GLOBSEC 2015 Summary by GLOBSEC Academy Centre

The Leading Foreign Policy and Security Forum in Central Europe Shaping Transatlantic Strategic Agenda

19 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 21 June 2015

Summary

www.globsec.org

Table Of Contents The GLOBSEC Story GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report GLOBSEC 2015 Night Owl Sessions GLOBSEC 2015 Dinner Sessions GLOBSEC 2015 Policy Sessions GLOBSEC 2015 Gala Dinner GLOBSEC 2015 Young Leaders' Forum (GYLF) GYLF 2015 Young Leaders' Insights & Recommendations Public-Private Fora GLOBSEC 2015 City Talks GLOBSEC 2015 Tweets About us

4 5 12 28 32 36 37 39 40 44 48 54 55

The GLOBSEC Story

The GLOBSEC Story GLOBSEC started in 2005 as a small initiative of several students led by Róbert Vass, now CEO and Executive Vice-President of the Strategy Council. Although these young leaders lacked significant funding and no major foundation or institution supported them in their first steps, their dedication, determination and clear vision motivated them to pursue their goal.

and informally raises the influence of Central Europe in global affairs. The regional dimension of the conference is emphasised by the participation of high-level decision-makers from the Visegrad Group. GLOBSEC is considered to be one of the top five conferences of its kind in the world. It is a vibrant platform that helps to shape international debate. The most influential experts from leading European and transatlantic think-tanks, academia, business leaders and politicians come to Bratislava annually to discuss issues that make headlines in the global media.

“GLOBSEC is a true success story for Slovakia and Central Europe. We have founded it as students in very difficult conditions, without any financial and material resources. We wanted to put Bratislava and Central Europe on the map of transatlantic thinking and to move the region from the periphery to the centre of international debate. Today, GLOBSEC owes its uniqueness to the extraordinary dedication of our young team,” said Róbert Vass.

“The founding and development of this important platform is a fascinating story of courage, energy and the creativity of young people who have fully taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by a free and democratic society,” said Pavol Demeš, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, who has followed and supported the GLOBSEC community from the beginning.

In a few years, GLOBSEC has risen from humble beginnings to become the premier foreign policy and security forum in Central Europe. GLOBSEC formally

10 INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT 10 YEARS OF GLOBSEC

« « « « « « « « « «

About 100 people attended the first GLOBSEC conference in 2005. In the first nine years, the number of participants amounted to 3,333. On GLOBSEC’s 10th anniversary alone, the Forum welcomed 1,130 participants from 70 countries. In 2005, GLOBSEC hosted 27 speakers from 13 countries. Ten years later, the conference drew 160 speakers from more than 40 countries. Nine years of GLOBSEC debates were covered by a total of 469 journalists. The 2015 edition attracted almost 200 media representatives from 35 countries. In the first year, GLOBSEC consisted of 2 keynote speeches and 4 roundtable debates. In 2015, the Forum featured 9 main panel discussions and chats, 5 night owl sessions, 2 keynote speeches, 10 dinner sessions, 3 public-private fora, 2 policy sessions and 7 public discussions under the umbrella of the GLOBSEC City Talks series. GLOBSEC 2015 was accompanied by the already 4th edition of the GLOBSEC Young Leaders’ Forum, bringing together 35 emerging leaders from 27 countries worldwide. The first GLOBSEC in 2005 was organised by a core group of ten people. Today, about 90 core organisers and 60 technical staff are involved in the preparation of GLOBSEC. The average age of the organising team of the first GLOBSEC was 20 years. Even today, the GLOBSEC team is much younger than is usual at conferences of this kind. In the first nine years, GLOBSEC welcomed 9 prime ministers and 50 ministers. The 2015 edition hosted 12 presidents and prime ministers. The total number of partners has exceeded 100. Social network posts related to GLOBSEC 2015 reached a historic record, with 45,000 views and almost 4,000 followers on Facebook and over 5,600 Twitter posts reaching 120,000 primary and close to 10 million secondary impressions.

GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations

GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations The 10th Bratislava Global Security Forum, taking place in Slovakia on 19-21 June 2015, evolved against the backdrop of a steadily deteriorating security environment around Europe as well as in Europe itself, in particular as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the unabated violence perpetrated by the Islamic State in the Middle East. A number of other topics also featured prominently on the agenda, such as the alarming spread of Russian propaganda across Europe and its neighbourhood, NATO’s adaptation ahead of the 2016 Warsaw summit, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, the prospects for Visegrad Group and Central European cooperation, and the future of Europe seen in the light of the EU Energy Union and the threats posed by potential British and Greek exits. The Forum’s highlights included speeches by Prime Minister David Cameron, Senator John McCain, Presidents Bronisław Komorowski, Toomas Ilves and Andrej Kiska, as well as a roundtable with the Visegrad Four Prime Ministers. In addition, GLOBSEC’s smaller, informal fora, including the GLOBSEC Young Leaders’ Forum and three Public-Private Fora on defence, energy, and innovation & cybersecurity, brought a lot of of insights and recommendations on many other topics, which can be found in the full report from the conference. Recommended actions are marked with a star («). have to be re-engaged on global issues like terrorism or Iran. At this stage, however, as NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow put it, it is very hard to cooperate with a superpower that is violating the most sacred rules of international law and refusing to tell the truth about its military activities.

RUSSIAN BEAR AWAKE: SCENARIOS AND STRATEGIES The post-Cold War order was all but buried when Russia annexed Crimea and the Kremlin waged war in Eastern Ukraine. It was GLOBSEC’s challenge to take a deeper look at the potential contours of a new European order and of the relationship between the West and Russia that lies at its heart. George Friedman argued that Russia’s insecurity about NATO being so close to its borders makes Russia take unusual risks. President Putin continues to be unpredictable and, as Carl Bildt pointed out, “more opportunistic than strategic”.

Thus, the conflict with Russia is likely to last long. The future will depend on Europe’s ability to adapt to Russian revisionism, which is the new normal. This, as President Andrej Kiska insisted, requires the West to overcome its current indifference, inconsistency and indecisiveness. Western leaders must retain the confidence that it is them who represents the legitimate and strong side. How far

The GLOBSEC expert community was unwavering in defining Russia as a threat. Similarly, a public City Talks debate led by Nik Gowing showed 76% of the audience supporting the notion that NATO and EU member states must assume Russia will work to subvert them, including the use of military force. As Joerg Forbrig argued in the GLOBSEC Policy Papers series, each side will continue trying to weaken the other’s cohesion. This requires clear commitment by Allies to the norms underlying the European order. If the West gets fragmented, the Putin machine is likely to move. “We fought, we died, we led together and it’s time we remember it and take on this new challenge,” said Senator John McCain. Russian speakers at the conference underlined the paradox that given the importance of good RussianEuropean relations for both sides’ global competitiveness, any destabilisation of Europe is in direct contradiction with Russian interests. Meanwhile, having failed to modernise Russia, Mr Putin is doing everything in his power to cement support at home. The massive propaganda effort aimed at his domestic populace includes “weaponising history”, rewriting of historical facts to support the feeling of national humiliation connected with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The GLOBSEC community was warned that spreading fear and flooding TV screens with military images might be a systematic effort by the Kremlin to prepare Russia for war. Given the trends in Russian society, manifested by the murder of Boris Nemtsov, the West should not take it for granted that Russia without Putin would be more open toward integration into a rulesbased international order. Russia will sooner or later

Recommendations are those of the Central European Strategy Council, the conference organiser. They are largely based on opinions expressed at the GLOBSEC 2015 Bratislava Global Security Forum.

Mr Putin is able to take his adventurism depends mainly on the West itself. Appeasement is not an option: “We have 70 000 Russian troops training at our border and 7 US tanks in Tallinn. Spiegel writes ‘Provoking Russia’,” tweeted President Toomas Ilves.

UKRAINE’S FUTURE: INDEPENDENT, STABLE, PROSPEROUS? Russia’s destabilisation tactics are the main obstacle to Ukraine’s faster progress and democratisation prospects brought about by the Maidan revolution. The greatest motivation for reforms lies within Ukraine’s civil society, not its vast bureaucracy. As Timothy Snyder explained, Maidan was an effort of Ukraine’s civic leaders to strengthen the state by reaching out to the EU. In its counter-revolutionary zeal, Russia tries to erase both civil society and the EU from the equation and keep the Ukrainian state weak. Having mismanaged the conflict and failed to inspire a public uprising that would cripple Ukraine, President Putin unwillingly provided a powerful incentive for the creation of the Ukrainian nation, with Ukrainians willing to pay the highest price for their freedom.

While it is unrealistic to expect that economic sanctions would provide the ultimate solution to Russian aggression, they remain essential as a fulcrum of Western unity. Sanctions have helped deter Russia from larger-scale actions in East Ukraine. Still, they must be supplanted by other elements of strategy, particularly as regards deterring further aggression in Ukraine and beyond. To sustain EU unity on sanctions, however, it is important to introduce more solidarity and mutual support between members. It is also key to be discerning about targeting; the loss of Russia’s civil society, which continues to represent a beacon of hope despite brute repression from the regime, would be a tragedy.

There was keen awareness at GLOBSEC about Ukraine’s internal problems such as strong resistance of the political establishment to reforms; growing public frustration; enduring links between the new administration and the old regime; serious economic and financial instability; and continued uncertainty about energy supplies and Ukraine’s standing as a major transit for Russian gas to Europe. While concerns remain about the capacity of Ukraine to use European support effectively, it is difficult to adopt reforms when the country is in a state of war.

« Maintain international pressure on Russia through diplomatic, political, and economic means (sanctions). « Restore faith in Western values and institutions and communicate their advantages to audiences both at home and abroad, as argued by Michael Chertoff. « Remain uncompromising about redrawing borders by force and not recognising Crimea. « Punish Russia’s violations more resolutely than so far and raise the costs for the use of force. « Use the EU’s strengths of cohesion, solidarity, power and affluence to create internal solidarity within the Union in order to defend against the Russian threat. Strengthen solidarity between EU Member States to overcome negative effects of sanctions. « Stay vigilant across Eastern Europe, including the incipient “mischief-making” in Moldova, as suggested by Governor Mikheil Saakashvili, as well as in the Western Balkans. « Washington should re-prioritise Russia, re-engage with its European allies and strengthen its presence as a key guarantor of security in Europe. « Central Europe should reach out vigorously to US leaders from both parties to build awareness about the region’s concerns as well as its contributions to international security. « Germany must take the concerns of those EU members and neighbours that are particularly exposed to Russian pressures more seriously and formulate its position unambiguously. « Don’t leave Russia behind: invest massively into cooperation with civil society actors who can both speak and act in the interest of Russia’s democratic and pro-European future.

GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations The GLOBSEC community emphatically urged the West to provide Ukraine with more substantial economic but also direct military support. Supported by a strong body of outside advisors, including some from Central Europe, reforms should be directed at decentralisation, demonopolisation and deregulation. Several speakers sought to dispel the false dilemmas about arming Kiev in the face of blatant aggression. Calls for Ukraine’s EU perspective were omnipresent. In the words of President Kiska, this means presenting a “usable roadmap for membership, not a polite diplomatic way to avoid talking about membership openly”. When Ukraine succeeds in its European aspirations, it will represent a powerful inspiration to nations across the post-Soviet space, including those Russians who do not agree with Mr Putin and his policies. Despite the immense challenges, the GLOBSEC community was optimistic about Ukraine’s future. It was clear that achieving Ukraine’s independence, stability and prosperity will require a massive effort on the part of domestic actors and the international community. « Craft a strategy on Ukraine which takes Russia into account but provides a central focus on the specific challenges for the Ukrainian society and its leaders. « Give Ukraine a European membership perspective. « Provide Ukraine strategic assistance with reforms, a “vision and coordination” as Minister Miroslav Lajčák termed it.

fighting a war in Ukraine but aims to undermine the post-Cold War European order means that NATO as an institution, as a building block of that order, has become a target. Criticism was heard about the perceived slackness in implementing the Wales commitments, in particular as regards defence spending and protection of NATO’s Eastern border under the Readiness Action Plan. Meanwhile, voices pushing for a more ambitious adaptation strategy at the Warsaw summit gained prominence at the GLOBSEC Forum. This could include revising the NATO Strategic Concept, better planning for Article 5 scenarios, beefing up the NATO Response Force as well as developing NATO’s Readiness Action Plan into a permanent arrangement to include the basing of NATO troops along the Eastern flank. The current security situation was not foreseeable in 1997 and therefore a permanent presence of troops there would arguably not constitute a violation of the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

« Support reform with strategic communication: the Ukrainians must realise that even painful reforms are in their interest. « Ramp up bilateral and multilateral defence cooperation with Ukraine, including the provision of lethal weaponry as needed. « Kiev should put premium on reducing corruption and red tape and improving the business environment, including by exposing the role of oligarchs and targeting their monopolies. Also, improve energy efficiency by smart energy use and further diversification of energy imports. « Central Europe should engage Kiev on economic reform, regional and cross-border cooperation, but also, as highlighted by Štefan Füle, the integration of civil society with Europe, city twinning, student exchange programmes and joint cultural events.

It is increasingly likely that pulling the carpet from under NATO’s Article 5 is President Putin’s end-game. While direct military confrontation with the Alliance could be suicidal for any adversary, NATO has a particular vulnerability in the Baltics, whose destabilisation could lead some allies to question outside involvement. Yet NATO must be prepared to act strategically, tackling head-on the most difficult bit–reaching

FROM WALES TO WARSAW: COLLECTIVELY DEFENDING THE ALLIANCE NATO has to accelerate its adaptation to a new age of confrontation; an age in which swift action and public impact will be decisive. The fact that Russia is not only

political consensus, basing its actions on mutual trust and shared intelligence. Destabilisation starts at home; the role of NATO nations is crucial in identifying the threat and providing the first response. Disturbingly, a new Pew Research survey presented at GLOBSEC confirmed persisting public reluctance about honouring collective defence commitments.

« National politicians should stop nationalising successes and brusselising failures, thus undermining the attractiveness of the European project to the citizens. « Europe’s leaders have the responsibility to address the legitimate concerns of European citizens that are now expressed in illegitimate ways by populists.

« Start fulfilling the Wales summit pledges on increased defence investment and modernisation. « Implement the Readiness Action Plan, including more effective communication of their measures to publics and parliaments across NATO.

« Europe’s leaders must spend more time addressing political matters. The primary challenge is to build a new, fundamentally political narrative for Europe, including the issue of what it would mean to have no Europe at all.

« Rally support around a “Warsaw Initiative on Strategic Adaptation” to enable the adjustment of NATO’s posture beyond the Readiness Action Plan.

« Relaunch the transatlantic relationship on the basis of a new grand vision, e.g. a closer integration of the West through projects like TTIP.

« Ensure that NATO nations have the full range of defensive capabilities in their collective inventory to draw on for the entire spectrum of conflict, in particular for all-out war if such a conflict is initiated by Russia.

« Take steps to overcome the economic crisis, deepen EU integration, and overcome fragmentation of the European economy by opening trade and connecting markets. « Take globalisation as an opportunity; actively engage with other regions and powers like China and India aiming at commiting them to a valuesbased international order.

« Approve the permanent basing of multinational NATO forces on the territory of NATO’s Eastern members, e.g. by creating a “trip-wire” force in the region.

« Encourage leadership institutions.

« Boost capacity to identify and counter Russiainstigated hybrid warfare in NATO’s most exposed areas, focusing on the Baltics, especially through targeted exercises involving the North Atlantic Council. Set up a Centre of Excellence for Hybrid Warfare based in Germany.

through

communitarian

« Renew political impetus for greater institutional coordination between the EU and NATO. « The EU must remain open to new members; avoid grave communication errors such as the pause in enlargement suggested by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

« NATO members of the EU should spearhead the Union's adaptation to hybrid warfare and promote NATO-EU synergies in this field.

« Rethink and resource the EU’s Eastern Partnership to make association and eventual membership in the EU more attractive than the Russia-centred Eurasian Union.

« Invite Montenegro for membership by the Warsaw summit and reconfirm the Euro-Atlantic perspective for Ukraine and Georgia.

« Tackle the problem of weak governance around the EU, increase spending and target foreign aid more effectively.

EUROPE: A PERFECT (DIS)UNION? A unified and strong EU, based on renewed economic growth, is a precondition for the Union’s ability to act as a respected global power. This requires the EU to actively defend the values it stands for, said Prime Minister David Cameron, but also to engage more closely with its natural allies including the United States and assist those who fight for democratic values abroad. The EU needs to improve strategic thinking on key issues such as how to approach Russia, what to do with the Neighbourhood Policy, how to begin dealing with the “dreadful mess” in international relations (Edward Lucas) and on the way forward on such dynamic challenges as the recent influx of migrants from the Mediterranean.

The GLOBSEC community agreed that the United Kingdom’s potential secession from the EU would cause considerable political and economic damage to all involved. In the run-up to the 2017 referendum, concessions on both sides will be necessary. This can be a revitalising debate for the EU. The UK has many natural friends in Central Europe on a range of EU issues. On the issue of a looming Grexit from the eurozone, support for Greece’s continued membership prevailed, particularly in the interest of Europe’s unity, international standing and security in the Western Balkans. At the same time, important voices from Central Europe recalled the limits of political support for the Tsipras government in the absence of profound reforms, recalling their countries’

GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations own painful experience with economic transformation. The “exits” debate also has an external dimension: Russia is likely to exploit European divisions in order to reduce the EU into a politically fragmented economic bloc and prevent, most importantly, the emergence of a common energy policy.

project of the Energy Union paves a clear way forward but requires strategic endurance. According to Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, the crucial challenge will be to lead the member states to think about energy as a common issue that can only be addressed under a united “European shelter”. The imports of US shale gas can represent a powerful contribution to Europe’s energy security.

« Work hand in glove with the Cameron government to keep Britain in the EU.

« Use the platform of the EU Energy Union to advance towards a common energy market.

« Encourage open and critical discussion on EU integration as initiated by the UK in the interest of making the EU stronger, more unified and more effective.

« Make the best use of the current momentum: learn to think about energy in regional and European dimensions and coordinate plans and strategies accordingly.

« Promote more democratic accountability by involving national parliaments and civil society.

« Promote diversification away from Russia. Encourage the member states to openly demonstrate their willingness to provide energy assistance to each other if need be.

« Whilst Greece must be exposed to strict measures and forced to reform, it is in the common European interest to help save this country and keep it within the eurozone.

« Encourage strategic investments into Noth-South interconnectors such as Eastring.

Dependence on Russian oil and gas has restricted Europe’s political options during the war in Ukraine. Over the years, Russia has proven to be an unreliable supplier of Europe’s energy. Europe will have to focus urgently on diversifiying its natural gas supplies, on using the current sources more efficiently and on mobilising investment in new infrastructure as well as renewable sources. The

« Make the EU the global “prime mover” in renewables. On efficiency and savings, apply a long-term perspective of what is truly necessary, economically justifiable and beneficial. « Enforce compliance with European rules and institutions.

