Ukraine and georgia as member countries. Representatives of nato, ukraine, and georgia talk about the process of expanding nato membership and russias opposition to adding the two countries. The German Marshall Fund hosted this hour and ten minute event. And im very pleased that today we have the pleasure to welcome our panelists and our viewers on both sides of the atlantic, so good evening, europe. Good morning, america. And for my part, greetings from brussels. The topic of today, ukraine, georgia relations with nato is something i would say is almost part of the dna of the German Marshall Funds. Gmf has been working many years on ukraine and georgia related issues. We do so through our black sea trust fund that supports a new society in black sea countries but also by address so i also really want to thank our partners in this event for all the support they provide. I think we have a terrific lineup of speakers ready to contribute tonight. So today we want to dig a little bit more into the skublt ubject skra ukraine and georgias relationship with nato and how these countries fit into reflection process. This is an initiative launched by nato secretarygeneral to see how nato can best prepare for the next decades. And eventually, this process may lead to a new strategic concept, and i think this is not a luxury. The current one dates back from 2010, if im not mistaken. So i would argue that there is a need to rethink nato strategy. The world that nato creates today has certainly changed in the last ten years. I think for instance about the increased presence of china and the European Security landscape. Think about the assertiveness of russia and key reasons for transAtlantic Security. So the alliance must adapt and if it wants to stay relevant and address these challenges. But that also includes how nato engages with partners. Its crucial that countries like ukraine and georgia are included in this 2030 reflection process, because increasingly, natos adaptation is depending also on the relationship with its partners. So i think in a nutshell, these are the issues that we want to discuss today. What to expect from the 2030 reflection process, why does this process matter, and what is the role of partners like ukraine or georgia . We ares are privileged today because experts will give us an exclusive preview of reports that they wrote on this subject. So let me actually introduce our fabulous speakers today. First, the director of the new york center, welcome to you. The cofounder of the Georgian Institute for strategic studies, and anna fatigua, a member of the European Parliament but also a member of the group of experts of the nato reflection process. Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us. We are also expecting olga to join us, the deputy Prime Minister for european and atlantic integration of ukraine. We will obviously include here in this conversation. This conversation is on the record. We will first turn to our speakers. But then also go to you the audience for q and a. We really want this to be an interactive debate. So feel free to use the zoom chat function. Ill be closely monitoring that feed and transfer your questions. So we have about 60 minutes left for this conversation. And one of the authors of this report [ audio difficulties ] still on track, and which priorities do you see emerging . Good evening from kiev. Across the floor, let me thank you for the Great Partnership in organizing this event, for your interest in this event. As Group Members met with the secretarygeneral stultenberg to present their ideas and contribution to the nato reflection process 2014, and i think that we are really lucky to have anna fatigua with us today. With regard to ukraine, we are pretty sure that in order to be ambitious, and in order to be comprehensive, nato reflection process 2040 needs to take into account ukraine and georgia. Thats why we at new york center, together with our georgian partners from georgian strategic studies, developed a joint accommodation as our modest contribution to make a reflection process. This accommodations were submitted earlier to members and we are happen kri thy that we cs with them today as well. We believe that most ukraine and georgia fully deserve to find a more prominent place in nato 2040 reflection process. Than in the previous strategic forums. As far as i remember, the previous document made reference to cooperation with Russian Federation 13 times. So i think that it is fundamentally important that natos new strategic document reflect those new realities and the new challenges of Atlantic Security, including the threat imposed by the increasingly aggressive policies of the russian parliament. Lets not forget that when we are talking about ukraine and georgia, we are talking about countries who have double role for the alliance. Let me elaborate on that. Ukraine and georgia prove to be one of the most reliable nato partners for the case. Both countries demonstrate natos recognition of the two countrys contributions to the last operations, as well as a high level of operaability, and also Member States both countries have proven that they can be not only consumers but also contributors to Europe Atlantic security by taking an effective part in their alliance and operations. Ukraine, for example, is the only partner to have actively contributed to all major nato led operations. Secondly, ukraine and georgia are two of the three countries that are currently aspiring to become nato members. Membership in nato is not somebodys fantasy in ukraine. Thats a conscious and responsible choice of our countries. Both ukraine and georgia. For ukraine, integration into nato remains for Foreign Policy and security priority. Which is supported by the political elites and at a level of society in trekt resudirect russian aggression. I would like to underline it is probably the first time in ukraines history that with the change of president and government and the Parliament Last year, the calls of integration has not been challenged. When were talking about nato membership, we are not suggesting anything extraordinary. As you know, the summit declaration states that georgia and