maintain this momentum.

In this interview, Senator Rodrigue Demeuse, a member of the Senate of Belgium, discusses the creation of a report within the framework of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that addresses the violations occurring in Ukraine and the urgent need for tangible responses. Senator Demeuse emphasizes the importance of fighting impunity and ensuring that all perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The interview delves into the role of parliamentarians in addressing these crimes and proposes actionable steps they can take, including supporting Ukraine’s justice system and advocating for the establishment of an international tribunal. Lessons learned from previous cases, such as the situation in Georgia, are examined, along with the challenges involved in implementing court decisions.

Before we delve into the details of the report itself, I’d like to inquire about the process behind its creation. Could you tell us who was involved and provide some background information?

Certainly. The report originated from our concerns regarding the numerous violations occurring daily in Ukraine. We aimed to address these violations and provide tangible responses. Initially, it surprised me to see the scarcity of effective legal measures and research conducted in the early months of the conflict. With the assistance of the NATO PA team, who dedicated significant effort to the report, we recognized the need for a comprehensive examination of the challenges we face in combating impunity. I wanted the report to encompass both political and legal aspects, rather than focusing solely on either one. By delving too deeply into the legal intricacies, we risked losing sight of our primary goal: to fight impunity and ensure that all perpetrators of crimes are held accountable, regardless of the specific legal avenues pursued. This perspective guided our approach. We consulted with specialists and conducted extensive research to explore all available options for achieving our objectives. However, it is important to note that this is by no means an easy task. Never-

Interview with Senator Rodrigue Demeuse: Fighting Impunity for Violations of International Law in Russia’s Renewed Invasion of Ukraine

theless, there have been some attempts and opportunities, as evidenced by the growing number of reports emerging on this topic. Naturally, the situation continues to evolve rapidly, even after the initial draft of the report was nearly completed. For instance, there was recently an ICC warrant issued against Putin, which constituted a significant development. While we briefly addressed this in the draft report, the final version will place greater emphasis on this crucial action. Overall, I believe this report is timely and relevant to the current circumstances.

One of the initial decisions you had to make was regarding the timeframe covered by the report. Could you elaborate on that choice and its significance?

Indeed, deciding on the timeframe was an important consideration. Given the limitations of maintaining the report within 15 pages, we opted to focus on the renewed invasion rather than starting from the 2014 annexation of Crimea. However, we did make sure to acknowledge the events that transpired since 2014 in order to provide necessary context. This choice was highlighted and emphasized in the report itself.

Moving forward, I understand that the current version of the report is in the draft stage and has undergone revisions. Prior to its final issuance, could you share the main comments, suggestions, and remarks received from the audience during the review process?

We pursue peace while neglecting justice, we are merely perpetuating violence, and the war will inevitably resurface, either in Ukraine or elsewhere. By failing to hold accountable the perpetrators of these crimes, we send a dangerous message that human rights violations can go unpunished. This opens the door for similar atrocities to occur in different parts of the world.

The feedback we received primarily revolved around the role of parliamentarians in aiding the prosecution of these crimes and ensuring their eradication. Many questions were raised regarding the actions that parliamentarians can take in this regard. There were also comments regarding the involvement of organizations like Wagner and how to address their integration into the prosecution process. The establishment of a special tribunal to handle cases of aggression was another prominent topic. Additionally, there were remarks on recent developments, such as the warrants issued against Putin and the agreements among multiple states to compile evidence of war crimes. These are essential aspects that we will incorporate into the final version of the report.

What can parliamentarians do to address these crimes and violations?

There are several actions that parliamentarians can take to confront these issues head-on. Firstly, it is crucial for us to adopt a strong stance within our respective parliaments in support of Ukraine. This demonstrates our unwavering commitment to justice. It is vital that we do not compromise on this principle because true peace cannot be achieved without justice. If we pursue peace while neglecting justice, we are merely perpetuating violence, and the war will inevitably resurface, either in Ukraine or elsewhere. By failing to hold accountable the perpetrators of these crimes, we send a dangerous message that human rights violations can go unpunished. This opens the door for similar atrocities to occur in different parts of the world. Therefore, my first recommendation is for us to stand

firm on the pursuit of justice, prosecuting and punishing all those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide, if proven. This includes everyone involved, from the lowest-ranking soldier to Vladimir Putin himself, as well as the Belarusian authorities. If we fail to do so, we run the risk of witnessing a recurrence of such events in the future.