PROPAGANDA: EXPLOITING THE UNDERBELLY OF DEMOCRACY While GLOBSEC focused on highlighting the threat of propaganda and information warfare as used by Russia, the tactics used by the Islamic State and its affiliates were also dissected. In terms of content, both adversaries attack the foundations of democracy and the rules-based international order.

Information warfare occupies a firm place in Russia’s overall anti-Western strategy. Russia’s information offensive around its hybrid campaign in Ukraine has not been limited to distorting Western views of the conflict but sought to undermine the Western institutions themselves. It has done so by deploying a toxic mix of instruments that include media, NGOs, politicians, academics, financial market agents, energy executives, ethnic activists and hackers to a war in which the battle for the minds plays a central role. Using a global infotainment network tightly controlled by the Russian state including Russia Today and Sputnik, Russia has exploited the democratic principle of pluralism without offering alternative credible information. In an environment of declining trust in official authority, promoting conspiracy has been a particularly potent weapon seeking to foster national passivity and neutrality in the entire CEE region, where Russian influence is growing. Particular concern was expressed about the support

provided by the Putin regime to various far right (Le Front National) and far left (Syriza) parties in Europe in order to subvert the European integration process. Faced with a centralised, well-funded propaganda machine, the West has thus far failed to respond effectively. A special closed-door policy session was convened in order to map ongoing and planned activities by players in and out of government, exchange best practices and promote the creation of an independent, inclusive and actionoriented network of institutions and individuals across the transatlantic community to effectively address the challenge of anti-Western propaganda through closer cooperation. The session revealed many promising projects at grassroots level, but also a disturbing lack of political attention and funding. GLOBSEC demonstrated great confidence in the values of democracy, freedom and truth. What is lacking is more decisive action by communicators in and out of government: “People who write the present write history,” said Kurt Volker, “we only need to start writing.” The main challenge lies in creating and communicating a strong counter-narrative that would underpin a “Renaissance of the West” (Roland Freudenstein).

to undermine democracy, integration and the transatlantic relations. « Investigate and close media outlets, revoke journalist passes and other privileges to those known to be involved in promoting Russian propaganda. « Promote media literacy and critical thinking. « Tell your own story: invest substantially in strategic communication; develop and confidently communicate narratives for the European Union and the transatlantic community based on truth, values, achievement and vision. Use the story of Central and Eastern Europe, with the contrast between democracy and authoritarianism it embodies, as an essential ingredient for crafting a new narrative. « Build the EU’s narrative for the neighbourhood around economic assistance, the promotion of media freedom and individual liberties, and above all, the principle of not invading other countries. Invest in NGOs, create new sources of credible information and educate journalists.

« Respond more decisively to Russian propaganda and influence in our countries, in the Eastern neighbourhood and in Russia itself. Differentiate strategies for the three theatres. « Use fact-checked information in order to counter the “parallel reality” spun by the Kremlin. Be ready for Russia’s “4D strategy” as per Ben Nimmo: dismiss the criticism, distort the facts, distract from the main issue and dismay the audience. « Expose Mr Putin’s allies in the EU for what they are. « Dissect, expose and degrade the networks through which Russia feeds movements inside the EU

« In Russia itself, confront propaganda by simply talking back, providing alternative information and helping Russian investigative journalists. « Don’t forget the power of humour: ridicule the Russian nonsense.

DYNAMIC VISEGRAD: ENERGY, GROWTH, COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION In the economic dimension, the Visegrad Group continues

GLOBSEC 2015 Executive Summary & Recommendations to demonstrate its potential to grow, which generates a considerable level of optimism amongst both experts and policy makers and confirms that this forum has an important role on both the Central European and the EU level. V4 countries need to urgently coordinate in the area of energy, particularly on the vital issues of diversification of natural gas supplies and investments into energy infrastructure. Digitalisation is of key importance for ensuring the region’s competitiveness; Central Europe should develop a “smart and digital” brand and aspire to becoming the “Silicon Valley of Europe”. Meeting a week before the European Council on migration, the V4 Prime Ministers argued strongly against migration quotas and in favour of aiding weak countries around Europe. Central European countries have to devise strategies for dealing with the changing demographics without relying on immigrants, to include, as stressed by OECD Secretary General Ángel Gurría, the reform of social and education systems to make the best use of the available human resources.

of radicalisation must be addressed as vigorously as its consequences. Given that radicalisation begins with the individual, internet-based recruitment represents a major challenge. The Muslim authorities are best-suited to address radicalism at its very roots and contribute to the vital reconciliation between Western perceptions of Islam and Islamic perceptions of the West.

« The V4 should steadily invest in mutual trust, partnership and a common sense of strategic direction.

« Invest in intelligence capabilities, ensure a better coordination between intelligence collection and intelligence analysis, and actively support advancements in the area of cybersecurity.

« Recognise the grave ideological threat that the ISIS vision poses to European values. « Fight islamophobia: promote moderate Islam and tolerant religious education, establish alliances with authorities from the Muslim communities to stop politicising Islam. « Expose ISIS as a brutal terrorist organisation by showing concrete information on the effects of the war, going so far as showing the casualties on both sides.

« The V4 should avoid cycles of unrealistic expectations and complacency while working on practical cooperation leading to concrete results, as underlined by Jiří Schneider.

« Address the socio-economic problems in Western societies that support radicalisation. « Encourage international cooperation at each stage of the “chain of radicalisation” (General John Allen) to stem the flow of foreign fighters into ISIS ranks.

« Avoid disproportional focus on consolidation over economic growth; prioritise investment.

On GLOBSEC’s 10th anniversary, highlighted its founder Róbert Vass, the Forum hosted 1,130 participants and 160 speakers from 70 countries, including 12 presidents and prime ministers, as well as almost 200 media representatives from 35 countries. Social network posts related to GLOBSEC reached a historic record, with 45,000 views and almost 4,000 followers on Facebook and over 5,600 Twitter posts reaching 120,000 primary and close to 10 million secondary impressions.

« Dedicate more attention to family programmes and invest in public as well as private initiatives focused on vocational training and lifelong learning to get ahead of the demographic curve. « Invest substantially in science, research and innovation as drivers of productivity and competitiveness. « Work nationally and internationally to encourage public-private cooperation in promoting entrepreneurship and start-ups. « Speed up the digital transformation of the region by building on success stories like ESET or Prezi and learning from the expertise of global leaders.

ISIS AND RADICAL ISLAM: A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL THREAT With recent attacks across the EU, Islamic terrorism gained a new face – one that will most probably be seen in the Western world more often: small attacks with less casualties but significant emotional impact taking aim at Western values and freedoms. Furthermore, a rising number of young individuals from Western societies fill the ranks of ISIS. Every kind of extremism needs to be faced, be it violent or not-violent; and the root causes

This summary was compiled by Mário Nicolini with inputs from Adam Csabay. 11

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report Official Welcome and Introductory Remarks GLOBSEC 2015 Bratislava Global Security Forum was opened by Ambassador Rastislav Káčer, Honorary President of the Central European Strategy Council, who cordially welcomed all participants. He extended a special salute to the high-level participants present at GLOBSEC this year, including several presidents, prime ministers, ministers and secretaries-general of international organisations. Ambassador Káčer also commemorated the 10th anniversary of GLOBSEC and recognised the individuals and partner organisations that contributed to this achievement. He paid a special tribute to BAE Systems and Slovakia’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, which have supported GLOBSEC since the very beginning. Slovak Atlantic Commission has managed to elevate GLOBSEC to become a substantial platform for dialogue that shapes strategic policy-making across the world. In this context, Ambassador Káčer reminded that security, freedom and prosperity must not be taken for granted by Western societies. He also recalled Edward Lucas stating that the West has to deal with a “dreadful mess”; in such circumstances it is NATO and the EU that represent our greatest strength.

conclusions from such challenges and use them as an opportunity to critically and strategically assess how to improve the Union’s functioning. This is something that the Europeans owe to the founding fathers of European integration. Slovakia is ready to take an active role in such a debate. The EU must not be afraid of any discussions or variety of opinions as these make it stronger. Turning to the situation in Ukraine, Minister Lajčák stated that the West needs to accept some painful facts. First, although the post-Cold War order is being challenged, Europe is not in a new Cold War. Second, whilst Europe does have a problem with Russia, there is no solution without Russia. Third, Russia will not give up on Crimea but the West does not know how to deal with that. Fourth, there are global challenges such as terrorism or Iran that cannot be addressed without Russia. Fifth, the Europeans must not ignore that the conflict in Ukraine is not perceived the same way in Europe as it is in other parts of the world. Thus, the Slovak Foreign Minister argued that whilst relations with Russia must not return to business as usual, Russia will have to be engaged as part of a long-term solution. Meanwhile, said Minister Lajčák, the West must intensify its support to Ukraine. This is what Slovakia has tried to achieve with reverse gas flow, helping Ukraine save up to USD 3 billion and cover over 40% of its overall gas needs. Mr Lajčák also emphasised that solidarity and stronger support is mainly about strategic assistance with reforms – to provide “vision and coordination”. External actors need to help Ukraine’s central and local authorities to

Káčer: "(...) security, freedom and prosperity must not be taken for granted by Western societies." After thanking all the institutions that supported GLOBSEC, Mr Káčer gave floor to Miroslav Lajčák, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic. Minister Lajčák welcomed all guests to Bratislava and saluted them in both Slovak and English. He pointed out that the past twelve months have been harder for the West than many expected – sometimes even “too hard to bear with dignity”. There are no easy or painless solutions; it is important that the West remains both united and realistic when it comes to plans, expectations, implementation and feedback. Minister Lajčák also argued for greater solidarity and coordination among member states, who should “listen more to each other” and pay more attention to shared concerns. As for the EU, Mr Lajčák appreciated the systematic efforts to stabilise the eurozone and assured his partners of Slovakia’s commitment to play a constructive role in this process. However, several persisting challenges will need to be dealt with in the near future. First, while Greece has to be exposed to strict measures, it is in the common European interest to help save this country and keep it within the eurozone. Second, the United Kingdom’s potential secession from the EU would cause considerable political and economic damage to all involved parties. According to Mr Lajčák, the EU needs to draw wider

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report engage with as many institutional partners and assistance networks as possible. Upon Slovakia‘s initiative, the OECD held the first “Ukraine Day” with the aim to enable Ukraine to make the most of the organisation’s expertise. The West must also acknowledge that the current Ukrainian government is more open to reforms that any of its predecessors but there is still a number of external and internal players who wish for Ukraine’s failure. Given that a considerable proportion of the Ukrainian population is unsatisfied with the current state of affairs, it is essential to effectively communicate to the Ukrainians that even painful reforms are in their interest; it is mainly themselves who is responsible for the country’s future. This is a lesson that Central European countries like Slovakia learned during the recent decades.

Lajčák: "(...) to critically and strategically assess how to improve the Union’s functioning. This is something that the Europeans owe to the founding fathers of European integration." As regards Southern Europe, Minister Lajčák pointed out that the Arab Spring helped remove some autocrats, but also paved the way to new security threats such as extremism, organised crime, economic instability and an influx of migrants that all pose direct dangers to European security. There are no quick solutions to the crisis in North Africa but Europe must retain engagement with the state and non-state actors in the region since continued instability can have serious consequences domestically. Solutions will require political as well as economic courage and prudence. Mr Lajčák acknowledged that the task of building or strengthening state structures and institutions in Europe’s neighbourhood will not bring quick wins, but in the long run it can address instability at its roots, which certainly is in Europe’s interest. Finally, Mr Lajčák argued that the West is at a “turning point for Euro-Atlantic security“. The West now has to engage on multiple fronts it long neglected, from hard security to energy security to cyberwarfare to propaganda, all of which remind the Euro-Atlantic community of the values it stands for. Mr Lajčák called Montenegro’s accession to NATO a strategic opportunity which should not be missed. The main task for the European allies will be to increase investments into NATO’s capabilities and contribute to a more equitable burden-sharing. Mr Lajčák stated that the potential of the Euro-Atlantic community is high but it needs to adapt to act swiftly on complex issues, in order to be able to focus on prevention. What needs to be significantly improved is strategic thinking on key issues such as a long term approach to Russia, EU-NATO relations, neighbourhood policy or common positions in international organisations. The future of the West needs to be built on hard facts, said Mr Lajčák, as only these can provide feasible and sustainable solutions both domestically and internationally. Touching on discussions about Europe’s future security architecture, Mr Lajčák argued for greater global support for existing institutional platforms like the UN. He also reminded the West that other players may have different perceptions of the world which should be taken into account. Minister Lajčák concluded his remarks by saying that

the success stories of GLOBSEC and of Slovakia are interconnected and acknowledged the substantial contribution that the Bratislava Global Security Forum has had for both Slovakia and Central Europe.

GLOBSEC Keynote Speech by David Cameron At the opening of this year's tenth iteration of GLOBSEC, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron took the floor, addressing several key security concerns that affect Europe. He exhorted the audience to show that we understand the primacy of economic security and political stability, that we are clear about the threats, that we’re uncompromising in our response, and we’re confident of our ability to address failed states. If the West does all those things it will be able to deal with these threats and successfully protect the security of all its nations. Democracy, freedom of speech, free enterprise, equality of opportunity, human rights are the things that unite the West. “Tyranny, fascism, hatred – they have always come off worst when confronted by our determination to defend our values and our way of life,” said Mr Cameron.

Cameron: “Tyranny, fascism, hatred – they have always come off worst when confronted by our determination to defend our values and our way of life.”

There needs to be a renewed focus on economic strength and success: without prosperity, there is no security, he argued. More commitment is needed among member states to the achievement of NATO benchmarks for increased investment in security and defence. The need for modernisation of European armies becomes ever more pressing. Europe must drive forward the completion of the single market and open that market up to trade around the world. Open markets open minds, underlined Mr Cameron. Europe should open its trade links to other continents, allowing more trade with South America, China as well as accepting the newly proposed free trade agreements with the USA.

According to Prime Minister Cameron, there needs to be more clarity about ISIS and the ideological threat it represents to European values, with its vision of religion and the role of the state. The threat is grave, with more and more youths leaving their homes in Europe and going to war on the side of the extremists. This requires a more assertive response. Every kind of extremism needs to be faced, be it violent or non-violent. Given that any kind of radicalisation begins with the individual, the root causes of radicalisation must be tackled, not just the consequences. Britain has promoted setting up an EUInternet Referral Unit, based on the British model, which will be up and running from next month. Many of today’s security challenges, from Ukraine to the Middle East, can be traced back to failed governance. Weak states continue to appear around Europe, and with them comes the problem of an increasing number of migrants arriving to Europe’s southern shores. As the UK gives refuge to the displaced, the UN needs to be addressed in order to allow for the resettlement of those fleeing Syria. Rather than turning its back on the Middle East or North Africa, Europe should lead the world on promoting development and helping its international partners build stronger institutions. Keeping commitments on foreign aid despite economic difficulties is essential: “It’s the right thing to do to build prosperity for the world’s poorest – and it’s the right thing to do to help stabilise and secure countries in the long run – protecting our security here in Europe”. In Ukraine, Russia has proven to be an unreliable partner, breaking its own signed agreements by occupying Crimea and Donbas and denying full sovereignty to Ukraine. There needs to be more support for Ukraine’s European aspirations, and there needs to be more enforcement of the Minsk agreements in this regard. The West must be uncompromising about the attempts to redraw Europe’s borders by force.

Session 1: From Wales to Warsaw: Collectively Defending the Alliance

War order in Europe. Therefore, Mr Vershbow proposed doubling the size of the NATO Response Force that would be capable to strengthen any ally. Furthermore, he stressed the need to develop an overall strategy allowing NATO to anticipate various kinds of hybrid attacks. Over the long run, NATO must think about a larger adaptation of its force structure to make its reinforcement strategy credible vis-a-vis Russia. On the other hand, Amb. Vershbow also argued that despite the immense military spending of the Russian Federation we should prevent a future arms race. Instead, NATO’s political adaptation should focus on assessing vulnerabilities of societies, faster decision-making, comprehensive protection from cyberattacks and increasing its ability to support countries like Ukraine and Georgia (and the Southern neighbours) to develop their own capabilities to resist intimidation. Mr Aurescu added at this point that it was extremely important to consolidate the ability of NATO to project stability around its neighbourhood as any kind of instability next to NATO’s borders is a source of instability for us. Therefore, he called upon the Alliance to elaborate the reassurance and adaptation measures by developing even broader cooperation with NATO’s partners in order to secure the unpredictable environment around us.

Ischinger: "The values gap is the crux of the issue between the West and Russia." On the subject of increasing readiness and capabilities of the Alliance, Mr Jankowski said that his government was very interested in developing the NATO’s Readiness Action Plan, approved at the Wales summit, as a permanent security mechanism. Moreover, he argued that we had to push further the process of NATO adaptation. Mr Tigner directed the debate to the wider security architecture that would be embraced not only by NATO but also by Russia. Ambassador Ischinger underlined that we had to create something sustainable that would prevent conflict. In his opinion, the starting point of a new

Chaired by Brooks Tigner, NATO/EU Affairs Correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly, the first session featured Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Deputy Secretary General of NATO, Bogdan Aurescu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Romania, Maciej Jankowski, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Poland and Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference. Mr Tigner opened the session by asking about the actions of NATO between the Wales and Warsaw summits. Mr Vershbow reaffirmed the commitment of NATO to stand up for a Europe whole and free that have been guaranteed by the Alliance for more than two decades. Nevertheless, he pointed out that the situation has changed since the Ukrainian crisis as Russia is not only fighting a war in Ukraine but it also wants to undermine the post-Cold

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report discussion about Russia and with Russia ought to rest on a double strategy. He proposed an incident prevention mechanism which would allow both parties to approach one another and avoid incidents like flying without transponders leading to violations of NATO’s airspace. When it comes to deterrence vis-a-vis Russia, Wolfgang Ischinger argued that despite the mistrust the West has to negotiate with the Russian Federation while at the same time categorically refuse the Russian rhetoric of the spheres of influence which is in strong contradictions to what Russia signed up to after the end of Cold War. The values gap is the crux of the issue between the West and Russia, said Mr Ischinger. Responding to a query from the audience, Ambassador Vershbow said that NATO would like to work with the United Nations Security Council but in the current situation it is impossible as the UNSC is blocked by the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, the Alliance remains an important vehicle of international crisis management and a vehicle for peace-keeping missions that draws on a large network of partners. He also added that it is very hard to cooperate with a superpower violating the most sacred rules of international law and refusing to tell the truth about its military activities. Concerning the future enlargement of NATO, the panellists had rather different opinions. Both Mr Aurescu and Mr Jankowski favoured the continuation of NATO’s Open Door Policy saying that no one should be excluded from membership. On the other hand, Ambassador Ischinger was more skeptical: he was not sure if countries like Ukraine or Georgia are united in their desire to join NATO nor that the Alliance would be willing to defend them and that their membership would enhance the security of the Alliance. Mr Tigner then asked the panellists about the latest poll of the Pew Research Center, as well as a poll among the GLOBSEC audience that raised doubts whether some NATO members would be willing to defend an ally by force should it come under attack. Ambassador Vershbow argued that it was the responsibility of the elites to persuade people that their security depends on the security of the other members of the Alliance. The panellists also discussed the impacts of a potential Greek exit from the eurozone and the European Union. Ambassador Ischinger said that if Greece left the EU it would be a signal for Russia that the West is in decline and that the Balkans are not a safe and peaceful place anymore. Therefore, it is also in the interest of NATO that Greece stays in the EU. At the end of the session the panellists criticised the cuts in defence spending of some European NATO members, arguing that without investment it was difficult to be secure and that every ally had to share the burden for NATO to remain strong. In the future, underinvestment will catch up in terms of creating capability gaps.