ukraine will become nato members and the membership action plan met, which we consider ukraine and georgia as the next logical step in our european integration. So membership action plan is the same in bucharest declaration, is mentioned as the next step for ukraine and georgia to membership. So as a result of reflection process, we expect that nato will stick to its open door policy. That georgia and ukraine should be on the road map to the membership. Among other things, i think its important to mention that this policy, open door policy will encourage georgia and ukraine to take part in the democratic practices and advance the agenda. Because the open door policy remains to be an important incentive and driver for ukrainian and georgia policymakers. It helps keep politicians on track. It helps them to transform our countrys institutions, both politically and militarily. And it is not only in ukraine and georgia, but a major interest to support the reform efforts. By doing so, nato will expand the community of likeminded, stable and predictable democracies. So i think it might just be in na natos interest, as well. We expect georgia and ukraine will be recognized in strategic documents as an integral part of the black sea region. Always strategic location make most ukraine and georgia indispensable arrangement in the region. Initially, in our from our point of view, it can start with a joint threat assessment with participation of georgia and ukraine. The alliance should pay special attention to maintain a sustained presence integration. And last but not least, in our view, nato should identify russia to the main longterm threat to the lives of its partners. Put an equal emphasis on this threat. Georgia and ukrainian indicates law and experience of dealing with the russian warfare can be helpful in identifying and responding to the common threats by the partners. Low intensity conflict in which russia has been involved or which russia has initiated because we should remember russia at the moment is number one war producer of frozen conflicts. So frozen conflicts should be another focus of nato Member States. Russian occupied territories are a convenient place to undermine international law, which involves human rights abuse, which involves smuggling and uncontrolled arms trafficking. I think i will stop here and let the others to elaborate more on our recommendations. Thank you. Thank you very much. I mean, this was a very good kickoff, i would say. And i do appreciate that you underlined ukraines role as a security provider. I any thats a pretty important point. Going back to explain the georgian point of view, i hear her making a plea to better consider the role of countries like georgia and ukraine in the nato 2030 process. She made some points how to do this. So what would be your recommendation from a georgian perspective . Thank you very much. First of all, thanks a lot to the organizers and to our partners for producing this report. Its great, because i actually do see a huge value in hearing the voices from kiev, because if you look at how the realities on the ground, but also the dynamics are changing, i think that the value of the partners will be increasing in the years to come. Because the collective defense is such is going to be a you have to have a wholistic view about the collective defense. So the countries which have been in close cooperation and partnership nowadays and seeing the evolution of this partnership for 30 years and who have been reliable partners throughout this time, you know, which sees the very much an unpredictable environment have been stably democratic i would say. Maybe not consolidated, of course, having flaws. But we still have trying to keep ourselves on track of being democratic. Apart from this, as you have mentioned, we have been contributors to interNational Security. We are small. Georgia is small. Ukraine is bigger than us. But we were trying to punch above our weight, in spite of this. In spite of having the internal problems of our own, i think that georgia and ukraine have made a very serious case about being a contributor and also a credible partner throughout this time. I think that i want to take kind of a Bigger Picture of you right now why i think its a window of opportunity for both sides, for nato, georgia, and ukraine. The region has seen a very dramatic change of the dynamics in the recent weeks i would say for about a month and a half. And we have a very different status quo right now. Many see this as not only a perception level right now, but also on a practical level as a weakness of the west in a wae, or seeing it as being cut out from a region in which it traditi traditionally has always been present. But nowadays, the status quo says something else. And considering that, and considering that georgia and ukraine remain to be staunchly prowestern for quite some time. I think for western ill try to explain the dimensions. I will talk about the strategic dimensions, the military one, but also a value based dimension, which i think is going to be something we have to be thinking about proshgs individualed there is going to be a provided there is going to be a rethinking in washington after the new administration comes in. Some of the appointments to be made are already pretty interesting, because i think there ask going to be a new thinking arising for the region, as well. And with that in mind, i would like to make a few cases now. This is also part of our report, but just being very succinct, i think young democracies like georgia and ukraine definitely deserve to have a better understanding and to have a better i would say traction. Because they are the ones who have proven to continue the democratic trend in the region. Others are looking up at us. Be it belarus, many people are thinking that everything is deadlocked in our region, as well. But then there was a very Interesting Development in armenia. Everyone was thinking thats not going to happen. But most of the times thats happening because they see a very successful or more or less successful example of being present in the vicinity, in the region. So if you have young democracies like georgia and