In addition, as parliamentarians, we can advocate for the establishment of an international tribunal specifically addressing the crime of aggression. While we are aware of the legal challenges associated with this, we must explore creative solutions to overcome these obstacles. Furthermore, we need to allocate sufficient

These collaborative measures will contribute to our collective fight against impunity.

What are the lessons learned from previous cases, such as Georgia, and how can we approach the situation in Ukraine differently?

The attention and global response to the situation in Ukraine have been significantly greater than what we witnessed in the case of Georgia, for instance. This is an important distinction. The Ukrainian context offers an opportunity to not only apply the lessons learned from the Georgian case but also improve upon them. In terms of Georgia, one of the major lessons is that the international community did not provide sufficient support to the Georgian jurisdiction. To avoid a similar outcome, we must provide greater assistance to Ukraine’s legal system. This will involve relying on internal justice systems to prosecute the crimes, as the International Criminal Court (ICC) alone does not have the capacity to handle all cases. Therefore, we need to ensure that Ukraine’s justice system receives the

Creating a tribunal through the UN General Assembly would require overcoming the potential problem of undermining the power of the Security Council, which some countries may find challenging. However, if we want to proceed without the risk of a Russian veto, this may be the only viable option

budgets to finance international justice efforts and support the judicial system in Ukraine. By empowering Ukraine’s justice system, we provide them with the means to collect evidence, conduct fair trials, and prosecute crimes within their jurisdiction. This is crucial because they represent the primary avenue for justice in the region. We must learn from our past mistakes, such as our inadequate support for Georgia 15 years ago, and ensure that we do not repeat them. As parliamentarians, we can also assist civil society in Ukraine by supporting their evidence-gathering efforts and providing humanitarian aid.

necessary resources and international support. This is the first crucial lesson.

The second lesson we can learn from Georgia is the importance of securing and preserving evidence. In Georgia, evidence was not adequately protected due to the unsafe and volatile conditions in the region. Consequently, prosecuting crimes and holding perpetrators accountable became a significant challenge. In Ukraine, we must prioritize the secure collection and protection of evidence, while also discerning between reliable and unreliable sources amidst the proliferation of fake news. This meticulous approach will be critical.

Lastly, we should address the jurisdictional limitations of the ICC regarding Russian responsibility for the crime of aggression. In the Ukrainian case, we can explore the creation of an international tribunal through the UN General Assembly or alternative.

In terms of execution, what is your experience and opinion regarding the challenges faced in implementing decisions made by international courts, especially in cases where Russia has been found guilty?

It is indeed a very complex issue with numerous discussions among experts on how to address the problem of execution. In my opinion, we must prioritize finding real and adequate compensation for the victims. The compensations provided by international courts like the ICC and ICJ may not be sufficient, considering the scale of damages in cases like Ukraine and Georgia. Additional options could include establishing a system similar to the UN Compensation Commission for Kuwait after the Gulf War. However, there is always the risk of a veto, which requires involvement of the General Assembly to ensure progress.

Another option worth exploring is utilizing the assets of Russian oligarchs to rebuild Ukraine and compensate for the damages caused by Russian and Belarusian forces. These are potential solutions, although it’s important to acknowledge that there is no perfect approach. That is why I strongly advocate for the creation of a special international tribunal dedicated to prosecuting the crime of aggression in Ukraine. Such a tribunal would ensure that individuals, including Russian and Belarusian authorities, cannot evade their responsibility by claiming innocence for their orders to invade Ukraine. Personal accountability could be brought before this tribunal, and one of its advantages is that there would be no statute of limitations, allowing prosecution for these crimes for many years to come. This approach is crucial to ensure that all those guilty of their actions face punishment and are held accountable. I believe it is the only viable option if we genuinely want to eliminate impunity.

You mentioned the creation of a new tribunal. Could you provide insights into the current stage of this idea? Who are the advocates, and are there any opposing viewpoints?

Ukraine strongly supports the idea of creating an international tribunal, and many countries share this strong support. However, there is no unanimity on the matter yet. The Parliamentary Assembly of NATO has passed multiple resolutions calling for the establishment of such a tribunal, and other organizations have done the same. The debate primarily revolves around determining the appropriate mechanism for its creation. While almost all countries condemning the Russian aggression are convinced of the necessity, the question remains as to which tool should be used. This debate involves not only experts but also countries themselves.