Session 2: Dynamic Visegrad: Energy, Growth, Competitiveness The second session of the day, a V4 Prime Ministers session, was chaired by Stefan Kornelius, Foreign Editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung. The panellists included Robert Fico, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, Bohuslav Sobotka, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, Tomasz Siemoniak, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence of the Republic of Poland and Ángel Gurría, Secretary General of the OECD.

Fico: "(...) any exceptions that Greece might be able to enjoy in implementing reforms would be politically unbearable in Slovakia." Prime Minister Robert Fico first welcomed all participants to GLOBSEC. He began by commenting on the eurozone crisis. Mr Fico noted that whilst Slovakia is willing to assist, it is mainly up to the Greek government to implement reforms. Prime Minister Fico reminded that Slovakia had undergone a complex and painful socio-economic transformation and any exceptions that Greece might be able to enjoy in implementing reforms would be politically unbearable in Slovakia. Should the Greek reforms not

materialise, after a discussion with the Slovak public he would be willing to face the consequences of Greece‘s secession from the eurozone. As for more general prospects, Prime Minister Fico expressed a regret that the EU’s measures to deal with crisis prioritised consolidation over economic growth. In this regard Mr Fico welcomed the EC President Juncker’s investment plan and reminded that Slovakia was ready to contribute with over 400 million euros. The prospects for Slovakia’s economic growth and employment seem to be promising and as this is largely due to Slovakia’s focus on the automotive industry, the government would be keen to attract more investments into this sector. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán noted that in 2010 the prospects for Hungary had not been much better than for Greece but due to complex reforms, which took due account of Hungary’s specifics, the country can now enjoy substantial economic growth based on a balanced

structure of its economy. Mr Orbán also mentioned some of his government‘s long-term goals, such as achieving full employment, a consistent five-percent economic growth, or a greater proportion of nationally-owned capital. These goals should be achieved through policies focused on investment. Mr Orbán also touched upon the issue of demography and noted that the smaller countries are likely to suffer more serious negative consequences of immigration than bigger ones. While he acknowledged that the declining population represents one of Hungary‘s most pressing issues and a real challenge to deal with, Mr Orbán also stated that the way forward lies in more attractive government programmes for young families rather than in influx of foreigners.

energy supplies, particularly from Southern Europe. In this regard it is crucial that the Czech Republic and other EU countries manage to coordinate their long-term plans and visions on all areas of energy, including the production of electricity. Mr Fico added that Slovakia also supports the concept of the Energy Union and is largely in favour of diversification of energy supply routes. He also expressed concerns about the possibility of Ukraine losing its transit country status, as suggested by Russian business representatives, and emphasised that Slovakia needs to look for alternative options, like the Eastring project, that would enable it to maintain its gas transit incomes regardless of the situation of Ukraine.

Sobotka: "Whilst Prague will continue to support Ukraine as a gas transit country, it is also important to consider other options that can provide Central Europe with safe energy supplies."

Orbán: "(...) smaller countries are likely to suffer more serious negative consequences from immigration than bigger ones."

Deputy Prime Minister Siemoniak argued that energy has a direct impact on defence capabilities and will play an increasingly important role on the strategic agenda of European defence ministers. In this context, Minister Siemoniak expressed Polish support for President Tusk’s project of the EU’s Energy Union as this represents the only feasible option for Europe’s long term energy security. A debate that helps to coordinate the interests and strategies of individual member states needs to continue. As for the situation in Ukraine, Mr Siemoniak commented that whilst the EU must assist Ukraine against Russian aggression, it also needs to focus on diversifying its energy supply routes as the exclusive dependence of some countries on Russian gas caused problems even before the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Sobotka, for his part, highlighted the positive economic trends in the Czech Republic as well as in other Central European economies and expressed his optimism about the future. One of Europe’s most significant challenges that will need to be faced in the near future is energy security. Mr Sobotka made positive comments about the proposed concept of the EU’s Energy Union. The countries of Central Europe, Slovakia and Hungary in particular, would largely benefit from a greater diversification of energy sources and supply routes. Whilst Prague will continue to support Ukraine as a gas transit country, it is also important to consider other options that can provide Central Europe with safe

Secretary General Gurría opened his contribution to the panel by positively commenting on the economic performance of the Visegrad countries. According to Mr Gurría, Central European countries have been open to dialogue and cooperation amongst themselves and with institutions like OECD, which is reflected in a visible

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report GLOBSEC Keynote Speech: H.E. Andrej Kiska, President of the Slovak Republic

“movement and improvement” that they had achieved in areas such as GDP per capita or unemployment. Turning to recommendations, Mr Gurría first argued that the Visegrad countries will have to deal with issues related to the changing demographics; it is important that they make the best use of all available human resources. This shall involve measures like better childcare or incentives for elderly workers that would motivate them to actively contribute to the economy. Second, Mr Gurría emphasised the importance of reform in the areas of vocational training and lifelong learning. Today it is skills rather than education that matter, so every company should “become a school”, which will require an active cooperation between the state and non-state sectors in the society. Such investments would increase the Visegrad countries’ productivity and competitiveness, and in the long run they would also contribute to a sustainable solution for young people’s unemployment.

President Andrej Kiska addressed the audience at the formal opening of the second day of GLOBSEC. He welcomed all participants to the Forum and congratulated the organisers on their achievements. According to President Kiska, the annexation of Crimea is not just an episode, but a new trend. Instead of dialogue, noted President Kiska, Europe has found itself facing revisionism, which is eroding the European way of life. Crimea, Abkhazia, Ukraine and South Ossetia have ended the prospects for Europe’s strategic cooperation with President Putin’s Russia, which continues revising history and spreading hateful propaganda. When facing such challenges, argued Mr Kiska, there is only one choice: to adapt. The West needs to come up with new strategies, plans, resources and actions. In order to accomplish this, Europe must overcome its greatest weakness, which is indifference, inconsistency and indecisiveness. President Kiska noted that Europe must remain united on the question of sanctions and use every opportunity to find a diplomatic solution that would stop the killing of innocent people. However, a more assertive approach needs to be taken toward the defence of the Eastern borders of the EU and NATO, which will require enough political courage from European leaders to explain to their citizens the need for such investments.

Gurría: "Today it is skills rather than education that matter, so every company should 'become a school'." In response to questions raised in the audience, all four representatives of the Central European countries confirmed their commitment to Visegrad cooperation and emphasised that this Forum has an important role on both the Central European and the EU level. They also agreed on the importance of investments related to economic competitiveness, which, as Mr Sobotka and Mr Siemoniak noted, must focus on science, research and innovation. Additionally, Mr Orbán argued that the main precondition for prosperity is stable leadership: the EU has invested in institutional leadership and should now pay greater attention to personal leadership. In crisis, it is personal not institutional leadership that provides the solution. Europe has a “cultural problem” in that it sees personal leadership as a danger. Finally, Mr Fico explained the common position of the V4 leaders on immigration; whilst Slovakia is willing to provide aid to immigrants, it would not support the Commission’s proposal on quotas. A longterm solution to this problem lies in efforts to politically and economically stabilise the states that these people come from. In this context, Mr Orbán said he did not believe in a European solution and argued that each Schengen member’s basic duty was to defend its borders against illegal immigrants; the building of fences is “a technical issue” in national responsibility.

First, Mr Kiska reminded that the EU ought to get rid of a delusion that its security ends within its borders. If the neighbouring countries face conflict, the EU and all its members are at risk. The EU must help its partners, not leave them in a vacuum of unclear promises and halfhearted efforts. Recalling Slovakia’s own experience, Mr Kiska expressed his full support for a European membership perspective for Ukraine and emphasised that this is as important for the safety and prosperity of the Ukrainian people as it is for everyone in the West. President Kiska also argued that Ukraine will have to go through painful reforms, assisted by “a clear vision and shape of mutual cooperation” to be presented by the EU. Providing a better life for the people is the best answer to any aggressive intentions.

Kiska: "Europe must overcome its greatest weakness, which is indifference, inconsistency and indecisiveness." Second, reminded Mr Kiska, it ought not to be ignored that Europe is also facing serious challenges on the domestic front. The recent rise of nationalism and a growing mistrust in government are just as dangerous as any outside threat. Disinformation campaigns and propaganda build upon these trends, and use them to disseminate confusion within member states with the intentions to destroy the unity of the EU, and paralyse its decision-making process. President Kiska emphasised that these lies need to be confronted with facts as these help to clarify what Europe has to lose if it follows such dangerous ideas. Nevertheless, this must also be substantiated with investments into Europe’s young generation, and their ability to think critically about the world around them. Furthermore, said President Kiska, it is important that Europe gets its affairs in order; extremism and propaganda build upon the people’s frustration caused by the leaders’ inability to deliver. Europe thus needs to focus on economic growth, provide more opportunities for its young people, and take good care of public finances. As for the current migration crisis in the Mediterranean, President Kiska observed that what once was a regional crisis has become a European problem and international responsibility. Whilst there are no easy solutions, there is a moral obligation to aid the refugees. This will require joint and coordinated efforts addressing the very roots of this issue from not only the most exposed states, but also from the EU, as well as from the whole international community. In the meantime, the EU needs to invest into public diplomacy and communicate to the Europeans why it is important to help those who are in need unless it wants to leave room to extremists to make their political case. To conclude, President Kiska emphasised that the future of Europe will depend on its ability to adapt to a new reality. The EU must prepare for years of instability, which will require bold new decisions, none of which will be popular or comfortable, but which are urgently needed. President Kiska also emphasised that the European way of life is the best answer to any aggressive dogma. In this context, it is of key importance for the EU to demonstrate that its foundations are stronger than propaganda. When dealing with challenges like the Greek debt crisis or negotiations over EU reform, the EU needs to ensure that these do not lead to a creeping erosion of solidarity.

GLOBSEC Debate: Destined by Geography? Central Europe’s Mission in Ukraine The debate on the role of Central Europe in Ukraine with the President of Poland, Bronislaw

Komorowski, and Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia, was moderated by Edward Lucas, Senior VicePresident of the Center for European Policy Analysis. A discussion about the tenets of European identity in post-Cold War Central and Eastern Europe was kicked off with a remark by Mr Lucas: “Today, we are all Central European”. President Komorowski observed that Central Europe finds itself in an area between two tectonic platforms, between the world of Western values and a world which professes other values. As Central Europe was tested throughout history, it remained a part of the West, but after the Second World War, the region was pushed behind the Iron Curtain. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was a conscious decision by Central European states to join NATO; it is important today that they remain consistent with this decision in words and actions. In this context, Western Europe must invest in the consolidation of NATO, and encourage everyone to bolster the process of European integration.

Komorowski: "(...) it was a conscious decision by Central European states to join NATO; it is important today that they remain consistent with this decision in words and actions." President Ilves asserted that geography is not destiny; it is “mental geography” that this region often falls prey to. Apart from being occassionally pushed eastward by the Russians, it was also the patronising orientalism of the West that often had a detrimental effect on the position of Central European states within the global order. For

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report generis problem; the EU needs to understand how small and well-off it is, and open a common market based on free trade without mercantilism. When asked how to project Europe’s power domestically and internationally, the discussants asserted that Ukraine represents a crucial element of this problem. If Ukraine manages to succeed in its European aspirations, it will represent an inspiration to those Russians who disagree with President Putin and his policies. Another way is further investing in innovation and promotion of the general attractiveness of the European idea, which can help the neighbouring countries appreciate the advantages of the European way of life. In their concluding remarks, both discussants agreed that the strength of cohesion, solidarity, and affluence need to be used as a mobilising factor for unity, which can help the EU to fight the threat from the East. Also, in their opinion, more needs to be done on fighting propaganda through the spread of fact-based information. Both Presidents called for bolstering militaries through NATO and rethinking the European relations with the US. In their mind, the EU is still not making a good case in Washington about its own affairs.

GLOBSEC Brainstorming: Russian Bear Awake: Scenarios and Strategies over twenty years, Central Europeans had been told that their caution about Russia was nothing but paranoia. Those who defended this rhetoric, stated President Ilves, believed that Central Europeans who had put their lives on the line for freedom and fought for the establishment of democracy knew less of these values than the West. In this regard, he also reminded that today’s Europe is facing a democracy containment policy, against which it must fight because it directly threatens the tradition and achievements of the Enlightenment. When speaking of European values, President Komorowski argued that the Poles are amongst those nations that are still very enthusiastic about Europe, but he also acknowledged that more should be done in order to keep the idea of Europe attractive. To do that, Europe should promote the advantages of its way of life especially among the new members. As the EU countries belong to the world’s richest nations with many opportunities for further growth and development, the EU needs to tackle the economic crisis by connecting the West through open trade initiatives, such as the TTIP agreement with the US.

Ilves: "(...) today’s Europe is facing a democracy containment policy, against which it must fight because it directly threatens the tradition and achievements of the Enlightenment." Responding to this, President Ilves postulated that Russia is trying to weaken the European system from within, going so far as to financing the French Front National. The anti-EU sentiment does not represent just a sui

Chaired by Nik Gowing, International Broadcaster from London, this interactive panel featured Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes at Pew Research Center, Linas Linkevičius, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden and Sergei Aleksashenko, former Deputy Prime Minister of Finance of Russia. The session was conceived as a brainstorming in order to leverage the expertise of the audience as much as that of the panellists. In his introductory remarks, Mr Stokes commented upon a series of opinions surveys that Pew conducted in order to learn about the views of North American and European publics on NATO and Russia. First, there are considerable inconsistencies in the views that the Western public has on NATO policies. For example, there is a relatively high number of Germans and French who would not be willing to actively defend their allies if they were invaded. Another conclusion suggests that it is mainly the Central European members of NATO and the supporters of the Republican Party in the US who perceive Russia as a truly dangerous threat that needs to be dealt with urgently. Additionally, it is worth noting that many Europeans blame the Ukrainians as much as the Russians for the current instability in Eastern Europe. Turning to the views held by the Russian public, Mr Stokes noted that during the months following the annexation of Crimea, the levels of popularity enjoyed by President Putin reached new records. The Russians acknowledge that their socioeconomic situation has been worsening, but they are keen to blame the West rather than President Putin. Also,

a considerable proportion of the Russian population believes that given the current circumstances, Mr Putin has performed well. Even more disturbing, however, is the fact that many Russians remain convinced that some parts of the neighbouring countries ought to belong to Russia.

sanctions, Mr Bildt noted that whilst they are not likely to represent the ultimate solution, they can serve as a good start and a symbol of Western unity. Even more important however, said Prime Minister Bildt, is to win the battle for the minds, which requires the West to re-establish faith in its values and institutions, and expose Mr Putin’s allies

In this regard, Foreign Minister Linkevičius stated that this only further confirms that Mr Putin is extremely proficient when it comes to propaganda and disinformation campaigns that help him justify aggression. Mr Linkevičius argued that whilst the West needs to actively respond to the Russian actions, this ought not to take form of “counterpropaganda”. NATO and the EU must work on their ability to communicate the truth, not only to their own citizens, but also to the Russian or Ukrainian audience. This should involve efforts at reconnecting the Western institutions to their citizens, but also active support for those who defend democratic values abroad. For example, with regard to Ukraine, the West should provide the legitimate government in Kiev with development assistance from financial aid to reform know-how. For Minister Linkevičius, there is no reason to worry that this would be politically incorrect or provocative toward Russia, because actions to defend democracy, freedom or human rights cannot be perceived as provocative by those who have good intentions. He also added that the Western efforts need to go beyond political or economic defensive measures; the West must be able to establish the rules of the game and punish anyone who would cross the red line.

in the EU for what they truly are. He also touched upon the prospects for Russia’s future and argued that sooner or later, the unaddressed socio-economic problems will bring down Putin’s regime, for which the West ought to prepare. Prime Minister Bildt stated that the way forward may lie in a greater engagement with Russian civil society and in the ability of the West to listen to it.

Bildt: "(...) to successfully deal with the Russian threat, the West ought to remind itself that compared to Russia it is 'big and strong'.” Mr Aleksashenko too, commented on the situation in Russia and argued that as of now, it seems that President Putin can be satisfied with what he had achieved. He had succeeded in his gamble that NATO would not be willing to militarily defend Crimea, and he can also pride himself with a considerable level of popularity amongst the Russian population. It is equally relevant to notice,

Linkevičius: "(...) the West must be able to establish the rules of the game and punish anyone who would cross the red line. " Prime Minister Carl Bildt largely agreed with the first two panellists and added that in order to successfully deal with the Russian threat, the West ought to remind itself that compared to Russia it is “big and strong”. This implies that the issue of how far Mr Putin will be able to go with his aggressive behaviour, depends solely on the West and its will to act. In this regard, Mr Bildt reminded that Russia’s plans are built upon opportunism rather than long-term strategic considerations. He also argued that this ought not to be underestimated; the past few months clearly proved that if given a chance, Mr Putin is ready to use force to achieve his objectives. It is up to the West to ensure that there are no such opportunities for Putin’s Russia. On

however, said Mr Aleksashenko, that over the past few months the percentage of the Russians who want Donbas to become a part of the Russian Federation decreased from 68% to less than 20%. This implies that most Russians do not desire war – if President Putin is to maintain his popularity, he must accept this. Thereupon, Mr Putin is

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report well aware that an offensive war is not in his interest and thus, he is trying to nurture the idea that it is the “West fighting Russia” rather than the other way around. As for the prospects for a Russia without Putin, Mr Aleksashenko reminded that over the course of the 20th century, the Russian state collapsed twice and in both cases this had led to chaos, which is in nobody’s interest. As the current Russian regime is very much dependent upon Putin, it is not unlikely that with Mr Putin’s potential departure the whole state system would collapse. Therefore, concluded Mr Aleksashenko, a peaceful rather than radical shift of power is desirable.

Aleksashenko: "(...) with Mr Putin’s potential departure the whole state system would collapse." Several prominent experts and politicians from the audience also made their contributions during this debate. According to Karl-Georg Wellmann of the Bundestag, there will be no compromise on NATO’s commitment to Article 5 – if Russia or any other actor invades a NATO member state, this will lead to war. NATO representatives who were present in the audience added that there are currently discussions on the possibility of expanding the Article 5 rule to cyberattacks. President Ilves largely agreed with the panellists, stating that the prospects for any further Russian aggression depend mainly on NATO’s ability to react promptly. He also stated that it ought not to be taken for granted that all Russian speakers desire to live in the Russian Federation as there is no automatic correlation between language and national identity. Finally, Governor of Odessa region Saakashvili noted that it ought not to be ignored that Russia is likely to exploit the regional instability in countries like Moldova or Ukraine; it is thus important that the West addresses its aid and support to these countries in a way that pays attention to the local specifics and balances the central interests with the local ones.