ukraine being given the chance through the open door policy, and i would like to agree that the open door policy definitely shouldnt be the case. They should come a very clear political message. We do have a clear political message for quite some time, but that should reflect by more practical means. Frankly speaking, no one in the region has a problem with nato. It is very much fine. We have very good initiatives. Its been continuing for quite some time. When it comes to the political side, there is still understanding that kind of lags behind. And thats also an opportunity for nato, because open door policy, as you rightly mentioned, gives relevance to nato. Nato has to find itself to be relevant. I think that will give a much more than just military consideration but will give them the power of the value making that they can have. I think thats a very important element. When it comes to strategic considerations, i would say georgia and ukraine are making some things that are nottis d s indispensable. We are transit routes, we are infrastructure hubs, and we also help europe and others trying to get away from the russian cloud. And to have a free hand. Th in the years to come, well sea that other players are going to be entering the region. Right now, it has been more cautious from some of them, but definitely china is having plans to get more active with bri. They are thinking about various projects. It has been a bit slow due to some reasons, but we can talk about that, as well. There is definitely going to be a turkey condition, which is a member of nato, but with increasingly independent policies. Thats a very thats a new factor, which all of us have to be thinking about. Georgia is a partner, and georgia is an ally of turkey and continuing for quite some time. And then we have russia. Russia always has socalled special understanding of where they are, why they are in the region. So considering all of this, i think the strategics of tin collusion of georgia and ukraine, and then kind of a new wave of political extension is going to be extremely important. Of course, there is a greater value to nato, because nato has states in the black sea. It has been recognized on the previous summits in subsequent summits, and that has been the reality. Everyone understands that. Exactly. Let me ask you to round up here, because we want other speakers to intervene. Just two more minutes. One minute. 30 seconds. Okay. So georgia and ukraine are indispensable when it comes to the plans to this southeastern alliance. I think thats extremely important. And there are different ways, and i can talk later about the initiatives. Sorry for being late. Well definitely get back to some of your points. We want interactive, crisp debate. Lets just have a time for everyone to intervene. Ms. Fatiga, thank you very much for joining us. I know that you presented some of your conclusions today with the nato leadership. Would love to hear your insights there. But let me give you perhaps this question, if i may. Almost ten years ago, nato also had a group of experts, which was then chaired by madeiline albright, if im not mistaken. Their job was to advise on nato 2020. So i remember the big debate back then is whether nato should be an aliliance that engaged globally or whether natos job was only to defend article v territory. Back in 2010, the answer was clear, lets focus on article v territory. Do you think that the debate today is different . Because if nato is to strengthen its partnerships, it needs to be outward looking. Ill answer your question. I owe you one point of explanation. Yes, today we were able just several minutes ago, we were able to finally submit the report to nato secretarygeneral. Unfortunately, for our meeting today, we are still obliged to keep silence until obliged by nato foreign ministers, to keep silent until their debate that is to happen on december 1st. And then our report is to become public. So please maintain some patience. Yet i think that im so much intertwined in the affairs of georgia and ukraine and particular particularly both countries to nato, th. I still remember my visit to ukraine, it was august of 2006, and standing together with the foreign minister, in front of a panel of journalists, we were debating ukraines eventual integration of organizations like eu, and there were remarks about nato, as well. I would say that the spirit about nato was rather negative. Everybody was afraid of speaking openly about nato. Although, i know that the will was already there at that time. Surely, the last six years, and ukraine fighting for territory integrity, made a change within public perception. Also engagement of ukraine in between with new accession ukraine signed a Framework Agreement with eu as well, and i in my previous capacity, i met both ukrainian and georgian soldiers in many nations, all over the world. So truly i can prove with my own eyes that both countries are really providers of security for all eu Member States and nato allies. That is true. That is true. So both countries are extremely important. Same with georgia. I still remember talking to numerous representatives of nato allies who used to confirm that georgian population is most probably the most pronanato in the world. Now we tend to complain about public support and necessity to extend Public Diplomacy programs to ensure, to convince our respective populations about value, benefits, value and a contribution of nato to world security. While in georgia, it is evidence, the major part of society, things like this. It is now very positive in both countries. I still remember another event. Before the nato summit, i was at that time head of the late preside president s chancelary, and i was sent back in to consult with some allies. In particular, those who were reluctant about both countries obtain i obtaining unfortunately, the final and i participated in bucharest as well. So i remember debates and all engagements. Actually, i have everything just before my eyes. Those chambers that were then and discussions at that time. Yes, it was a promise in bucharest, and i think it is still got it to that both countries will become nato members. And late