Creating a tribunal through the UN General Assembly would require overcoming the potential problem of undermining the power of the Security Council, which some countries may find challenging. However, if we want to proceed without the risk of a Russian veto, this may be the only viable option. Another alternative could be establishing a regional agreement between Ukraine and an internation-

al organization like the European Union or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). However, this raises questions of legitimacy and jurisdiction, as well as the issue of immunity. Addressing these concerns and ensuring accountability on an international level, I believe that creating a tribunal through the UN General Assembly would provide the best answer. Still, some experts suggest that Ukraine could prosecute Putin and other responsible individuals by using self-defense arguments to bypass immunity, although this would require a progressive interpretation of international law.

Thank you for sharing your insights on this topic. Is there anything else you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?

I would like to reiterate that no perpetrator of crimes and violations, such as those occurring daily in Ukraine, should be allowed to escape their responsibility. It is a matter of justice, but it also aims to prevent such acts from happening elsewhere in the future. Therefore, fighting impunity is of utmost importance. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this crucial issue, as it requires our unwavering commitment. Thank you for recording this conversation.

In this interview, we speak with Professor Julian Hinz, an expert from Bielefeld University and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, to gain insights into the impact of recent sanctions against Russia. With the European Union discussing new measures and their implications for third countries aiding Russia in evading previous sanctions, Professor Hinz offers his assessment of the sanctions package and shares his hopes for their effectiveness. We delve into the complex dynamics of sanctions, their time-dependent effects, and the role of circumvention. Additionally, we explore Russia’s relations with China, the selection of sanctioned products, historical comparisons, and the potential for further action.

The EU recently discussed new sanctions against Russia. How do you assess this new package, especially as it affects third countries that helped Russia avoid previous sanctions? What are your hopes for the sanctions? Should they be tougher or are they sufficient?

Assessing the Impact and Effectiveness of Recent Sanctions Against Russia: Insights from Professor Julian Hinz

This is a very timely question. We have now witnessed a new round of sanctions against Russia. The impact of sanctions varies depending on the specific measures. Some measures aim for an immediate impact, while others take time to play out due to their complex nature. It is only after some time that we can evaluate the need for adjustments. In the case of these new sanctions, they address the issue of circumvention by third countries, which was not adequately addressed in the previous round. Recent reports in German and European media highlighted the failure of certain sanctions and attempts to bypass them. However, this was to be expected, and it is sensible to address these issues and make necessary adjustments. Global value chains

and trade links have been developed between many countries over the past decades. As ties between Europe/Western countries and Russia are severed, alternative routes may be sought through countries in the Caucasus and former Soviet Union that have links to both Russia and Western countries. There are strong incentives for all parties involved to find ways to continue their activities, such as Russian firms sourcing inputs from other countries and European/Western firms exploring new markets. I believe this was expected and that the scale of circumvention is often exaggerated. The new measures aim to strengthen the overall system that was put in place a year ago.

I attended a spring session in Lux-

To strengthen sanctions, it could be beneficial to restrict not only the import and export of Russian oil by countries but also the involvement of companies facilitating Russian shipping. This would be an additional lever to make the sanctions more stringent and effective.

embourg where one speaker mentioned that sanctions work but require time. However, we also see that Russia finds alternative routes during this time to strengthen its economy. How do these two factors work together as time passes?

That’s a good question. As I mentioned earlier, some measures are designed to have an immediate impact, such as freezing assets, travel bans, and certain import restrictions from the Western side. These measures directly affect the targeted economy. On the other hand, there have been stronger export restrictions in place since 2014, particularly on specialized products used in oil and gas drilling. More restrictions and bans on exports were imposed last year. However, Russia usually maintains stock and inventory of these products, allowing them to continue for some time while seeking alternative suppliers. You are correct in pointing out the trade-off between the time it takes for sanctions to take effect and Russia’s efforts to strengthen its economy. The new measures aim to make it even more challenging for third countries or firms to supply these specific items, thus complicating Russia’s search for alternative sources. It should not come as a surprise that these challenges arise, as it is extremely difficult to anticipate all potential issues. Reacting and making adjustments once these issues become apparent is the appropriate approach in such circumstances.