SESSION 3: Energy: A Perfect (Dis)Union? Chaired by Alan Riley, Professor at City University of London, this panel featured Daniel Mitov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, Maroš Šefčovič, Commission Vice-President for the Energy Union, Fatih Birol, Chief Economist and Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, and Mirek Topolánek, former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and Director of International Development and Public Affairs of Eustream. Fatih Birol began by reminding that Europe is not an energy island unaffected by global developments. It will be the Middle East rather than the US that will remain as the dominant producer of oil. Turning to energy in the EU, Mr Birol noted that in addition to keeping the issue of efficiency at the top of its agenda, the EU must also focus on how to deal with the fact that 60% of its energy production is coming from coal and nuclear power. Mr Birol emphasised that the Energy Union represents the way forward as such a complex task requires the states to coordinate their plans and strategies and to look at energy through a European perspective. In response to queries from the audience, Mr Birol also touched upon the issue of renewable energy sources. He argued in favour of these as they “divorce” the economic growth from the production of greenhouse gases and appreciated that the EU is one of the leaders in this field. He also emphasized, however, that the EU needs a more consistent approach towards subsidies. He reminded that climate change is a global phenomenon, which implies that the EU also needs to actively communicate and cooperate with other regions.

Šefčovič: "(...) the Energy Union’s greatest challenge will be to find a balance between the rights and interests of individual member states and teach them how to think about energy as a common issue."

Vice-President Šefčovič urged to use the momentum created by the project of the EU’s Energy Union. He emphasised that if Europe is to maintain or increase its high living standard, its approach to energy needs to undergo reforms. Mr Šefčovič admitted that the Energy Union’s greatest challenge will be to find a balance between

Wellmann: "(...) there will be no compromise on NATO’s commitment to Article 5 – if Russia or any other actor invades a NATO member state, this will lead to war.”

the rights and interests of individual member states and teach them how to think about energy as a common issue that can only be addressed under a united “European shelter”. One of the main tasks of the Energy Union will be to expand investments into efficiency related to both production and consumption as well as into renewables. The EU can largely benefit from being the “Prime Mover” in this field and offer its know-how to other actors around the world. Any steps taken by the Energy Union would need to pay close attention to the specific needs of the individual member states while respecting the EU’s long term strategic goals. This should also be the case for the diversification of supply routes and projects like South Stream or Eastring. Whenever possible, the EU must make the best use of the existing energy infrastructures and focus on connecting these rather than building new ones. Mr Topolánek pointed out that energy security is too often misused for political purposes by actors like Mr Putin’s Russia. Mr Topolánek also argued that Russia’s long term strategic goal is to control most of the pipelines bringing gas to Europe, bypassing Ukraine and increasing its own influence over sources of gas in Central Asia. In this regard, he pointed out that the EU ought not to get involved in Russia’s “geopolitical pipeline game” and diversify the routes through which it imports gas. This would require the EU states to better coordinate their policies and in the long run enable the EU to impose conditions on Russia rather than the other way around. Responding to queries from the audience, Mr Topolánek stated that the EU would be able to face the upcoming challenges more effectively

with stronger, strategically considered rules. This issue is particularly visible in renewable energy subsidies, where the lack of consistency makes the price of energy unnaturally low.

Topolánek: "(...) Russia’s long term strategic goal is to control most of the pipelines bringing gas to Europe." Foreign Minister Mitov argued that in order to prevent Russia from perceiving the EU as an “unsuccessful project” of which it can take advantage, the EU member states need to coordinate their interests and strategies in all areas of energy and demonstrate that they are able to assist each other if need be. The gas from Russia needs to flow under the EU conditions, not under Russian ones. Mr Mitov illustrated this with South Stream and Eastring, where Russia wants to keep all options open for as long as possible in order to gain the most convenient bargaining position. In response to questions from the audience, Minister Mitov argued that there is an urgent need to open a Southern supply corridor, through which the EU can demonstrate its commitment to unity and solidarity.

GLOBSEC Debate: US Foreign Policy: Still a European Power? The circle of panellists included Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Senator John Barrasso, Member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Tom Cotton, Member of the Committee on Armed Services. The session was chaired by Robin Shepherd, Senior Advisor to the Halifax International Security Forum. Robin Shepherd kicked off the debate by stating that even though the United States was formed in opposition to Europe, it stands on classical European values. Despite the common origins, “the way the relations between Europe and the United States were perceived changed many times in history”, he said. He then asked the speakers to assess the current state of transatlantic relations. The debate then turned to the issue of whether President Putin is likely to engage in further military confrontation with NATO. Mr Cotton reminded the audience that NATO still enjoys military dominance in Europe, where democratic governments respond to their citizens. For these two reasons, Mr Putin cannot easily and rapidly subvert NATO members. He will have to proceed by small steps, probably in the Baltic states. That is why the West will have to stay vigilant to prevent a potential conflict in this part of Europe. He also pointed to the dangers of Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian people need to be shown that the path they should take is the path of Slovakia or the Czech Republic and not that of Russia, where civil society and democracy are constantly undermined. Mr Barrasso underlined that besides propaganda and hybrid war, Russia uses its energy resources as a foreign policy instrument to bully the countries that are dependent on a single supplier. In

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report further military expansion: “We fought, we died, we led together and it’s time we remember it and take on this new challenge,” said John McCain.

McCain: "(...) the current situation reminds of the dark days of 1930s when Nazi Germany was on the rise and nobody was willing to confront it."

order to limit the energy dependence of some European countries on Russia, Mr Barrasso argued that American gas exports to Europe should be used to counter Russian influence. Senator McCain was very firm about President Putin being unpredictable and willing to do everything he can get away with. Also, Senator McCain called upon NATO to take stronger actions against Russia such as sending lethal weapons to Ukraine.

Cotton: "(...) Mr Putin cannot easily and rapidly subvert NATO members. He will have to proceed by small steps, probably in the Baltic states." At the end of the session the Senators elaborated on the impressions they had about European allies and the future of Ukraine. Mr McCain was deeply concerned about the way the Europeans are trying to find ways to lift sanctions on Vladimir Putin. He said that the current situation reminds of the dark days of 1930s when Nazi Germany was on the rise and nobody was willing to confront it. Today no one is talking about the annexation of Crimea anymore, despite the fact that Russia is flagrantly violating its own obligations under international law. Moreover, when it comes to the subject of propaganda he added that the West must engage more capabilities to counter the flow of disinformation coming from Moscow. Mr Barrasso agreed with Mr McCain that we have to put more resources into countering propaganda mainly because the Ukrainians are prepared to fight for their freedom and it is up to us to help them in any way we can. Tom Cotton is convinced that Vladimir Putin craves for prestige and legitimacy – we have to isolate his regime and stop inviting him to Europe.

Barrasso: "(...) American gas exports to Europe should be used to counter Russian influence." In their final remarks all three participants were optimistic with respect to the future of Ukraine while pointing to the fact that significant political reforms have to be undertaken in this country. Furthermore, they all stressed the need for broader transatlantic cooperation to deter Russia from

Session 4: Propaganda: Exploiting the Underbelly of Democracy Sunday morning started with a session on the storm of disinformation spread by Russia. The panel featured Yevhen Fedchenko, Director of StopFake.org in Kiev, Daniel Korski, Special Advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Robert Pszczel, former Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow and Péter Krekó, Director of the Political Capital Policy Research and Consulting Institute in Budapest. The session was chaired by information warfare specialist Ben Nimmo. Yevhen Fedchenko explained that Russian propaganda has evolved fast and has taken two new forms. The first one is based on a more sophisticated way of spreading information, that is combination of truth and fiction, which is being used by Russia to evoke emotions rather than showing facts. The second one is a new global infotainment network established by Russia including Russia Today and Sputnik, which is particularly attractive for people outside Russia since it uses local languages, journalists and media. In this way, Russia has exploited

comunicators must be certain about the message they deliver to the Russians since they often present arguments which are emotionally-based. However pitiful and laughable to Westerners, such arguments are powerful. Péter Krekó argued that pro-Russian feelings have intensified in some EU countries such as Italy, France, Slovakia, Hungary and Greece. Furthermore, these states have parts of their population that are highly supportive towards Mr Putin’s Russia. In addition, the new factions in the European Parliament, on the radical left and right, communicate a strong pro-Russian narrative. Mr Krekó suggested that a successful narrative for the EU should refer to foreign assistance, media freedom and individual liberties, and above all, to not invading other countries.

Krekó: "(...) the new factions in the European Parliament, on the radical left and right, communicate a strong pro-Russian narrative."

the democratic principle of pluralism for its own benefit without offering alternative credible information and values-based content.

On the question about the role of government in countering propaganda, Mr Korski underlined that in well-established democracies there are red lines for the government which cannot be crossed such as intervention into media reporting. When the audience inquired about how to counter conspiracy, Mr Korski called for using facts to challenge conspiracy theories. On this subject, Mr Fedchenko noted that Russia provides people with more alternatives to undermine their faith in truth, for example the many theories it spun about the possible causes of the fall of the Malaysian airplane. According to Mr Fedchenko, governments should use legal instruments vigorously for

Daniel Korski divided the “battlespace” in three arenas: Russia itself, the borderlands, and EU member states. Each of these theaters has to be approached differently. In his view the most difficult challenge is to counter propaganda in Russia itself. In the frontline states, the West should invest more money in NGOs, create new sources of information and educate journalists how to counter propaganda. On the European home front, Europe’s leaders and institutions should fight propaganda more actively by showing what the West stands for in the face of Russia seeking to relativise everything.

Korski: "(...) Europe’s leaders and institutions should fight propaganda more actively by showing what the West stands for in the face of Russia seeking to relativise everything." Robert Pszczel drew attention to the essence of the state-controlled media reporting in Russia: there must be someone representing the devil, thus there is always a hostile element. He also pointed out that there are very good investigative journalists, mostly in the private media. In Russia, the key to success is that the West should not be silent but talk back assertively to counter the propaganda and misleading information out there. Only by talking back, helping Russian investigative journalists and providing alternative information can the West confront propaganda on Mr Putin’s home turf. However,

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report example against instigating war. He proposed to put more names on a Nemtsov list to sanction journalists who promote propaganda around events in Ukraine. Péter Krekó suggested a “3R strategy” to fight conspiracy and propaganda: reveal the structures, persons and networks financed by Russia; react officially at diplomatic level; and ridicule.

Pszczel: "(...) In Russia, the key to success is that the West should not be silent but talk back assertively." Mistrust in institutions and anti-Americanism are other factors that weaken the ability of Europe to fight propaganda. According to Mr Korski, this scepticism is particularly deep-seated in Germany where people consider their elites as corrupt and lying. Mr Fedchenko explained that mistrust is the product of Russia’s propaganda and the newly fabricated NGOs, media and political parties of the Kremlin. Robert Pszczel observed that if Russian parliamentarians are unwilling to discuss the truth about the Maidan Revolution, how hard is it for the common Russians to form independent opinions. Nevertheless, Russia still has people with high credibility who hold a different view on Maidan and the war in Ukraine and can confront the official line of the Kremlin. Mr Krekó said Europe must promote traditional sources of knowledge like the media and science in order to regain trust in institutions and roll back Russia’s assault on critical thinking.

started in 1999 with Montenegro’s decision not to go to war against NATO during the bombing of Serbia (of which it was a part at the time). The experience of being a rare case in the Western Balkans strengthened the resolve of Montenegro to take regional security seriously. At the same time, NATO accession accelerates the path to the EU; in a complementary process, Montenegro should become more stable as it becomes more integrated with the West. Podgorica sees herself as a contributor to global security: she participates fully in ISAF and shares the responsibilities with other allies in Ukraine. According to Mr Đukanović, NATO needs large and small countries alike to join the Alliance, because it is always a stimulus for further integration. The advantage of Montenegro joining NATO is that it is the only Adriatic state which still does not participate in the collective defence system. The Prime Minister cautiously noted that Euro-Atlantic values should not be overestimated given that they are just now taking root in the Balkans, but it is good that there is a level of enthusiasm about democracy that will allow all countries in the neighbourhood to alleviate the failures of the 1990s and work together for a better future.

Đukanović: "(...) Euro-Atlantic values should not be overestimated given that they are just now taking root in the Balkans, but it is good that there is a level of enthusiasm about democracy."

The speakers offered an interesting – and disturbing – insight into the Kremlin’s possible motivation for spreading fear among the population and flooding TV screens with war, which is that, as Mr Fedchenko argued, the Russian government seems to be systematically preparing the people for war. Asked by Ben Nimmo what should be done as a first step to fight propaganda, Mr Fedchenko called for recognising the danger and the urgent need to react. Mr Korski believes in the fundamental values underpinning our system and not being afraid of exposing them in the face of propaganda. Mr Pszczel suggested to take this challenge seriously and put it into the political mainstream. Mr Krekó underlined the importance of public discussion with high caliber participants and appropriate media coverage.

GLOBSEC Chat with Milo Đukanović The third day of the GLOBSEC conference continued with a conversation between the Prime Minister of Montenegro and Ambassador Tomáš Valášek, Slovakia’s Permanent Representative to NATO. The topic was Montenegro’s accession to NATO, which should happen in less than a year if NATO ministers decide to invite the Western Balkan country into their fold. Underlining the importance of Montenegro joining NATO, the Prime Minister portrayed it as a continuation in implementing a system of values whose beginning

When speaking of public support for NATO accession, Mr Đukanović asserted that even though there is still a body of people who oppose this goal, a serious campaign is underway. NATO opponents were also opposed to Montenegro’s independence and belong to an old political paradigm which is unable to face the new political reality. Mr Đukanović sought to downplay the idea that Russia could reemerge as a strong player in the Balkans through this very part of the public. In his opinion, Russia has little influence over Montenegro’s internal affairs.

Session 5: Jihad in the West: New Face of Terrorism The last session of GLOBSEC 2015 featured Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder of The Chertoff Group and former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Dan Meridor, Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy and Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College in London. The panel debate was chaired by Konstantin von Eggert, former Editor-in-Chief of Kommersant FM Radio. Michael Chertoff affirmed that it is Islamist radicalism rather than Islam itself that should be seen as a major problem. Mr Chertoff reminded the audience that this can happen to any religion if its language is used for political purposes. Therefore it is mainly the authorities from Islamic communities with whom it is important to build alliance as they are the ones who are able to deal with with radicalism by communicating a convincing counternarrative. Mr Chertoff also touched upon the issue of the Islamists recruited from Western societies and noted that for many of them, religion only represents a justification of something that they would want to do anyway. As for the short term, a better organised intelligence collection and analysis could be of assistance but long-term solutions require mainly socio-economic measures. Additionally, Mr Chertoff argued that in order to defeat any kind of radicalism, the West needs to restore faith in its own values and institutions and find a way to communicate their advantages more effectively. When it comes to failed states and unstable societies like Libya, the West ought to realise that freedom and democracy will not prevail unless it helps them build sustainable government structures and institutions that are adaptable to the local specifics.

Chertoff: "(...) to defeat any kind of radicalism, the West needs to restore faith in its own values and institutions and find a way to communicate their advantages more effectively." Dan Meridor defended a similar position and argued that religion needs to remain private; mixing it with politics tends to make any compromise impossible. He agreed that it is important to build alliances with authorities from the Islamic communities but he also emphasised that moderate Islam has a legitimate role to play in many societies, and the West should not try to teach them what Islam is. Mr Meridor observed that in communities with weak or non-existing political authority, radical religion often substitutes for national identity. History taught us, said Mr Meridor, that in such communities the restoration of basic order must have priority over any other issue and he reminded the audience that the removal of a dictator does not guarantee that the population would automatically become democratic. This is also the case for the ISIS, which combines elements of war with those of organised crime. In this way, it materialises many of the new threats in the Middle East, but at the same time

provides people with some illusion of order. Mr Meridor stated that the struggle with ISIS would last, and the West and its allies need to prepare to fight for their values. In this regard he also warned that the West should not count on Iran being a reliable ally as it remains involved in subversive activities all over the Arab Peninsula.

Meridor: "(...) moderate Islam has a legitimate role to play in many societies, and the West should not try to teach them what Islam is." Peter Neumann brought a more academic angle into this debate and emphasized that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate and the radicals only represent a â&#x20AC;&#x153;minority of a minorityâ&#x20AC;?. Just like the other panellists, Mr Neumann argued for a better engagement of Muslim authorities as they are the ones who can address

GLOBSEC 2015 Full Report radicalism at its roots. He too agreed that radicalism is particularly attractive in unstable societies because it offers an easy answer to all problems. Whilst Mr Neumann believed that the West and its allies need to help stabilise failed states, this does not mean that stable, moderate and predictable dictators like President Mubarak represent a feasible alternative in the 21st century. As for ISIS itself, Mr Neumann argued the West should avoid sending boots on the ground to fight the radicals because this is exactly what they want. Although it may take a while, the ISIS would sooner or later collapse into itself. Concerning the ISIS recruits from Europe, Mr Neumann sees it as important that Europe’s disenfranchised youngsters on the cusp of being recruited to ISIS must be told, in the most practical terms, about the values like freedom of expression that they can enjoy at home versus the dire prospects of living with Islamist radicals.

Neumann: "(...) Europe’s disenfranchised youngsters on the cusp of being recruited to ISIS must be told, in the most practical terms, about the values like freedom of expression that they can enjoy at home versus the dire prospects of living with Islamist radicals."

Closing Remarks In his concluding remarks, Róbert Vass, Founder of the GLOBSEC Forum and Executive Vice-President of the Central European Strategy Council, presented a few figures to illustrate the size and scope of the conference. Mr Vass acknowledged that this was the “biggest GLOBSEC ever” with the attendance of some 1,130 participants and 160 speakers from 70 countries. GLOBSEC 2015 was proud to host 12 presidents and prime ministers, as well as a number of current and past members of government. The conference also provided a platform for over 140 policy, bussiness and media meetings. GLOBSEC 2015 enjoyed the most extensive media coverage yet, with the press

centre hosting almost 200 media representatives from 35 countries. Social network posts related to GLOBSEC reached a historic record with over 5,600 Twitter posts and almost 4,000 followers on Facebook. Twitter reached 120,000 primary impressions and almost 10 million secondary impressions; Facebook generated 45,000 views. Mr Vass encouraged the audience to give a round of applause to the 110 organisers of the conference, aged 25 in average, led by Milan Solár, Managing Director of the Slovak Atlantic Commission. Mr Vass dedicated the second part of his remarks to the commemoration of GLOBSEC‘s 10th anniversary. He reminded the audience that what is today a “truly global exercise” was originally a dream of four university students. Mr Vass recognised the individuals and partner organisations that contributed to this achievement and paid a special tribute to Ambassador Káčer and Minister Lajčák as well as to BAE Systems and Slovakia‘s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, which have supported the conference since the very beginning. Ultimately, Mr Vass thanked all participants for their contributions to GLOBSEC and expressed his confidence that the first edition of GLOBSEC’s second decade would raise the bar even higher.

GLOBSEC 2015 Night Owl Sessions ISIS: A Multi-Dimensional Threat There was confidence that the scourge of ISIS would be defeated if the five lines of effort currently pursued by the Coalition are successful. First is a military component that can deny safe haven and provide security assistance to partners. Second is the interruption of the flow of foreign fighters. Third is the disruption of the access to the financial resources available locally and through the international financial system. The fourth component is the provision of humanitarian relief and stabilisation support, and finally, the task of counter-messaging that can help to defeat Daesh as an idea. Patience is needed, urged the panellists, as the Coalition only came together last September. Despite setbacks such as the recent fall of Ramadi, international efforts are beginning to have “significant traction”. In terms of territory held, ISIS now controls 33% less territory in Iraq and 11% less in Syria. ISIS vehicles can no longer drive in large groups and terrorise populations during daylight without being bombed. In this regard, however, it is important to think of Iraq and Syria as of a single theater where political solutions to the crisis are crafted to overpin the ongoing military effort. The military strikes are being carried out to buy time to do other things: to train the Iraqi security forces, to work with the Kurds and to provide them with both training and equipment. The Western allies in Iraq are trying to build capabilities so that the local authorities can take their country back - indigenous forces like the Kurdish Peshmerga and Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), newly manned by Sunni fighters, were paramount for success.

There was a strong plea that Prime Minister Abadi be given a chance. Unlike Prime Minister Maliki, his predecessor, Mr Abadi believes in functioning federalism which means that he gives up his own power to the governors, including the Sunni ones. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that so far he has been providing Sunni areas with sufficient resources, that he has supported mobilisation of Sunni forces in Anbar and that he has permitted the Sunni states to provide weapons directly to the Sunni tribes in Anbar. In this regard, argued the panellists, it is also desirable that NATO does not get more visibly involved into this conflict in order to prevent ISIS from portraying it as a war of religions. Whilst international support is needed and all allies should be encouraged to contribute to the mission, there is no appetite for direct NATO involvement as the Muslims should settle this conflict among themselves. Still, NATO could have a training role further down the road, as its NTM-I mission in Iraq proved quite successful. Turkey, for its part, is reluctant to be involved deeper given the historic complexities of its potential involvement. Furthermore, argued the panellists, the West and its regional allies need to avoid underestimating ISIS and approach it as a global threat, which evolved from a criminal gang to an organisation that managed to gain some religious legitimacy across the world. In this regard it is crucial to engage more closely with the moderate followers of Islam and support those voices from the Muslim community that denounce ISIS and present it as an organisation which “has nothing Islamic about it – they are just terrorists”. Ultimately, the panellists argued that in order to stem the flow of foreign fighters into ISIS ranks, nations must work together to address each link along the chain of radicalisation: focusing on every border, dealing with the linkage between a potential foreign fighter and the battle space in their home communities, and addressing the point of recruitment and radicalisation, which is

GLOBSEC 2015 Night Owl Sessions often a personal computer or a cell phone. The journey to becoming a foreign fighter is a journey of transitions: transitioning to radicalisation, transitioning across borders and transitioning into the battle space.

Ukraine’s Future: Independent, Stable, Prosperous? This interactive debate focused on the development of Ukraine beyond the current crisis. It was pointed out that the revolution in Ukraine is far from over as some elements of the old system persist and it will take a while to get rid of them. This causes a considerable degree of frustration amongst some sections of the Ukrainian population. That is, however, compensated with the energetic efforts of the young people and the NGOs, who are investing a great deal of energy into Ukraine’s reforms. In this regard, it is important to remember that it is not just the new government who has delivered positive change. The panellists also appreciated the support and help provided by foreign advisers who contribute to Ukraine’s recovery with a fresh and unbiased point of view. What is still needed, however, is greater support by the West, because Ukraine has been actively fighting for Western values as it desires to become a part of a free and democratic Europe. The panellists stated that this support should materialise not only in the form of greater financial assistance but it also needs to help Ukraine to deal with problems that go beyond its own reach, like the cracking down on oligarchs who have assets in the EU. Finally, whilst accepting that Ukraine still has a long way to go, the West ought to acknowledge more loudly and clearly that the new Ukraine has made considerable progress and that it is on the right track. Second, the audience also had a chance to learn about Ukraine from the outside perspective. The audience was assured that the West would continue to actively support Ukraine during hard times and do its best to secure that the costs of Russia’s aggression would largely outnumber its benefits. The panellists also emphasised their awareness of the fact the Ukrainians are fighting and dying for Western values, and expressed their admiration. They also noted however, that Ukraine’s integration into the Western structures requires complex reforms addressing Ukraine’s political and socio-economic problems, and that this responsibility lies primarily with the Ukrainian people. In this regard, the point was made that partial reforms are worse than no reforms at all, and it is thus important that they are implemented as soon as possible, regardless of the instability that Ukraine is facing now. In this context the panellists also reiterated that reforms usually suffer from political rather than technical problems. It is vital that the reform agenda, with its costs and benefits, is clearly communicated to the general public. This is perhaps the greatest challenge that Ukraine will have to face in the upcoming months. Only if it succeeds will it be able to make the most of foreign support. After all, said one voice, it was the reforms rather than the Marshall Plan that enabled West Germany to stand up back on its own feet. Third, some concepts were clarified that have been

overused around this conflict, mainly by Russia. The panellists started by explaining the Russian position. They argued that while Ukraine was undergoing a revolution, Putin’s Russia and its actions represented counterrevolutionary efforts. The main motivation behind Russia’s decision to intervene was its fear of a pro-European Ukraine with a strong civil society and a government accountable only to its own citizens. Putin’s Russia responded by launching a propaganda campaign aimed at both the EU and Ukraine. The main motivation behind this initiative was the ambition to disintegrate their civil societies from within in order to strengthen the position of nation-states. And this is the area, stressed the panellists, where Russia will always be stronger than any other European actor. The other point focused on debunking the myth that Putin’s Russia is only defending its own people. Using the example of the German-speaking Europeans, the panellists argued that the idea that there is always a correlation between language, identity and ethnicity is “absurd” and only represents a power instrument that is easy to misuse. In this regard the panellists reminded the audience that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian territory remains under the control of the Kiev government and that most Russian speaking Ukrainians are actually willing to fight against Putin’s aggression.

Tremor Zone: Strategies in Europe’s Neighbourhood In this session the panellists agreed that there is thus far no sustainable response to the crisis in Europe’s neighbourhood, and that no one is systematically addressing these tensions. Even though countries like Georgia have been clear with regard to their own territorial integrity and that Russia and the West signed agreements to settle these prolonged conflicts, without anyone to oversee the implementation, it is often the case that negotiations falter. It was argued that it is the responsibility of NATO, EU and the sovereign states affected by conflict to bring the Russians to the table and discuss concrete solutions, because it is in the national interests of all, even Russia, to find some common ground. These tremors should not be taken lightly, especially because dialogue is proving very difficult, with the Russian side seeking a re-emergence of the Cold War and attempting to subvert the relations between Eastern

Partnership states with the West. The EU often fails in its attempts to commit firmly to these states because it does not push for reforms in exchange for aid. For that reason pro-EU politicians often remain on the level of rhetoric and fall behind on their promises, thus decreasing the popularity of the EU in these states. It is necessary to address the lack of political will in Europe’s neighbours, because if countries like Moldova remain weak, it opens a space for Russia to assert more control. The latent strategic conflict that is now emerging could present a grave problem, manifested in various ways across the entire Eurasian continent, which Russia sees as its area of interest. Every time a conflict arises anywhere in this area, there is a threat of Russian invasion. The main essence of truth in these countries is the concept of the freedom of choice. Countries of the Caucasus chose the EU and NATO as their natural option, and this should not be taken lightly, even with the complications that often arise from this choice, there are still successful results like the intensified trade and visa liberalisation between the EaP states and the EU. With Russian foreign policy always having elements of the domestic agenda, Russia often asserts a say in these countries’ internal affairs and always attempts to take more control of their choices. This is where the EU often makes a mistake, believing that it understands the workings of the Kremlin, but the fact is that Russia better understands the EU and its goals than vice-versa. Geopolitics is back, and this represents a problem for small countries neighbouring Russia, who find themselves often having difficulties in making their own choices. The leaders on both sides should avoid the blame game and focus on delivery rather than rhetoric – there needs to be more work on strengthening national institutions and fighting corruption than attempting to play in the field of geopolitics. A clear message to the EU is that there needs to be more work on encouraging the Eastern Partnership states to push on with reforms, and a clear understanding that if stability can not be brought about, the other solution will be even more instability in the region. There needs to be a comprehensive space where people with different goals can manage to discuss, especially in the evermore polarised world in which we live today. Business is also key to furthering stability, especially through foreign direct investments and free trade agreements between

these states and the EU and the US.

Balkan Chessboard: Europe Whole and Free at Stake? The panel looked at the capacity of the EU and NATO to deal with the Balkans, the so-called “inner courtyard” of the EU. As the EU integration of the Balkans has been known for being about both geopolitics and a meritbased approach, the question was raised whether the international institutions have enough credibility to follow through with their promises made to the Balkan states. Furthermore, the potential Grexit is putting into question the credibility of not just the institutions themselves, but also the process of EU and NATO enlargement. The common topic among candidate countries of the Western Balkans is what the famous Dr. Seuss book described as the most boring place in the world – the “waiting room”. Most candidate countries have found themselves facing a multitude of challenges like the economic crisis, euroskepticism, enlargement fatigue and disillusionment. From the perspective of candidate countries, Brussels is often perceived as having little understanding for the complexity of the Balkans, which in some cases has a detrimental effect upon the negotiating process. The panellists agreed that Commission President Juncker’s statement about halting the EU enlargement echoed negatively in the public opinion toward the accession process, and weakened the European Union as a whole. The dynamics of the accession process should change: as the negotiations are a tedious technical process, there should be more political engagement on the side of both aspirants and the EU member states. Furthermore, it needs to be made clear that the European identity and the national interests of its members are interrelated, and thus should not be seen as separate entities. All countries in the region should be assured that the doors to the EU and NATO remain open. This will contribute to stability and send a message to Russia that every country has a right to choose its own future. Secondly, there needs to be more communication between regional leaders, as well as towards the EU in order to prevent self-isolation, which might lead to a more complex security situation. Thirdly, with regard to the recent flare-ups of terrorism

GLOBSEC 2015 Night Owl Sessions and the influx of migrants, it is key that the EU engages more closely with the Balkans; regional security should not be taken for granted. There should also be more emphasis on energy security.

New Economic Order: Competition of World Superpowers This interactive debate focused on the local and global implications of the developments resulting from the recent rise of the BRICs countries. The panellists presented several interesting prospects and possible scenarios. First, the panellists defended a rather skeptical point of view on the ability of the emerging powers to challenge the existing international order. They argued that while it is true that the dominant Western powers like the US and the EU have been weakened by the recent economic crisis, this does not automatically imply that new players like the BRICs will be able take over. According to these experts, it is important to remember that the BRICs and other emerging powers still suffer from many â&#x20AC;&#x153;third worldâ&#x20AC;? problems and are far behind the Western economies in measures like GDP per capita. Additionally, with the exception of an impressive yet temporary economic growth, the BRICs do not have much in common, which is in sharp contrast with the intense and complex formal as well as informal links between the Western players. Finally, the panellists reiterated that history has taught us that the position of the dominant world power is usually taken rather than given; if the BRICs were strong enough and truly united, they would use the international fora and platforms for global governance like the G20 or the UN to challenge the West more openly and more effectively. The second group of panellists took a different position and operated with the argument that the rise of the emerging powers like the BRICs is not about establishment of a new order or about a conflict with the traditional (Western) powers, but about a move toward greater diversity, multilateralism and regionalism. They pointed out that with the rise of regional players outside of the West, there

will be new centres of political and economic power, which will make the global system more decentralised. The panellists also emphasised in this regard, that regionalism should not be understood as a process leading to fragmentation because the economic interests will ensure that the different regions of the world would be interdependent and interconnected. Thereupon, it was argued that it is desirable that the Western powers adapt the international order and its norms and institutions accordingly, and allow the emerging economies to play a more significant role. This should involve restructuring the UN Security Council, IMF, WTO or prioritising the G20 over the G7. The panellists concluded that this kind of multilateral reforms would better reflect the new global reality, which would make the existing international order more stable and its instutions better suited for provision of an efficient and mutually beneficial global governance. The remaining group of panellists presented the audience with yet another perspective on the future of the existing international order, and argued that the decentralisation of power will also affect the dominant position of nationstates. These panellists observed that because of technological progress and globalisation, the world has become increasingly interdependent and above all, digitalised. This implies that the ability to access and operate data represents an important factor influencing power capabilities related to both politics and economics â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an example that nicely illustrates this phenomenon is Uber, the largest taxi company in the world that does not own a single car. As for the upcoming challenges, the panellists noted that this kind of re-conceptualisation of the meaning of power will require societies all around the world to redefine the relationship between the state and non-state actors, and to make more significant investments into cybersecurity. They also argued however, that the era of digitalisation represents an opportunity that can help overcome the persisting conflicts related to geopolitical divisions, to intensify cooperation through greater mobility and, if implemented properly, to provide us with the means to make local as well as global governance more efficient and more transparent.

GLOBSEC 2015 Dinner Sessions Little Green Men: Ready for Hybrid Warfare? The session, co-organised by the Polish Institute of International Affairs, reflected new security challenges stemming from recent clashes and tension in Eastern Ukraine. During the debate, it was stressed more than once that a threat, irrespective of being conventional or hybrid, needs to be identified early, and addressed effectively. Both of these types of threats ought to be considered as a source of warfare and the ensuing acts of aggression could therefore lead to the application of the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. A hybrid threat has several characteristic features: it focuses on the final effect rather than on the utilised measures; it aims to pursue a military objective through “other means” and thus, it can be seen as “a dark side approach to conflicts”. In order to address hybrid threats properly, it is important to draw attention to multiscale deterrence and to look at possibilities of force prepositioning. In this regard it is also important to bear in mind that Russia’s strategy largely exploits “soft power” capabilities as it aims to gain an advantage by using “indirect” means. This involves funding of non-conformist political parties in European countries (France, Greece, Hungary and others) or support for the media that spread propaganda/conspirational messages and exploit the fragile public trust towards representative authorities in European countries. There are several strategies that can help tackle the above-mentioned tendency: early warning, information sharing, investments into suitable public activities, establishment of strategic and systemic communication mechanism, production of advisory packages or efforts to strengthen partnerships with non-member countries like Finland or Sweden. It is equally important that the NATO member states fulfill their financial commitments toward a common defence policy and reach the 2% defence spending target. These measures ought to

ensure the Alliance’s sufficient operational capability, and help detect and identify potential threats before they materialise. The NATO Strategic Concept provides a general outline toward crisis management, but many argue that the Alliance has not reacted adequately to the challenges in Crimea and Donbas. During the debate, several questions were raised concerning the output of the NATO-Ukraine Commission’s work. As for the coming weeks and months, argued the discussants, it is important that Ukraine be treated as a NATO ally who will be provided with active support and assistance from its partners in the Alliance.

The Power of Intelligence in the 21st Century Thanks to Snowden’s revelations and WikiLeaks the intelligence community around the world got under a historically unparalleled public scrutiny. The management section of intelligence agencies is currently growing excessively at the expense of its other parts. Furthermore, excessive credit is being attributed to digital and signals intelligence, whilst human intelligence is being undersized. The “good days” of easy funding are over. The internet and globalisation are putting intelligence communities under pressure of high expectations related to their expediency. According to the discussants these will represent the main challenges for the intelligence community in the 21st century. The panel agreed that as the international situation becomes increasingly complex, effective intelligence is particularly important in conduct of military operations. It was stressed that the period in which intelligence has some practical relevance is much shorter during a conflict than in peace time; in a war, information can become irrelevant and useless within hours. Intelligence agencies will have to be able to operate in ungoverned places around the globe, and be more flexible in order to adjust their structure to the rapidly changing context. “The major challenge will be the ability to reach out.” “We need to go back to basics.” After 9/11 the management section of intelligence agencies expanded excessively at the expense of other departments. The

GLOBSEC 2015 Dinner Sessions

issue was criticised multiple times during the session. Digital collection, a major feature of current intelligence collection, was discredited by the Snowden revelations. Under the growing pressure that these revelations brought, there has been a high level of risk-aversion within the intelligence community. The debate on the weight of the individual elements of intelligence collection concluded that the disproportional prioritisation of any of these can have negative consequences. An exclusive focus on digital and signals intelligence will certainly miss some important elements. On the other hand, human intelligence is a dangerous business. This is clearly illustrated by the example of the Jordanian pilot who was captured by ISIS and burnt alive. There are risks related to double agents and traitors too, but the intelligence provided by HUMINT cannot be replaced. Neither digital nor signals intelligence will ever be able to collect or process information about feelings, relations and other aspects of human interactions. In this regard it ought to be remembered that ”digital deception is much easier than human deception”. There is another important aspect to this new digital era. With the internet and globalisation being the defining characteristics of our societies, the authorities as well as the public expects that the delivery of reliable results would not be very different from googling information. The debate on legal procedures concluded that the ability to issue warrants for intelligence purposes on a 24-hours basis will be essential for the legal analysis of results as well as toward the reporting of its conduct to the legislative authorities. Another important note on the conduct of intelligence suggested that the government ought to avoid over-promising. Even the best-equipped intelligence agency with the most effective management cannot provide 100% security. The panel also commented upon the issue of performance measuring and argued that multiple examples from the past suggest that such initiatives are rather costly and ineffective.

Protecting Homeland: From Fighting Financial Crimes to Revealing Terrorists During this session, the participants discussed the topic of cybersecurity by addressing the issue of how states should collect and evaluate big amounts of data in order

to reveal suspicious financial flows indicating illegal crossborder activities or financing terrorism. The debate was opened by remarks on the impact of globalisation trends upon homeland security. How should states protect their borders when there are so many elements that cross them without proper control? Sophisticated collection of large amounts of information, coupled with the ability to distinguish the important ones, are likely to play the decisive role in the 21st century. In this regard, said the participants, it is extremely important to build effective systems and establish accountable authorities that would supervise the collection and the usage of sensitive data and information. The participants also dedicated some space to the issue of tax fraud, which is often linked to other criminal activities as it can finance organised crime groups as well as terrorism. According to the discussants, analytical centres of state financial services can reveal suspicious financial operations, which can help identify weak spots of larger organised groups. By doing this, the analytical centres assist the authorities in addressing a threat before it materialises and thus also fulfill the role of a warning system. In this context, it ought not to be ignored that the right processing of data also allows the authorities to track the criminal activities back to their root and identify the responsible individuals. Finally, the participants completed the picture by touching upon the issue of “privacy vs. security”. They argued that in order to use the data as a means to prevent a potentially dangerous situation, it is important to establish a framework that has strict and clearly defined limits.

The starting point ought to be a state cybersecurity plan, which would address the most pressing issues – the tools to protect the state’s information systems and infrastructure against cyberattacks, and the rules on how to use the data to prevent criminal actions and ensure homeland security, while at the same time respecting and protecting the privacy of the citizens. In this regard the discussants concluded that the issue of finding the right balance between these two factors represents a challenge that will need to be dealt with in the very near future.