How do you assess Russia’s relations with China, considering China’s significant economic importance? There have been numerous agreements signed between the two countries, deepening their ties. How important is it to consider China in the sanctions?

China plays an outsized role in trade relations with Russia. It has been one of Russia’s largest trading partners, especially in terms of shares, although the exact ranking depends on how the EU is counted. Given the reduction in economic ties between Europe and Russia, China’s importance has increased both

relatively and potentially even in absolute terms. However, when considering the geographic distances and logistics, it is easier for Russia to ship goods to European markets than to China. This implies added costs for Russia in terms of exporting and importing. Thus, it is not a simple replacement of relations with Europe. Additionally, European companies have supplied highly specialized products, particularly for the oil and gas industry in Russia. These products are not easily replaceable and often involve high-tech components produced by only two or three companies worldwide, which happen to be located in the West. It takes time for China or any other country to develop the capacity to produce these items. Moreover, while Russia has extensive pipelines to Europe, building pipelines to China would be a lengthy process. This poses a significant challenge for the Russian economy. Even in

indications that this may change and that the EU will reduce its dependence? Additionally, there have been cases where certain products, like diamonds, were banned, but they could still be sold through other countries like India. What is the logic behind choosing which products to sanction?

Firstly, it should be noted that the idea of Europe, particularly Germany, being solely dependent on Russia for energy has been challenged in the past year. The dependency goes both ways since Russia’s revenue stops when gas or oil deliveries cease. Additionally, Russia has faced difficulties in selling oil and gas at the previous rates. The selection of sanctioned products is a highly political decision. There are considerations of what will harm the targeted economy, in this case, Russia. It is evident when we observe the range of instruments tar-

we need to address the issue of circumvention. It's essential to identify and tackle the methods used to bypass sanctions. One potential tool to consider is implementing "rules of destination" in trade policies. Similar to "rules of origin," these rules would ensure that goods are genuinely reaching their intended destination and not being transshipped to Russia

a hypothetical future where the conflict has ended and political and economic relations are improving, it is highly unlikely that European economies will revert to their previous reliance on Russian pipelines. Europe has diversified its energy imports through LNG terminals, which poses a lasting problem for the Russian economy. In contrast, China is not expected to follow the same path, as they are unlikely to build pipelines and dismantle their LNG terminals. Hence, the Russian position has considerably weakened and is expected to remain so.

Regarding the sanctions, how do authorities decide which products to sanction? For instance, gas has not been sanctioned due to the EU’s dependency on Russia. Are there any

geting the oil and gas industry, among other products. However, there are also instances where certain products that one might expect to be sanctioned are not. This decision involves a cost-benefit analysis. The “benefit” here refers to the cost that can be imposed on the targeted economy. Simultaneously, it takes into account the costs it imposes on one’s own economy. Lobbying groups play a role in shaping this decision. Last year, we witnessed various industries arguing that a gas embargo would be catastrophic for certain European economies, which ultimately turned out not to be the case. This demonstrates the political considerations involved in selecting which products to sanction. It is not a simple process of randomly picking products. As we see now, the overall embargo on Russian exports

from European countries to Russia has decreased significantly but not by 100%. There are still substantial trade relations with Russia, indicating that it is not a complete severance of ties.

And do you think that this will happen in the future? That’s, like reducing this number of trade? Or you’re not expecting that?

I don’t know. I think it could be possible, but I’m not sure if that’s the direction we’re heading in. I believe it would be more important to consider which products would harm the targeted economy rather than focusing on a complete trade ban. At this point, I think we are still far from implementing such drastic measures.

When the sanctions were imposed on Russia last year, what were your expectations regarding their impact on the Russian economy? Were your expectations met or were the effects more or less harmful than anticipated?

It’s difficult to precisely predict the outcomes, especially since the actual sanctions imposed were not what I initially expected. The restrictions placed on the Russian central bank, for example, had a significant and severe effect in the first few weeks. However, the reaction by the Russian Central Bank was professional and played a crucial role in stabilizing the economy. In terms of restrictions on oil, gas, and natural resource exports, I would say that the overall impact aligned with my expectations. The Russian economy faced challenges in finding alternative markets due to existing pipelines, but over time, they managed to adjust and explore other options. It’s worth noting that there are still significant trade relations with Russia, as the decrease in exports from European countries to Russia was around 50%, not a complete halt.