UK and Europe: In or Out? The participants largely supported the British position towards the current state of the European Union and emphasised that there is an urgent need for reforms. The contrast between the UK’s national interests and the priorities on the EU level was described as the leading force behind the pro-exit tendencies in the British society, which makes the scale of options regarding the UK-EU negotiations considerably short. Thereupon, noted the participants, the extent to which the EU can satisfy Prime Minister Cameron’s demands, would have decisive effect upon the outcome of the planned referendum. However, some attention was also paid to more speculative topics, namely the future of the EU following a potential exit of the UK. It was widely accepted that due to the complex nature of the variables involved in this process, it is virtually impossible to come up with a viable prediction of possible events caused by the Brexit. Whilst there are obvious effects such as the economic destabilisation and the political weakening of the European Union, it ought to be remembered that these only represent a part of the puzzle of what might happen in the future. In this regard, the participants agreed that the EU is facing an unprecedented challenge that could potentially have very harmful consequences for all of the involved sides.

Iran: Geopolitics of the Bomb The dinner discussion touched upon the issue of Iran’s geopolitical and nuclear ambitions in the context of the ongoing nuclear deal negotiations. Final details and the subsequent implementation of the deal would largely demonstrate the Iranian intentions in the region, said the participants. In this regard, the key to a long-term solution could well be the engagement of Iran through the Middle East peace process. As the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by the P5 + 1 is to be concluded in the upcoming days, there is a reason for some moderate optimism. The limitations on the Iranian enrichment programme and a greater transparency should close off the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The West, in turn, ought to soften the sanctions it had imposed on Iran. According to the participants, a „winwin“ deal is predicted to have a calming influence upon the chaos that the Middle East has faced recently. It

should also be noted that Iran and the West share several common interests. They have a common enemy – ISIS, – they are highly interested in the stability of the region and they oppose any kind of military solution. A closer and more open cooperation of Iran with the West could stimulate a problem-solving process in the region. However, the final details of the Iranian deal are still being negotiated and it ought not to be taken for granted that the involved sides would reach an agreement. Additionally, there are still uncertainties toward Iran’s intention to fulfill its commitments and some experts argue that the deal would only provide Iran with more time for the development of a nuclear bomb. After disappointments from Geneva, the conclusions to be reached by the end of June are expected to be the “end of the game”. A potential rebuff could give the Iranian officials excuse for not continuing in negotiation, as was already tried. Fortunately, the past attempts had not led anywhere and it is unlikely that following their failure to reach an agreement, the Iranian negotiators would lose their positions within the government. At the end of the day, the deal is viewed not as a final solution but as a partial step in a longer settlement process in the region.

Europe’s Southern Neighbourhood: Only Threats or also Opportunities? The dinner session evolved around the issue of immigration, which had recently become a hot topic among the European countries. One of the key points raised during the course of the debate was the complexity of the interrelation between diverse issues related to immigration, which, according to the discussants, makes it particularly challenging to find a sustainable solution. Reflecting upon the serious nature of the current situation, the participants expressed their concerns about the activities of the populist parties in Europe that continue to misuse the problem of immigration for their own political purposes. Furthermore, when it comes to concrete actions, there is a considerable lack of coordination between the strategies on the EU level, as well as amongst the member states, which represents another issue that needs urgent attention. The participants also argued that even though countries such as Slovakia have very little pratical experience with immigration, this ought

GLOBSEC 2015 Dinner Sessions not to be seen as a factor that can justify their rather skeptical position, as all European countries have a moral obligation to assist those who are in need. Ulimately, the participants concluded their debate by providing a number of recommendations. They agreed that it is important to find a balanced approach between security and development, which requires the EU to look beyond its borders and actively cooperate with the socalled transit countries. In this regard, it is in everyone’s interest that the EU and its member states become proactive and join their forces in order to come up with a comprehensive and coherent approach to the problem of immigration.

Is Asia Heading towards Europe’s Past? The analogy between Europe’s past and Asia’s future represents one of today’s most widely debated topics as the current developments make the prospects for the future uncertain. Is the world going to face a new Cold War between China and the US? How likely is the actual war between the rising powers and the established ones? Asian countries are very well aware of the costs of a war so they ought to learn from history and work toward establishing common security structures. In this regard it is mainly the East Asian Summit that can play a very important role. The representatives of the East Asian countries all agreed that mutual trust, respect, credibility and cooperation should be strengthened, and that their commitment to these values also needs to be reflected in practical policy efforts. One of the most important questions that arise in this regard is how to achieve the objective of peace and prosperity in the context where the individual actors prioritise contrasting paths towards it. While China is growing more powerful it also needs to look for partners with whom it can cooperate, as this can strengthen its leadership position in the region. Although they are far from like-minded, China, Japan and Korea all understand that it will be mutually beneficial if they learn to cooperate more effectively. Japan should apologise to the victims of its imperial aggression as this would certainly help to build more constructive relations in the region. Putting history behind creates opportunities to move forward and an apology could represent a good starting point for reconciliation. Russia too, needs to engage during the regional security discussions and it is important not to repeat the postWorld War I mistakes. History can be seen as a mirror through which it is possible to look into the future. Asia is not only about China. The rise of India is not of a lesser importance and it ought not to be ignored that for now India is growing even faster than China. In order to build a prosperous Asia, everyone has to be included. The most important question to be answered during the next decade should focus on whether it is possible to build an OSCE-kind of organisation in Asia.

Russian Economy Hampered by Sanctions Whilst acknowledging that Russia has been experiencing an economic downturn, the debate argued that the effects of economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the West can hardly be disentangled from the more systemic causes of Russia’s increasingly deteriorating economic performance. Reflecting upon the historical context of the Russian sanctions, the panel drew comparisons between the current situation, the Cold War era, and the sanctions that had been imposed on Iran, coming to the conclusion that neither of the past experiences can be used as a precedent. The discussants noted that while being closely tied to the European economy, Russia has been running a broken economic model with social problems, internal debts and other shortcomings. Thereupon, the discussants repeatedly highlighted that even the possible damaging effects of the sanctions on the Russian economy do not necessarily make them an effective measure for preventing further Russian aggression. Nor can it be ignored that the prospect of Russia‘s economic collapse is likely to come hand-in-hand with negative consequences for the West. While determining that the economic sanctions against Russia are of a largely symbolic nature, the discussion also agreed that they ought to be sustained as their potential withdrawal would signal European disunity, and make Russia’s position politically stronger.

GLOBSEC 2015 Policy Sessions

GLOBSEC 2015 Policy Sessions Countering Propaganda A special closed-door policy session was convened in order to map ongoing and planned activities by players in and out of government, exchange best practices and promote the creation of an independent, inclusive and action-oriented network of institutions and individuals across the transatlantic community to effectively address the challenge of anti-Western propaganda through closer cooperation. The session revealed many promising projects at grassroots level, but also a disturbing lack of political attention and funding. GLOBSEC demonstrated great confidence in the values of democracy, freedom and truth. What is lacking is more decisive action by communicators in and out of government: “People who write the present write history,” said Kurt Volker, “we only need to start writing.” The main challenge lies in creating and communicating a strong counter-narrative that would underpin a “Renaissance of the West”, as argued by Roland Freudenstein. The session was organised in partnership with the European Values Think Tank based in Prague.

NATO Warsaw Summit GLOBSEC 2015 hosted a policy session on NATO’s strategic adaptation to the unprecented security challenges emanating from Russia. Attended by Polish experts and policymakers as well as some 20 counterparts from NATO nations, this policy session aimed to kick off the international expert debate on the priorities and agenda for the upcoming Warsaw summit. The topics included the implementation of the Readiness Action Plan, the Defence Pledge as well as the prospects for NATO’s partnership and enlargement policy. The fast changing security environment, marked by non-traditional challenges such as hybrid warfare or cyberattacks, should be reflected in the understanding of Article 5, the cornerstone of NATO’s functioning, whose focus should expand beyond classical military attack. A strategically prepared and carefully implemented Resilience Package would help NATO succesfully operate in a fluid security landscape. Participants also emphasised the importance of stabilising NATO’s neighbouring countries and regions. Several recommendations were presented on NATO’s long-term approach toward Russia, most of them touching upon new forms of engagement. The meeting was organised with the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

GLOBSEC 2015 Gala Dinner

GLOBSEC 2015 Gala Dinner GLOBSEC 2015 Gala Dinner took place at the splendid Reduta building, home of the Slovak Philharmonic. For the fourth year, this Gala Dinner featured a presentation ceremony of the Czech and Slovak Transatlantic Award (CSTA), an initiative implemented since 2012 jointly by the Slovak Atlantic Commission and the Jagello 2000 Association from the Czech Republic. Within this initiative, the two non-governmental organisations biannually recognise Czech, Slovak and international personalities who have significantly contributed to freedom and democracy in Central Europe, to the integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic institutions and to the strengthening of transatlantic relations. Today, our peace and security, as well as our membership in the EU and NATO, are taken for granted by many. All too often, the hard work, leadership and determination of those who have contributed to these historic changes remain underappreciated. On a number of occasions since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the whole region has found itself at a crossroads; there have been turbulent times and moments of enormous uncertainty. What was needed were personalities who truly and unreservedly believed that Central Europe might once become a region of stability, prosperity and a safe home for millions of people who often suffered from poverty, war and oppression. Only a few people had the courage to defend the idea of integrating Central European countries into the Euro-Atlantic institutions. The Czech and Slovak Transatlantic Award initiative aims to recognise such figures. The Award laureates are selected by the CSTA Honorary Committee made up of twelve individuals from the Czech and Slovak political, defence and diplomatic communities. H. E. Bronisław Komorowski received the Czech and Slovak Transatlantic Award 2014 for his personal contribution to security and reinforcement of the transatlantic bonds, for his ability to personalise the historic mission of a more united Europe in closer cooperation with the United States, and for his unequivocal positions over the crisis in Ukraine. Ambassador Kurt Volker, in introducing the Award, recalled that President Komorowski's life and contributions parallel the life and contributions of Poland itself. In his speech, President Komorowski accepted the Award as an honour to a whole generation of Solidarity leaders in Poland. He presented the concept of freedom as a commitment to both the nation and its neighbours, an obligation to seek out what bridges nations rather than divides them. In this context, President Komorowski praised the CSTA as an award that aspires to unity across nations and continents. Professor Otto Pick was recognised for his remarkable life-long fight for freedom and democracy. He has done so

both as a soldier during WWII as well as through his civilian activities afterwards, including in free Czechoslovakia after 1989 and later the Czech Republic, which he helped bring into the Euro-Atlantic family of nations. There are very few personalities with a similarly amazing life journey and achievements. Despite withdrawing from all public activities after his 90th birthday, Professor Pick has accepted the Award with deep respect and gratitude. Professor Christopher Cocker introduced the awardee by saying his real achievement was “not surviving the 20th century, but thriving in it, while never compromising on his principles.” Ambassador Jiří Šedivý, who accepted the Award in lieu of Professor Pick, transmitted the awardee’s appeal on non-governmental organisations to help explain to the public NATO’s transformation “back to its original purpose”.

memoriam), a US diplomat and analyst; Alexandr Vondra, former Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic; Jozef Stank (in memoriam), former Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic; Gen. Klaus Naumann, former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee; Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Poland’s former Prime Minister and Minister for European Integration; Oldřich Černý (in memoriam), former Head of Czech Foreign Intelligence Service; Gen. David H. Petraeus, former ISAF Commander and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Eduard Kukan, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia; Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General and former Prime Minister of Denmark; Karel Kovanda, a Czech diplomat; and Martin Bútora, former Slovak Ambassador to the United States.

Carl Bildt was awarded for his tremendous involvement in Central and Eastern European issues, for his true belief that these countries have the future in the European and Euro-Atlantic structures and strengthening of the transatlantic relations. Carl Bildt is recognised as one of the main creators of the Eastern policy of the EU which assures applying of European values and reinforcement of democracy in our direct neighbourhood. During his decades-long political career he demonstrated that even a small nation can be influential in European and international affairs and served as an example to Central and Eastern European countries. Moreover, he fought for a unified Europe and emphasised the importance of free trade as a significant instrument of democracy, development and peace. In introducing the Award, Minister Miroslav Lajčák called Carl Bildt a “true pioneer” in many areas, including the Internet and social media, who has worked tirelessly to break down the walls, old and new, that continue dividing the world. Minister Bildt, in accepting the Award, first of all thanked Central Europe and its leaders for providing him with great wisdom, including by substantiating the ideas of the free market economy and the open society. “The frontline of freedom today runs over the plains and cities of Ukraine but also through the minds of many in our own societies,” he warned referring to the rising tide of nationalism and populism. Minister Bildt expressed great regret that Russia, a part of Europe, is taken on a different path by its current leaders. Based on the power of ideas, Europe must remain energetic about working for Russia’s future in Europe, a Europe that “today stretches far beyond Charlemagne’s vision”. Since 2012, the Award holders are: Ron Asmus (in

GLOBSEC 2015 Young Leaders' Forum (GYLF)

GLOBSEC 2015 Young Leaders’ Forum (GYLF)

discussion panels, including two Night Owl and City Talks sessions, demanded all the energy a “GYLFie” can muster. Most importantly, the overall success of the Forum depends on the number of future common initiatives as well as on the new friendships created by our mutual efforts and by striving towards a common goal. After all, we truly believe in the great potential that lies within the young generation. We look forward to continuing in our transatlantic endeavours together with the young professionals of GYLF 2015!

Empowering the Voice of Young Professionals at the GLOBSEC Forum The Slovak Atlantic Commission, with support from the NATO Public Diplomacy Division and the Embassy of the United States to Slovakia, hosted already the 4th edition of the GLOBSEC Young Leaders’ Forum (GYLF) on the sidelines of the GLOBSEC Bratislava Global Security Forum. Even though GLOBSEC has been around for ten years now, it is as young as ever. When it was first established, none of its originators would be out of school yet. Over the years it has grown to truly live up to its encompassing name. Yet its youthful spirit remains: not only is it well-known for putting together an exceptionally young organisational team on an annual basis, it is also proud of its ability to provide prospective young leaders with opportunities to gather invaluable experience right ‘in the field’. This year’s GLOBSEC Young Leaders’ Forum welcomed 35 emerging leaders from 27 countries worldwide, from Australia to Canada. GYLF aims to give emerging influencers an opportunity to contribute inspiring ideas to the debate on transatlantic security, foreign policy and economy. We offer the participants a unique opportunity to improve their policymaking skills and engage in networking with their peers and senior policy makers. The programme of GYLF consisted of several exclusive off-the-record discussions in an informal setting with some of the most respected strategists and policymakers. Apart from the official topics, the speakers were also encouraged to share important moments related to their professional development in order to motivate and positively influence the young professionals. This year’s top speakers included Senator John McCain, former Prime Minister of Sweden Carl Bildt, General John Allen and others. The Forum addressed a number of topics related to current developments in the international arena such as the crisis in Ukraine, Russian geopolitics, NATO transformation between Wales and Warsaw, the ISIL challenge across the Middle East, and reform of the European Union. GYLF is not solely about discussion. It also promotes further activities in research, policy making, follow-up projects, and engagement with the Forum’s wider multistakeholder community. What’s more, it is a place for interactions among the participants, with an attractive social programme including a pub quiz, sports activities and social gatherings like the Twinning Lunch or the GLOBSEC Cocktail – one of the Forum’s networking highlights. In total, a two-hour canoeing trip, eighteen

GYLF 2015 in numbers « 35 participants from 27 countries « 8 weeks of work on insights on 4 main GLOBSEC sessions (please see below) « 2-hour canoeing trip « 18 discussion panels, including 2 Night Owl and City Talks sessions « 4 issues of the GLOBSEC Young Leaders‘ Forum daily – “The GYLF Telegraph” « 30 challenging questions at the GYLF Pub Quiz « 10,600 primary Twitter impressions and 1,578 Facebook clicks in one week

GYLF 2015 Young Leaders’ Insights & Recommendations NATO Collective Defence: From Wales to Warsaw

potential opponents must also perceive that NATO has the necessary political will to use its military might. The Alliance today faces a widening gap with regard to threat perception, military investment, and public opinion. There is a real possibility that individual Allies will re-nationalize security policy. To speak with one voice, united in support of Article 5 will greatly enhance the effectiveness of NATO’s military deterrent. In light of these trends – decreasing military effectiveness and interoperability and political disunity – we propose three courses of action: « Develop guidelines to enforce and incentivise cooperation among NATO Allies.

Led by Rowinda Appelman, Social Innovation Fellow with the Meridian International Center of the U.S. State Department, this working group focused on empowering NATO along three interconnected issues. Effectiveness. In order to strengthen NATO’s effectiveness, we need to focus on the Alliance itself. NATO will always face challenges to the security of its members. And because the Alliance cannot predict future threats with any degree of certainty, it must concentrate on the health of the institution first. NATO’s military strength has served as an effective deterrent against aggression for decades. But recently, the NATO’s military strength has been sapped by two troubling trends – decreasingly interoperable forces and a lack of political unity. Interoperability. Enhancing the interoperability of NATO’s forces will augment their effectiveness. Interoperability, as a concept, means more than simply assuring that the materiel and equipment of NATO members’ forces works together. It also means that NATO forces should operate as one unified fighting force – through seamless command, control and communication (C3) networks; through exhaustively broad and deep logistical support; and through tactical and strategic unity of effort. NATO forces, especially the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) and the NATO Response Force (NRF) must vigorously excercise to test and improve their interoperability. Additionally, as Allies seek to invest the necessary amount of their GDP in research and development, they must take into account the interoperability with others.

« Re-evaluate what actual commitment by members is needed for NATO now and in the future, particularly in order to face hybrid threats. « Enhance NATO’s strategic approach and raise awareness about NATO-related issues in the member states and partners. To implement these proposals, we attach the below considerations. Re-evaluation of defence spending. NATO’s target for Allies to spend 2% of their GDP on defence is somewhat arbitrary. Greece, for example, meets this target more as a function of its present macroeconomic context than as a conscious decision to reach the spending target. Furthermore, if Germany was to reach the spending target,

Unity. Finally, in order for a force to be credible,

GYLF 2015 Young Leaders' Insights & Recommendations

it would effectively double its defence budget (northward of USD 50 billion). What is needed is a capabilities-based approach to defence spending. In states under economic strain, perhaps infrastructure projects could be “dualhatted” to meet defence purposes; the construction of a new bridge, for example, could be required to bear the weight of an armoured column and not just commercial traffic. If the defence spending target remains at 2% of GDP and is not accomplished by all the member states by an agreed deadline, NATO should consider steps to incentivise reaching the target. For example, an Ally could be designated to host a long-term deployment of the VJTF or NRF, whose personnel would spend money in that country. NATO operates in a resource-constrained environment in every conceivable aspect: money, men, materiel, political will, etc. It requires a more efficient use of its assets to ensure its effectiveness. Adapted engagement of audiences. We see the need to engage more new audiences including the youth. Public-private partnerships. We wondered about the potential added value and feasibility of NATO-related public-private partnerships in light of the shifting trends in governance. Desired outcomes. By implementing and achieving the presented incentives we primarily seek to enhance the debated issues of solidarity, unity and commitment among the Allies. This would have a crucial effect on the threat perception of NATO countries as a whole, putting emphasis on and building upon the true meaning of Article 5. That would lead to a higher level of reassurance between the members of NATO. By strengthening the collective approach of the member nations as presented we believe that it is also possible to narrow the existing gap between the threat perceptions of Eastern and Western members, and thus in parallel contribute to the military effectiveness, interoperability and unity of NATO.

values, securing inter-religious dialogue and reducing the sense of alienation of some people living in Western countries will be useful to reduce the risks of attacks. This strategy has to be developed by each country separately because it highly depends on historical context and culture. This counter narrative should target specific social environments (prisons, schools, suburbs communities...) and have to be adapted to the age of the counter narrative public. On the other side, sharing returnees’ stories, investing social media and reforming prisons system can help promote this counter narrative. « The radicalisation of young people in Western countries can be addressed by identifying recruiters and following their activity on social networks and websites. « Collaboration has to be improved at state level between police, intelligence, social agencies and other public actors who have information about the suspect people. « Set up an international integrated structure dedicated to terrorism similar to Interpol. Cooperation between domestic and international actors will be helpful to identify the terrorist network structure, to prevent and limit the growing number of domestic terrorist attacks. This could reduce uncertainty by monitoring the resources of the network, the potential dangers from isolated terrorist attacks and jihadists returning to their home countries. « Islamophobia has to be fought by community engagement and awareness. Education is crucial. A reconciliation between Western perceptions of Islam and Islamic perceptions of the West has to be promoted. The most representative politicians of each country have to speak up about Islamophobia.

Jihad in the West: New Face of Terrorism Russian Bear Awake The work of the group was led by Daniela Richterová, a PhD Candidate at the University of Warwick, to address the spread of terrorism in the West.

Led by Tiago Ferreira Lopes, Researcher at the EuroAtlantic Diplomacy Association in Portugal, the group worked on issues related to Russia.

A counter narrative has to be developed by studying the roots of extremism. A new strategy promoting democratic

Sanctions. The group reached consensus that economic sanctions against the Russian Federation are in the overall

NATO’s initiatives across the Eastern borders and on the Caucasus. The establishment of the new training centre in Georgia raised interest in the group, even though some said it would necessarily strain the already damaged relations between Moscow and Tbilisi. The group was divided over the value to have more troops in Poland since it will “poke the (already enraged) bear” and it also raises some eyebrows in Berlin. According to the group consensus it is important to “show muscle” but that display of strength might come with unexpected risks that need to be taken into consideration. Crimea. There was no real consensus regarding Crimea. Historically, Crimea was either independent or under Italian (Venice Republic), Turkish (Ottoman Empire) and Russian suzerainty. However, the group agreed that the way Crimea was taken from Ukraine was against agreed international treaties, which constitutes a severe violation of international law for which the current elite in Russia must be held responsible.

ineffective but needed. The group sees sanctions as a symbolic necessary movement from Western countries (mostly NATO/EU countries) against the Russian Federation. The idea behind is to show unity of the Western countries against aggressive policies that endanger national integrity and the fulfilment of international law. Nevertheless, the group also acknowledged that the current economic sanctions are not having the effect that was initially expected because Russia has been able to find other markets to minimise the impact of the sanctions. Russia Post-Putin. The group discussed at length how to engage with the civil society across the Russian Federation. According to the group it is important to establish dialogue bridges with the youth leaders in Russia, either inside political parties of the opposition or in civic movements, since it is them who will inherit Russia once Putin steps aside or dies. The group was keen to underline that to prevent the rise of a new aggressive leader like Putin it is crucial to engage right now with those who might be elected in the post-Putin era.

Relations between the West and Russia. The group agrees that it is impossible to engage in normalised diplomatic ties with Moscow and that the NATO-Russia Council will be stranded for some years. However, the group proposed opportunities to explore via indirect soft diplomacy. The re-engagement with Russia at the Council of Europe or even the re-establishment of the G-8 could be interesting steps towards decreasing tension between the West and Russia. OSCE. The group recalled that in the 1990’s the OSCE should have gained some power while NATO should have decreased some of its military might. With that window of opportunity already closed, there were calls to use the OSCE as a bridge towards a gradual normalisation of relations with Russia once Russia normalises the situation in Ukraine and complies with international law. 1990’s: the Lost Decade: The group reflected about the 1990’s and considered that the West was unable to use the years after the implosion of the Soviet Union to normalise relations with Moscow. Instead of celebrating the end of the Cold War, the West should have concerned itself with designing policies to make the transition from Russia’s Soviet-style economy to an open, more globalised model. The traumatic impact of the “economic shock therapy” and the subsequent “catastroika” also helped to pave the way for Putin’s emergence to power.

Russia and the East. Also important in the discussion was the impact of the East on the current policies of Russia. The group does not ignore that Eurasianism has been heralded in Russia since the 1920’s. Eurasianism tends to overemphasise the importance of the Eastern legacies (Mongol legacy and Constantinople legacy) and to see as imperfect the Western (European) legacies. It is the ideology of Eurasianism that is the main reason why Moscow in now looking for closer ties with Ankara, Beijing, Teheran and New Delhi. NATO and the Eastern flank. The group discussed

GYLF 2015 Young Leaders' Insights & Recommendations Ukraine’s Future: Independent, Stable, Prosperous? A working group led by Victoria Vdovychenko, a PhD Candidate at the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine in Kiev elaborated on the future scenarios for Ukraine. Technical Support. Given the military and political situation it faces, Ukraine's reform efforts are slow but better than expected. However, since Russia's hybrid tactics against the country include exploiting its economic instability, more support will be necessary in the medium and long-term future. Civil Society. Although many former civil society activists have entered the government, Ukraine's political situation remains fragile; elites must continue to engage with civil society in strengthening its institutional capability, and empowering reformers rather than promoting individual interests. Business Support. Improving the business climate in Ukraine is of utmost importance, especially promoting investment, deregulation, diversification of export markets, and transformation of Soviet-era industry. Energy security. Ukraine’s government has made great strides forward already (ending subsidies for household gas, moving towards privatisation of the state-owned monopoly Naftohaz), but more should be done in other sectors, including energy efficiency; reverse-flow imports from Europe; and constructing monitoring stations throughout Ukraine. Information transparency. Due to the effectiveness of Russian propaganda, Ukraine needs to both promote transparency (especially in its military by allowing access to the front lines for journalists) and provide journalists with better training.

The Minsk Process. The possibility of a constructive dialogue with the separatists is once again stagnant. The European Union must continue to demonstrate its united commitment to an international order in which borders cannot be changed by force. It must send a clear message that EU-Russia relations will not return to “business as usual” until Russia is prepared to respect international law. The European Parliament’s resolution of 11 June 2015 on the re-evaluation of the EU’s Strategic Partnership with Russia is a welcome move in this regard. Ukraine must prioritise national reconciliation as the territorial division is not likely to end in the short-term. Supporting better access to information for citizens in the conflict zone and assisting universities that have been relocated from Donbas to government-controlled territory through funding and educational/scientific exchanges would be important steps in this direction. Conclusions. As young leaders, we believe that we must not only focus on dealing with the short-term effects of the current crises, but also continue to work on solutions for longer-term issues including, Internally Displaced People (IDPs) and integrating, in time, people in the occupied territories back into Ukraine's economic and cultural life – in the hopes that these measures will avoid future crises and put Ukraine back on the road to peace and prosperity.

Public-Private Fora Defence Forum The GLOBSEC Defence Forum organised by the Central European Policy Institute (CEPI) was an opportunity to assess where NATO stands between the Wales and Warsaw summits. The debate reflected two main challenges that the Alliance has to face: one from the South and another from the East. The challenge coming from the South is a complex one, encompassing difficulties such as religious hatred, failed states and elements of total war. The Allies did not address it sufficiently at the Wales summit nor have they launched a serious debate on how to tackle it. NATO does not see it as a direct threat and therefore its response has been intuitive rather than based on a clear strategy. The challenge coming from an aggressive Russia is intellectually easier as NATO knows it better and is already on the right track to implementing the measures adopted in Wales. The main responsibility is to continue in the implementation of the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) – restoring military balance throughout Europe – so that NATO remains credible. There are still some outstanding tasks to complete in order to make the new tools effective, such as adjustments of national decision-making and legal frameworks for crisis

situations: it would take much longer to deploy NATO’s Spearhead Force than within the required two days. There is also a need to upgrade the Szczecin headquarters, draw up contingency plans for the defence of the Baltic countries and adopt a systematic policy of large-scale Article 5 exercises. National implementation of the RAP is lagging also due to funding problems (both in real and GDP terms), which heavily effect modernisation. Besides looking back and evaluating the implementation of the Wales decisions, NATO leaders should use the Warsaw summit to discuss the next steps. With the benefit of hindsight it is known that Russia’s aggressive behaviour against Ukraine was not an anomaly, but the new normal – it is to be expected that Russia will pose a serious military threat to NATO in the years to come. The idea behind the RAP was to reassure allies in Central Europe; now we need to think of measures to deter an increasingly aggressive Russia. The Warsaw summit should keep the dynamics of adaptation by commissioning a review of NATO’s Strategic Concept.

Innovation and Cybersecurity Forum The 2015 GLOBSEC Innovation and Cybersecurity Forum in Bratislava enhanced discussion between public and private actors on a variety of topics, including public-private partnerships that support innovation, development of the e-economy, and cybersecurity; regional cooperation in the digital sector; and the improvement of cybersecurity by governments, companies, and individual users. The

Public-Private Fora Central Europe on the global level. Regional cooperation would also facilitate the sharing of best practices and the strengthening of adaptability skills among entrepreneurs. The issue of trust and the privacy-security balance were repeatedly referred to as a stumbling block to cooperation. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as each country has its own history of relations between the government, business and the public, as well as different cultural priorities. A structured dialogue between governments and businesses can, however, help identify the reasons behind these fears as well as the ways to develop trust. A-la-carte technological solutions, as offered, for example, by Microsoft in its Cloud solutions for the government, can provide the necessary and individually justified levels of assurance and reliability. Slovakia and other V4 countries are at the beginning of the road to innovation and digital development. To advance further on this path, the countries need to ensure proper cooperation between public and private spheres, support the creation of market and legal conditions that enable the formation of start-ups and constructive innovations, invest into infrastructure and education of the public and entrepreneurs, learn from the successes of the global leaders, and continue with the effort to create space for innovation and business investment and regional digital brand.

collection of opinions of representatives from the public and private spheres as well as the views from inside and outside Central Europe helped to identify the common points of agreement and the areas that require urgent attention. The participants unanimously recognised the potential of Central European countries and Central Europe as a region to develop a “smart and digital” brand and eventually become the “Silicon Valley of Europe”. Some start-ups and ideas born in Central Europe – such as ESET or Prezi – have already proven their global potential. Nevertheless more steps can still be taken by governments and businesses alike in order to speed up the digital transformation of the region. Public-private partnerships and, more specifically, the “distribution” of tasks between governments and businesses in the digital sector became a central topic for the two days of the Forum. Acknowledging that the government should facilitate, motivate, and enhance rather than force and prescribe action, the discussants agreed on certain areas where governments can provide an additional value to entrepreneurs and start-ups. These include development of infrastructure, smart regulations and reductions in bureaucratic procedures, education, incentives for cooperation, research and development, and establishment of platforms for launching start-ups. These measures can and should be taken on both national and intra-regional levels in order to increase the visibility, presence, attractiveness, and critical mass of

The “human factor” was identified as the weakest link in closing cyber vulnerabilities. Clusters and cooperation between businesses are seen the most promising means of ensuring cybersecurity in the region. The dangers associated with the digital economy can be further reduced by making technologies easier to use, by improving public awareness of cybersecurity issues, and by educating more “digital professionals”. The government should step in and create conditions for cooperation and information sharing without suffocating businesses with regulations and prescriptions. Finally, cooperation between businesses and the formation of clusters would on the one hand reduce costs and risks, and on the other hand enable businesses to innovate faster and better, whilst addressing complex and multi-dimensional cybersecurity issues more effectively. If used and monitored wisely, the Cloud, with its capacity to serve the individual needs of customers, is a promising solution that provides security to the digitalised governance system. Increasing trust between public and private actors and adapting the legal environment to the needs of the e-economy and the e-society are the central issues in making the Cloud more usable and effective. In a special format of the 2015 GLOBSEC Innovation and Cybersecurity Forum, the state secretaries of the V4 countries commented on the key achievements in the digital agenda and discussed further steps that need to be taken in order to create a digital single market. The participants of the Digital Single Market: A View from the V4 roundtable held on June 20 2015, reflected on Europe’s geo-economic digital deficit, as well as on the role that the V4 countries can play toward the

of regional cooperation as well as of the importance of the digital agenda for V4 countries. Third, V4 countries signed a memorandum on the establishment of a patent institute, which, after its ratification by the national parliaments, will help accelerate the process of innovation in the region. The Czech Republic is prepared to carry on with the digital agenda after it assumes the Visegrad Group Presidency in July 2015. Tomáš Prouza identified the steps and areas that Prague will prioritise in the digital agenda. In general, V4 countries should be aiming to create a flexible and efficient regulatory framework. This implies that the rules ought not be too prescriptive and burdensome, but instead facilitate entrepreneurship and innovation. It is also important to identify all of the involved stakeholders, and have a constructive dialogue with them concerning the needs of the digital sector. Furthermore, the countries should invest into improvements of their digital infrastructure. This involves the provision of broadband Internet to remote areas and public institutions, as well as cybersecurity measures. Moreover, it is important to advance digital literacy and e-skills among all citizens, regardless of their background and socio-economic status, and facilitate access to commercial and educational goods and services online.

advancement in Europe’s competitiveness in the digital sector. Tomáš Prouza, State Secretary for European Affairs at the Office of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, noted that the Slovak Presidency has made a remarkable and constructive effort in incorporating the digital agenda into V4 cooperation, and in advocating the issue at the EU level. These activities have started to change the image of Central European countries from trouble-makers to productive members, who can push the EU economy forward and contribute to innovations. Reflecting on Slovakia’s ability to achieve these accomplishments, State Secretary Peter Javorčík explained that the digital sector has been generating considerable growth in Central Europe. The government needs to further stimulate this growth by creating a favourable environment for digital innovation, which can be done more effectively through cooperation with other countries. Therefore, the digital sector was identified as a source of growth and successfully added to the V4 agenda.

Szabolcs Takács, State Secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister of Hungary, confirmed that Hungary fully shares the aims of the V4 digital agenda and emphasised that the country is taking steps to promote digital innovation. He also commented on how Hungary has succeeded in keeping many of its productive digital businesses at home. Takács reminded that the government’s effort toward improvements of its digital infrastructure and of the regulatory framework sends an important message to digital entrepreneurs. More and more businesses read it as an indication of the government’s determination, which motivates their decisions to stay in the region. The discussants also admitted that there are still a number of stumbling blocks that decelerate the creation of a digital single market in Europe. One of them is geoblocking. The EU Commission is calling upon the member states to eliminate political and economic barriers all across Europe and avoid regional groupings. There is a lot of disagreement within the EU regarding issues like the balance of privacy, security, and consumer protection. Many neighbouring countries with shared views find it

Although it has only been a year since the adoption of a digital priority by the Visegrad Group, it is possible to identify a number of significant and tangible achievements. First, V4 countries have focused on the promotion and support of start-ups in the region. Second, they presented a joint non-paper for the EU Commission expressing their shared views on the European digital market. The ability of the countries to formulate a common position represents a significant indicator of the feasibility

Public-Private Fora easier and more efficient to pursue their similar priorities together, rather than waiting for EU-wide measures. Other primary areas of concern, as identified by the V4 representatives, include the issues of copyright, VATs, cross-border commerce, and changing needs and qualifications of people. The Visegrad Group has taken important and necessary steps in promoting the digital sector within the region. The grouping’s proven ability to identify the shared priorities and consistently work at home on their implementation justifies the expectations related to the transformation of Central Europe into an innovative and entrepreneurial region.

Energy Forum The GLOBSEC Energy Forum consisted of two panels on the vital issues of diversification of natural gas supplies and investments into new infrastructure. The Forum was kicked off with remarks by Miroslav Lajčák, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, and his Bulgarian counterpart Daniel Mitov. Mr Lajčák stressed the security aspect of energy: “Energy policy is one of the pillars of foreign policy; it has become not only an economic but also a security issue.” Experts and policymakers on both panels argued that Gazprom proved to be an unreliable partner and European governments had several opportunities to learn they need to be more assertive when dealing with this company. Gazprom needs to fully understand that European states have their sovereign right to choose their own energy mix. Panellists also expressed their conviction that contracts and agreements must be honoured by all sides. This referred mainly to statements by Gazprom officials declaring their intention to stop using Ukraine as a transit country by 2019. Panellists also emphasised that in order to ensure the energy security of every EU member, it is vital that they act together and coordinate their plans and strategies. Panellists expressed their support for the Eastring project connecting the already existing pipelines in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, which would have a reverse flow capability.

The second panel opened with a straight-forward question on what the Energy Union is supposed to represent. This session clearly demonstrated the considerable confusion and multiple interpretations about the new project. Therefore one of the main outcomes of the Forum was the notion that public diplomacy is essential for the success of the Energy Union. According to views from the US, the shale gas “revolution” will also have a role to play in Europe’s efforts to diversify energy supplies. Thanks to the successful shale gas extraction policy in the US, there is now enough energy even for export. This means that as soon as the infrastructure is constructed, European states will be able to buy, consume and transport American shale gas. Although Saudi Arabia attempted to destroy the shale gas producers in the US – and succeeded in reducing them by half – it seems that the remaining companies will continue to make profit. The discussion brought us to the fact that the investment is still 15% below pre-crisis numbers and at the same time we recognise the lack of suitable infrastructure projects to invest in. Whilst Central Europe remains vulnerable to Russian pressure, the region has learned that enabling the reverse flow of gas is possible, which should give the region selfconfidence for the near future. The gas crisis of 2009 proved that the region is able to cooperate very effectively when the vulnerability of its energy dependence on Russian gas is exploited.

GLOBSEC 2015 City Talks

the motion, whereas Ivan Timofeev, Director of Programs at the Russian International Affairs Council and Evgenyi Nadorshin, Chief Economist of PF Capital and former Advisor to the Minister for Economic Development of the Russian Federation opposed the motion.

Frank and open debate is essential for any free society to survive, especially when it concerns such important issues as global security and democracy. Therefore, instead of being just another traditional gathering of diplomats and stakeholders behind the walls of an exclusive venue, GLOBSEC has always encouraged broader public to actively join the discussions. For the second time, broader public had a possibility to participate in a series of GLOBSEC City Talks with prominent policy-makers and experts. For the first time, the series was organised not only in Bratislava, but also in Banská Bystrica and Košice, working jointly with the local municipalities.