In terms of historical examples or comparisons, which cases would you consider the best to analyze? What lessons can we learn from previous sanctions, such as those imposed on Iran or in the case of iron ore?

When it comes to effective use of sanctions, one case that stands out is Iran. The sanctions imposed on Iran effectively isolated the country from a large part of the global economy for more than a decade. However, it is important to note that the regime in Tehran remains intact, and there are indications of a continued nuclear program. Assessing the effectiveness of sanctions depends on the desired goals and the counterfactual scenario. Comparing the current world with sanctions against the hypothetical world without sanctions helps us understand that sanctions do restrict the targeted country’s economic and political engagement. However, their success depends on the specific goals and desired outcomes. Sanctions are just one tool in the diplomatic and political toolkit.

Can we consider Russia as the most sanctioned country we have experienced so far?

No, I don’t believe Russia can be considered the most sanctioned country in history. There are examples where countries have faced complete embargoes or isolation from the rest of the world. North Korea, for instance, has experienced far more severe sanctions compared to Russia. It’s important to note that comparing the impact of sanctions can be challenging due to the size of the Russian economy and its relative self-sufficiency. Despite the restrictions on their main sources of export revenue, Russia has not collapsed economically. In comparison, North Korea has faced decades of isolation and economic challenges, yet it has managed to sustain itself to a certain extent.

What are your suggestions regarding the sanctions? Where do you see room for further action, or do you believe Europe has reached its maximum capacity? Are there any suggestions for additional measures?

I see two areas where further action can be taken. Firstly, we need to address the issue of circumvention. It’s essential to identify and tackle the methods used

to bypass sanctions. One potential tool to consider is implementing “rules of destination” in trade policies. Similar to “rules of origin,” these rules would ensure that goods are genuinely reaching their intended destination and not being transshipped to Russia. Enforcing such rules would require careful consideration and coordination among countries. Although rules of destination may be more challenging to implement than rules of origin, they could help mitigate the circumvention of sanctions.

Secondly, Russia relies heavily on shipping to sell its oil and gas, and many European shipping companies, particularly from Greece and Cyprus, are involved in this trade. To strengthen sanctions, it could be beneficial to restrict not only the import and export of Russian oil by countries but also the involvement of companies facilitating Russian shipping. This would be an additional lever to make the sanctions more stringent and effective.

There have been questions about the timeframe for the sanctions to have an impact, with some predictions suggesting the collapse of the Russian economy by the end of 2024. Can such prognoses be made, and what are your expectations?

Making precise prognoses is exceedingly challenging due to the dynamic nature of economies and the unpredictable reactions of economic agents. People, regardless of their location, are creative in finding ways to achieve their goals. While predictions may suggest a collapse of the Russian economy by the end of 2024, they often assume certain conditions and paths leading to that outcome. However, it is difficult to anticipate if Russia will find alternative import sources, develop domestic production capabilities, or overcome the challenges they face. It’s important to note that economies, including European economies, have shown resilience to significant changes. For example, Germany successfully reduced its energy imports from Russia within a relatively short period without a substantial negative impact on its economy. Therefore, it is uncertain how the Russian economy will fare, and it’s likely that political factors will play a significant role alongside economic considerations.

In this interview, Ana-Maria Catauta, a member of the Romanian parliament, discusses her NATO Parliamentary Assembly report on China’s global role in the aftermath of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Ms. Catauta highlights the key findings of the report, emphasizing the need for Western democracies to closely monitor China’s growing influence and its implications for international security and democratic values.

]To start with the report, what are the key highlights of the report? And to summarize, what is the current situation between China and Russia? What significant threats do you see?

About 10 years ago, China began showing a growing tendency to expand beyond the norms of the international world and global organizations. China has become increasingly influential, actively engaging with Africa, Latin America, and even expressing interest in the high north and the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, China has heavily invested in its military capabilities and now possesses similar capabilities to that of the United States, the main ally within NATO. They have leveraged the presence of Western companies that

China’s Growing Influence: A Call for Vigilance in the Aftermath of Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine

established production facilities in Chinese cities, allowing them to acquire technology. Building upon this technology, China has become a significant player in international patents, with over 90% being owned by Chinese or American companies. While China is not yet an adversary of the West, it is a rising power seeking to increase its influence on various levels. As Western democracies, we must closely monitor China’s evolving ambitions. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that countries like China, Russia, and to some extent, Iran, are attempting to promote an alternative model of societal organization.

These countries aim to replace democracy with autocracy, employing tactics such as fake news, disinformation, and misinformation to emphasize the flaws within democratic regimes. While we acknowledge that democratic systems have their imperfections, it is essential to exercise caution and understand that this is not merely a competition between great powers. It represents a conflict between two models of state organization. These

are some of the key points we highlighted in the report.

How well do you think the West understands this, and what reactions have you observed? If there are no significant reactions, what suggestions would you make for a stronger response?

I believe that one of the lessons we learned from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is that we can no longer underestimate autocratic leaders. For many years, Western democracies disregarded Putin and his regime’s imperialistic tendencies, despite countries like Romania and Georgia drawing attention to their actions and discourse deviating from international norms. Economic reasons often led many Western democracies to turn a blind eye to these warning signs. However, we have now learned our lessons and are more cautious in our relationship with China and the regime in Beijing. This newfound caution is evident in various ways, both at

I believe that one of the lessons we learned from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is that we can no longer underestimate autocratic leaders.

the US and European levels.

Efforts are being made to decrease dependency on Chinese goods manufactured in China. Discussions are underway within the European Union regarding the need to boost production capabilities for products, particularly those based on raw materials, within European countries. The US government has also taken steps, such as establishing microchip production companies domestically. I should note that this isn’t about the pace of these actions but rather the intent to rely less on China. In Romania and several other European countries, for example, we have made the decision to no longer accept Huawei products in telecommunications. Even components used for 3G and 4G networks are being replaced with those produced within European countries or countries aligned with Western alliances.

There is both conversation among leaders and practical measures being taken to distance ourselves from products manufactured in China.

for exporting their main source of income, which is gas. If we examine the trade balance between Russia and China, we can observe significant growth in some areas, which allows Russia to redirect its gas exports. China plays a long-term game and is taking advantage of Russia’s current weaknesses to promote its international agenda and the autocratic model they favor. While they can find ways to work together, China will never treat Russia as an equal partner and will leverage their weaknesses to their own advantage.

What is your opinion on the Western reaction to the war in Ukraine? Do you believe enough has been done, or do you think more should be done?

As Romania shares the longest border with Ukraine, I have been deeply involved in this issue. When Ukrainian citizens, especially women and children, started fleeing Ukraine and passing through Romania towards other European countries,

These countries aim to replace democracy with autocracy, employing tactics such as fake news, disinformation, and misinformation to emphasize the flaws within democratic regimes. While we acknowledge that democratic systems have their imperfections, it is essential to exercise caution and understand that this is not merely a competition between great powers. It represents a conflict between two models of state organization.

Some scholars argue that the autocratic regimes of China and Russia are not very compatible, despite their deepening trade relations and increased agreements. What are your thoughts on this?

I believe that China and Russia are allies, but they are not friends. When Ukraine fought bravely for its independence and faced Russian aggression, it was expected that Russia would seek other allies. However, they were not anticipating the strong reaction and sanctions imposed by the West. The decision made by Berlin, for instance, to reduce imports of Russian gas caught them off guard. This compelled them to explore other avenues

the Romanian people displayed incredible generosity and hospitality, offering their homes and support to those in need. It is important to note that tensions existed between Romania and Ukraine even before the war, particularly regarding the minority law passed in the Ukrainian parliament. While the law targeted Russian ethnics, it also affected other minorities, including the Romanian minority. Nonetheless, we recognized that Ukraine’s resistance represents the endurance of democracy in our region.

The Western response to the war in Ukraine was swift, strong, and multifaceted. It included military, economic, and

societal measures. Ukrainian military personnel have trained with Western countries, including Canada and the United States, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea. The military equipment provided by NATO allies has been crucial in supporting Ukraine. However, despite the robust response, the war continues, and Russia persists in occupying Ukrainian territories.

To do more, I believe we should seize the funds Russia has in other countries and allocate them to the reconstruction of Ukraine. The country will require significant economic reconstruction. We should continue providing military assistance to Ukraine and offer support. Additionally, we should communicate more effectively about the realities of life in Russia. As European Union members and citizens, we should gain a deeper understanding of the struggles Russian citizens face due to the economic problems caused by the war. Focusing solely on political and military decisions is insufficient. We need to raise awareness about the challenges faced by citizens living under autocratic regimes, whether discussing China or Russia. We should be more open and aggressive in countering propaganda that portrays Western democracies as degraded, emphasizing our commitment to the values we hold dear. It is crucial to be conscious and resolute in our fight against such narratives.

Why do you think some countries have not yet obtained NATO membership, such as Georgia and Ukraine?

Reflecting on the experience of Romania’s journey to NATO membership, I recall the disappointment and longing for security that accompanied the rejection in 1997. However, Romania eventually became a NATO member in 2003, which brought a sense of relief and protection. The process was not easy, but it eventually happened. Regarding countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the reasons for their delayed NATO membership are complex and multifaceted. It requires a combination of factors aligning, including political considerations, regional dynamics, and fulfilling the necessary criteria set by NATO. While I can’t speak specifically to the current situation, I understand the

longing for protection and the belief that deserving nations should have access to the security provided by NATO.

So, I understand the disappointment and challenges faced by countries aspiring to join NATO. The accession process is not easy, requiring unanimous agreement from all member states. However, I urge these countries not to give up on their objective of NATO membership. It is crucial to take decisive political, military, and economic actions to convince allied member states that they deserve to be part of NATO. Persistence, regardless of the governing party or political affiliation, is key. The pursuit of NATO membership should be a national project embraced by the entire country.

From a European security perspective, why is it better to have countries like Georgia and Ukraine as NATO members?

The Black Sea region, including Ukraine and Georgia, has increasingly gained strategic importance for European security. The impact of the Crimea crisis highlighted the significance of the Black Sea region. The Ukrainian grain crisis, for instance, demonstrated how disruptions in the region can have far-reaching consequences. Many European capitals are gradually recognizing the strategic role that Ukraine and Georgia play. However, despite this growing understanding, political decisions and actions are still required. It’s important to note that political considerations and electoral cycles can sometimes hinder progress. There is a need for broader political understanding and decision-making among European capitals, although media influence and concerns about Russia still persist. The transformation of Russia from a partner to a perceived adversary adds complexity to the decision-making process.

Do you think the ongoing war in Ukraine or Russia’s shifting stance is causing hesitation regarding NATO membership for these countries?

Cautiousness exists at both the European and NATO levels, no longer centered around avoiding provoking Russia.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has become evident to all that they will use whatever pretext necessary to promote their expansionist tendencies. The decision-making process now revolves more around the pace and timing of admitting these countries. In my conversations, I haven’t encountered anyone expressing a desire to exclude Georgia or Ukraine from European or NATO membership. The discussions primarily focus on the speed of reforms, especially regarding justice and the rule of law. NATO is not only a military organization; it is also a political and democratic organization built on shared values. All member states must ensure a common understanding and alignment. Therefore, it is not a matter of if but rather a matter of when and how these countries will become NATO members.

And finally, my question is about your inquiry during the spring session in Luxembourg regarding Georgia not receiving the EU candidate status yet. You drew parallels with Hungary, which is currently causing concerns for the European Union and NATO. I would like to delve deeper into your thoughts on the candidate status and your comparison with Hungary.

I believe it was unjust for Georgia to be denied the candidate status while countries like Moldova and Ukraine received it. Granting candidate status does not imply immediate membership but rather signifies the start of the process. The explanation I received regarding the ambivalence in Georgia’s relationship with Russia and the European Union might be valid, but I am not well-versed in the internal politics of Georgia. However, I strongly disagree

with the double standards at play. If Hungary, a member of the European Union, maintains a hedging position towards Russia, particularly in areas like energy, it is unreasonable to demand that aspiring members refrain from a similar stance. If we believe that the European Union is a union of shared beliefs and ideas, then Hungary should be held accountable for its behavior towards Russia. Their access to European funds and the national resilience plan should reflect their adherence to decisions made within the EU. It was disheartening to learn that double standards exist, and this is not acceptable.

Is there anything else you would like to mention that hasn’t been asked?

You have covered a lot in our discussion. Currently, I am working on a report on China for the upcoming fall session in Copenhagen. In the report, I aim to emphasize that Chinese influence extends beyond Africa and Latin America and is increasingly prevalent in large infrastructure projects in Europe. This realization was eye-opening for some of our members, including our Norwegian colleague who was unaware of the extent of Chinese projects in the Balkans. While China is not our adversary, it presents a challenge, and we must avoid repeating the mistakes made with Russia. We need to remain vigilant, make timely decisions, and safeguard democratic values, flawed as they may be. It’s not an easy task, but with the realignment of the world amid the war in Ukraine, we must ensure that our proposals uphold democratic principles.

Sea Change: Ensuring Baltic Security and NATO’s Evolving Defense Posture - An Interview with Jeroen van Wijngaarden

In this interview, we speak with Jeroen van Wijngaarden, Member of the Parliament of the Netherlands and Rapporteur of

the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC) at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Mr. van Wijngaarden has recently prepared

a report titled “Sea Change: The Rapid Evolution of Baltic Security After Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” Our discussion delves into the key messages and recom-

mendations of the report, exploring topics such as NATO’s preparedness, security concerns in the Baltic Sea region, and the aspirations of countries like Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.

Let’s start with the report itself. Could you provide a brief summary of its key message and main recommendations for the upcoming summit?

The report focuses on the defense posture of NATO in the Baltic Sea region, particularly the Baltic states. Currently, NATO’s approach can be described as a tripwire defense posture, where a modest military presence is maintained in the region, with the expectation that additional troops from within NATO territory would be alerted and reinforced in the event of a Russian invasion. However,

the region. The inclusion of Finland and Sweden in these efforts presents a significant military opportunity. Overall, the report advocates for a paradigm shift in NATO’s approach to the Baltic Sea region, addressing the vulnerability of the Baltic States based on the new reality that has emerged.

It seems that you are presenting this viewpoint and overview due to concerns that a potential loss for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia could lead to an attack on the Baltic states. Is that a correct interpretation?

No, I apologize for any confusion. I am not afraid that Ukraine will lose the war. However, what we have learned from Ukraine is that a full-scale land invasion cannot be ruled out. This realization high-

It is crucial to adapt our defense posture to the new reality that has emerged. It is not solely about Ukraine but about adopting a more proactive and robust approach to ensure the security of the Baltic States.

this approach has inherent weaknesses due to the geographic location of the Baltic Sea region, which is surrounded by Russia. The report acknowledges the wake-up call presented by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and accepts the possibility of a Russian invasion in the Baltic States. Recognizing that the Baltic States are smaller than Ukraine and face a stronger Russian military presence, the report recommends reinforcing military presence in the region. It also welcomes the future accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO as a means to achieve a better balance of power. The report emphasizes the importance of investing in surveillance and detection capabilities, as well as counter-strike capabilities and military presence, including stockpiles, in

lights the need to be prepared, which we currently are not in the Baltic Sea region. Therefore, it is crucial to adapt our defense posture to the new reality that has emerged. It is not solely about Ukraine but about adopting a more proactive and robust approach to ensure the security of the Baltic States.

Do you believe that NATO was not adequately prepared for the situation in Ukraine?

NATO was not sufficiently prepared. Although there was a certain level of preparedness and unity demonstrated in response to the conflict in Ukraine, it was not enough. The current situation requires us to push our arms factories

and resources into overdrive in order to keep up with the pace of events.

While we focus on the security of the Baltic states, we must not forget countries like Georgia, which aspire to become NATO members. You mentioned that Georgia’s position is still unclear, influenced by Russian propaganda and pressure. What do you think NATO should do in this case?

It is important to adopt a step-by-step approach with countries like Georgia. While some indicators might suggest they are moving towards NATO and Europe, others might point in a different direction due to various factors, including influence from Russia. It is crucial for NATO and the European Union to be critical of these countries and the steps they take. For instance, in the case of Serbia, we observe a minority that feels associated with Russia, which is their right. However, we must be clear in our expectations and make it known that if these countries want to join us, they need to make a serious commitment. We cannot allow them to have conflicting allegiances or circumvent sanctions through actions that undermine our collective security. This approach should also apply to countries like Georgia.

Regarding Ukraine, what recommendations do you have for the NATO Summit in terms of support for Ukraine? Do you believe we will see Ukraine as a NATO member in the near future, or are there specific conditions that need to be met?

The question of Ukraine’s NATO membership goes beyond the scope of my report. However, it is evident that Ukraine expects more than the status quo from NATO. Every country has the right to determine its own path, and Ukraine is no exception. If Ukraine meets the necessary requirements, it can join NATO.