At the outset, Edward Lucas stated that the collapse of the “Evil Empire” had been the most hopeful moment of his lifetime. Unfortunately, in his opinion, we are now in a situation when Russia wants to challenge the postCold War order in Europe by constantly terrorising the frontline states on its borders and by deploying a relatively successful propaganda and espionage effort. Furthermore, he stressed that Russia can do things that the West is not prepared to respond to, such as the current occupation of Crimea or the cyberattack against Estonia in 2007. Mr Lucas was also deeply concerned about the support provided by the current Russian regime to various far right parties in Europe in order to subvert the European integration process. Moreover, he strongly criticised the response of the NATO countries which he termed as weak and insufficient regarding the latest developments in Ukraine.

The City Talks in Slovakia’s capital focused on the Ukrainian crisis; the relations between Russia and the West; the threats of Russian and ISIS propaganda, inspiring stories from Central Europe; the heritage of World War II; and the future of Ukraine. The GLOBSEC City Talks were officially opened by Róbert Vass, founder of the GLOBSEC Forum and VicePresident and CEO of the Central European Strategy Council and Ivo Nesrovnal, Mayor of Bratislava who, after welcoming all speakers and participants, shared their personal views and experience with the discussed issues. The first City Talk, entitled Russia and the West, was led by Nik Gowing, International Broadcaster from London, as an Oxford-style debate on the following motion: NATO and EU member states in Western Europe must assume Russia will work to subvert them, including using military force. Edward Lucas, Senior Vice-President, Center for European Policy Analysis, London, together with George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, spoke for

On the other hand, Ivan Timofeev explained that the same type of rhetorics as presented by Mr Lucas, based on the demonisation of the other side of the conflict, can be also found in Russia with respect to NATO. Mr Timofeev urged both camps to overcome their differences and find common grounds by establishing a constructive dialogue. In his view this would be the only way to solve the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Concerning the allegations made by Mr Lucas that Russia wants to challenge borders in Europe, he underlined that Russia needs Europe as much as Europe needs Russia. Therefore, the destabilisation of Europe would be in direct contradiction with Russian interests as Europe is an important trade partner and a source of human capital to Russia. He concluded that the growing escalation and “the spiral of fear” is dangerous for Russian and European competitiveness. Mr Timofeev invited NATO and EU to

GLOBSEC 2015 City Talks

change the paradigm of their relations with Russia from a security dilemma to cooperation. George Friedman emphasised the need to look at the current crisis from the Russian perspective. If he was Russian he would want the Russian state to behave in the same way as it does now. The fact that NATO is so close to the Russian borders is unacceptable to many Russians, which logically gives Mr Putin some kind of legitimacy for his actions. For this reason, Mr Friedman is firm in his belief that Russia is a threat to the West. Moreover, according to him, the sentiment of insecurity makes Russia take risks it would not otherwise take as it wants to become a great power and thus secure its positions in Eastern Europe. He ended by stating that we do no have to fear great powers but those who are willing to become great powers.

Friedman: "(...) the sentiment of insecurity makes Russia take risks it would not otherwise take..." “No one has illusions that one lightweight can fight two heavyweights,“ Mr Nadorshin said applying rather economic approach to the dispute between Russia and the West. He pointed out that Russia is economically inefficient and therefore it cannot possibly subvert both the European Union and the United States (the two heavyweights in economic terms). Mr Nadorshin added that not only Russia but also the European Union are “financially bleeding” which is a great advantage for some Asian countries that profit from this confrontation. He finished his argumentation by saying that Russia never sought to subvert another power because of its fear of Asian dominance. Even though the speakers were divided in their views, it was up to the audience to decide who was more convincing. At the end of the discussion, 76% of the audience voted for the motion, compared to 67% at the beginning of the panel. We can therefore conclude that the Russian speakers did not manage to persuade the audience with their arguments to vote against the motion discussed. The next City talk entitled The Age of Propaganda: Are We Ready? was led by Ben Nimmo, a British information warfare specialist, featuring two panellists, Yevhen

Fedchenko, Director and Co-Founder of StopFake.org in Kiev and Falah Mustafa Bakir, Head of the Department of Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. In the Middle East, according to Bakir, ISIS is using social networks to propagate a strategy of fear, spreading a message of extremism and chauvinism. A creation of a counter-message against ISIS is not difficult, given their spreading of hatred and threats to all who speak against them as their main tool of propaganda. As a response to this, Bakir proposed several ways in which this threat might be suppressed. The message of all Arab and Islamic countries who disagree with ISIS needs to be focused on stopping the politicisation of Islam and revoking the legitimacy of them as fighters for Islam. On the other hand, there needs to be more investment in education, in order to create a more tolerant future generation which will not easily fall for radicalisation. It is through the work of scholars and imams that the long-term change can be brought about, allowing for more support to fight them ideologically and army-wise. Speaking of the role of the government in Baghdad, Bakir observed that their role should be focused on working on reconciliation through practical measures which would mitigate the consequences of the war and give people a better chance for the future. On the frontlines, the emphasis should be on stopping the support and logistics of ISIS, which should represent a regional and international effort. With the marginalisation of the Sunnis in Iraq, more and more fighters joined the ranks of the radical Islamist group, many of them bringing

with them the heavy weaponry which they obtained after the collapse of the Iraqi army. The Peshmerga are, according to Bakir, winning the war, with support of American precision strikes against ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq, but are faced with a constantly growing number of refugees and displaced persons who seek their aid. Thus, there needs to be more international support of their goals in order to sustain the effort. For Bakir, belief in the cause is the game-changer in the war against ISIS. In this regard, there needs to be a ban on the misuse of social networks, because of the ways the group gathers support and gains popularity on the internet and mosques need to be closed after prayer, in order to prevent indoctrination by radical imams. When people see attractive images of ISIS fighters in the Western media, they feel attracted to the idea of ISIS as a “tourist agency with territory and population”, losing in mind the reality of it being a big terrorist organisation who recruits through brainwashing and misinformation. A response to this threat must be the responsibility of those fighting against them to show the victims of the conflict transparently, and by using real information and facts as a tool in order to counter their propaganda.

Bakir: "When people see attractive images of ISIS fighters in the Western media, they feel attracted to the idea of ISIS as a 'tourist agency with territory and population'..." From Ukraine, the idea of a propaganda war between Russia and the West becomes clear as part of a global conflict. According to Yevhen Fedchenko, the biggest damage that Russian propaganda caused was during the preparation for the real war in Ukraine, and is starting to lose steam. The Russian propaganda machine works on a multi-level platform, creating different narratives for the Russian, Ukrainian and global publics. The goal of this project, as Fedchenko argued, is to frustrate people and create disbelief in core liberal tenets of modern society. By using strong emotional narratives coupled with misinformation, Russian propaganda attempts to subvert the dominant Western narratives and twist them into making the general public believe that there is no objective truth. At first, the propaganda was based on simple fakes, but as the fact-checking community in Ukraine and

Europe became more prepared to debunk these stories, the Kremlin narrative became more sophisticated in order to win over volunteers for their cause. Given that 94% of all Russians receive their information on global affairs from TV, stations like Russia Today represent the backbone of the propaganda effort. Quoting a Russian journalist, Fedchenko said this is a “war between the TV and the refrigerator”. The ideology behind the narrative subverts even the most critical minds when it is promoted persistently and constantly. This, in turn, creates a parallel reality in which most Russians live. To combat such an adversary represents a long process which requires diligence to show that there is no enemy on the other side. When speaking of Ukraine, Fedchenko claimed that there is no propaganda arising from their side, because they are aware that the war in Ukraine is not a civil war but a direct aggression of Russia against a sovereign state, and they are looking for peace. Fedchenko’s organisation, StopFake.org, has been successful in raising awareness of the existence of propaganda, but their main goal is not to debunk single pieces, given that they are facing a massive production which started churning content after the Orange Revolution in 2005. Of the one million of specific visitors to their website, around half a million are from Russia. The solution to this kind of information warfare, for Fedchenko, is fact-checked information. As governments attempt to counter propaganda with counter-propaganda, they lose credibility and put into question the legitimacy of the journalists. In an era when social media spreads like wildfire, only concrete information can counter false narratives. As traditional authorities lost their role in communicating with the public, an opening appears for the civil sector in order to promote truth to the people at home. Media literacy should be promoted in order to see through propaganda – when Russia says that the sanctions are not working, they are; when they say that there exists a suspicious Czech website from which people can buy Russian heavy weapons, they might be hinting at these specific weapons being used in Donbas. On the other hand, Western governments should investigate the financial backgrounds of certain Russian media outlets, and put into question the journalists themselves, because often they only appear as such, when in fact they are not. The first panel of the following day, Inspiring Stories

GLOBSEC 2015 City Talks from Central Europe, featured three panellists, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia, Róbert Vass, Founder of the GLOBSEC Forum and Vice-President and CEO of the Central European Strategy Council and Adam Somlai–Fischer, Co-Founder of Prezi. The panel was chaired by Kathleen Koch, Author, Journalist and Founder of LeadersLink. Adam Somlai-Fischer started the discussion by making a short presentation of his company, Prezi, which specialises in presentation software. From a small startup founded in 2009 in Budapest Mr Somlai has built an internationally known company with over 55 millions users worldwide. He also gave some insight into the company’s mission and vision. Fist of all, he stressed that Prezi, instead of having policies, has a set of values, including transparency in decision-making and global responsibility. His advice to the companies in Central Europe willing to improve themselves is very simple: “dream big” and “trust each other”. To conclude his presentation he invited the City of Bratislava to invite a start-up from Peru to Bratislava as his company was once invited by the City of San Francisco to enhance the IT industry in California. President Ilves presented the extraordinary story of Estonia, today’s leader in IT and e-government. He explained that contrary to countries like Singapore or Finland, Estonia was quite poor when it started to develop its own IT infrastructure. Nevertheless, thanks to the unleashed entrepreneurial spirit of the Estonian people and reform-minded governments, Estonia succeeded in establishing an IT-friendly environment. For instance, by 1997 all schools in the country were online, today 99,9% of medical prescription are electronic and 34% of citizens vote online. These figures make Estonia a nation with the highest proportion of electronic interactions between citizens and government in the world. President Ilves also pointed out that Estonia shares its know-how by organising special e-government academies. People from over 80 countries come each year to acquire skills and knowledge in this field which can then be applied in their countries. The last inspiring story was presented by Róbert Vass, a young dedicated Slovak leader who helped to empower the voice of Central Europe in global affairs. Róbert exposed to the audience the story of GLOBSEC, the security conference he founded 10 years ago as a

student of international relations in Banská Bystrica. He mentioned the humble beginnings marked by various obstacles that he and his colleagues had to overcome in order to make GLOBSEC the fourth biggest security conference in the world. First of all, Róbert stressed that it is not enough for a country to have a free society based on democratic values but there must also be individuals who are willing and able to take these values as an advantage. In 2004 when Slovakia joined NATO and the European Union there was a feeling that everything was done and that it was up to the others to deal with global challenges. Róbert Vass did not want to accept rhetoric that the region of Central Europe has no potential to lead, which is why GLOBSEC was born in 2005. Today, Bratislava is on the map of European and global thinking and GLOBSEC is getting bigger and better each year. The fourth panel, entitled World War 2: Are We Doomed to Repeat the Same Mistakes? was a concert of two brilliant minds, Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University and Andrey Zubov, Professor of History and Columnist at Novaya Gazeta. The debate was chaired by Edward Lucas, Senior Vice-President at the Center for European Policy Analysis. Andrey Zubov started the discussion with a brief analysis of the causes of World War II and the organisation of the world after the war. The victorious states understood the mistakes they made after World War I, such as isolating Germany from the international system, appeasing Hitler or underestimating the devastating role of certain ideologies. Practically speaking, the allies looked to the past to establish a new world order that would help avoid a new war in Europe. Timothy Snyder agreed with this statement saying that history is always a factor and that people, including politicians, make historical analogies. He continued by asking whether today’s Ukraine is really Czechoslovakia in 1938. Despite the fact that history should be interpreted in a neutral way, nowadays we can see numerous cases of mythicising historical issues. Mr Snyder added that if people in Moscow remembered some historical facts the current situation would be different. For example, President Putin described the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an effort to secure peace in Europe, which is obvious nonsense. Moreover, from the Ukrainian perspective the war was even more damaging than from the Russian

point of view as only 5% of Russia was occupied by the Nazis, in contrast to the full occupation of Ukraine.

destabilise the country as the main obstacle to the progress and democratisation of Ukraine.

Thereafter, the debate moved to investigate the current Russian perspective towards its own history. Mr Zubov explained that the communist regime was against Russia and alien to Russian history. He stressed that throughout history Russia was always in a coalition with some other European power. For this reason, Russia was never against Europe as such. Nevertheless, the official prevailing approach of today’s Russian historians is that Russian civilisation is not a part of the Western civilisation – which is the old rhetoric of the Cold War.

They are also aware about the internal problems of Ukraine such as the resistance of the political system to the reforms, slow progress of the reforms, enduring links between the new administration and the old regime or the economic and financial instability. Despite all these issues, they expressed optimism about Ukraine's future which lies in decentralisation, demonopolisation and deregulation. On the other hand, they suggested that real changes will only come when the West provides Ukraine with substantial military and economic support.

Concerning the fact that some people argue that “new” Russia was excluded from the European security order in 1991, Professor Snyder recalled that Russia did not even exist at that time. Therefore, if we use “Russian” and “Soviet” as synonyms we unintentionally affirm one single school of history. Furthermore, he added that Russia has distanced itself from the Western structures since 2012 in its own will as NATO did not make any significant change of policy with respect to Russia.

The second part of the debate was focused on the policies of the EU and NATO on Ukraine. Even though all panellists agreed that the West should support Ukraine, they had rather different opinions on the way this support should be provided and on the capacity of Europe to deal with the crisis.

In their final remarks, the panellists concluded that Mr Putin is rewriting history to support the feeling of national humiliation connected with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They both expressed their concerns regarding such “weaponisation of history”. The GLOBSEC City Talks series in Bratislava ended with a public recording of the wellknown debate “Večer pod Lampou”, entitled Ukraine’s Future: Independent, Stable, Prosperous? The first part of the debate was conducted in English featuring Mustafa Naiiem, Member of the Verkhovna Rada and Mikheil Saakashvili, Governor of Odessa Region and Chairman of the International Advisory Council on Reforms for the President of Ukraine. The second part featured Alexandr Vondra, Director of the Centre for Transatlantic Relations of the CEVRO Institute in Prague, Igor Slobodník, State Secretary for Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic and Jana Kobzová, Senior Programme Officer at the European Endowment for Democracy and Associate Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Both discussions were led by Štefan Hríb, Editor-in-Chief of the weekly .týždeň. Štefan Hríb opened the first part of the discussion by asking the two panellists whether the dreams and aspirations of Maidan were fulfilled. Both Mustafa Naiiem and Mikheil Saakashvili expressed their certitude that the revolution was a step forward for Ukraine. Nevertheless, both of them consider Russia and its current efforts to

Alexandr Vondra was skeptical with respect to the European Union’s abilities to deter further Russian agression, seeing the United States as a main driving force behind the establishment of security and peace in Europe. Furthermore, he assumed that Europeans are not prepared to defend their NATO allies and the values they should stand for. He also explained that Ukrainians did not fully take advantage of the Orange Revolution which could have contributed in a significant way to the democratisation of their country. On the other hand, Jana Kobzová said that the EU should help Ukraine as much as it can despite the fact that the response of the United States would always be quicker and maybe stronger. She also argued that reforms would be very painful for Ukraine but they would have positive impact on its whole political and social landscape. She also observed that Mr Putin created an impulse for the creation of the Ukrainian nation with Ukrainians willing to pay the highest price for their freedom. Mr Slobodník believes that Ukraine can become prosperous and free one day. However, he expressed certain concerns regarding the capacity of Ukraine to use European support effectively, stating that it is very difficult to adopt reforms when the country is at war. With respect to Russia, Mr Slobodník added he is sure that Mr Putin not only knows where the red line is but is also sure not to cross it in fear of a complete financial isolation of Russia from the rest of the world.

GLOBSEC 2015 City Talks The last debate showed that Ukraine has a future but it will require an immense domestic and foreign effort to shape it in the right way so that one day Ukraine becomes independent, stable and prosperous.

The City Talks in Banská Bystrica, organised with Denník N, focused on Russian propaganda and the possible means of countering it. The title was Russia and Us: Same Past, Different Future?

The City Talks in Košice was entitled Ukraine and Us: A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action. The speakers included Štefan Füle, former European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marian Majer, Head of

“I am very sorry that they made such a movie,” said Russian history professor Andrey Zubov. “It is the same shame as what happened in 1968. That August day I was in Crimea, nobody was smiling and happy about it. Now Russian propaganda has spread this horror all over the world." The first debate under the GLOBSEC banner in Banská Bystrica could not have started without a question about the recent Russian propagandistic documentary about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, which was described as prevention and brotherly help against a NATO-sponsored fascist coup. Why is this kind of propaganda still possible 25 years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain?

the Security and Defence Policy at the Central European Policy Institute and Myroslava Lendel, Director of Research at the Scientific Institute of Central Europe at Uzhgorod National University. What the speakers demanded in Košice was unity by the European Union on Ukraine and a stronger involvement of the V4 countries. They all appreciated the engagement of Germany and France, but described the Minsk agreements as ineffective and prone to be violated. Even though confronted with many internal and external challenges, the EU must not let its attention fade away from the Ukrainian crisis. On the contrary, a united and fully engaged Europe is needed to solve the deadlock situation.

“Communism left bigger and deeper scars than Nazism. The main problem of Russia today is doing what you did in the 1990s: we have to separate ourselves from Soviet ideology,” said Mr Zubov. “There is no doubt that 21 August 1968, was a clear occupation. But Russian historians, not even the young ones, have realised this. In Russia to be unbiased is not standard,” commented Stanislav Mičev, Director General of the Museum of the Slovak National Uprising. During the debate the panellists proposed broadcasting the documentary in prime time on TV. “It should be done with commentaries from our historians to analyse the Russian interpretation of this terrible event,” said Petr Kolář, Senior Advisor at Squire Patton Boggs. He assumes that Russian propaganda aims at our lack of knowledge, trying to spread disinformation. „The most effective way is relativisation and Putin needs Trojan horses for this,” said Kolář. The worst is the relativisation of the war in Ukraine.

The public debate brought up more specific proposals on how Central Europe could help Ukraine to not only meet the measures of hard economic reforms but also to support the ever closer integration of Ukraine’s society with Europe. Besides boosting regional economic cooperation, the V4 countries could collaborate with their Eastern neighbour at the micro-level to include towns, cities, schools and universities, create student exchange programmes or develop joint cultural events. Speakers highlighted that especially Slovakia has the potential to play a very active role in helping Ukraine to stabilise and modernise its systems, particularly regarding energy, economy, the fight against corruption and excessive bureaucracy. At the end of the public debate, the panellists concluded that Ukrainian crisis has no military solution, but rather diplomatic. They further suggested publishing a common narrative of Central European history written by prominent Central European historians for the broader public to have access to a well-rounded and objective view at the historical development in the region.

„There is a part of Russia which is against the occupation of Crimea and Donbas, and who do not like Putin’s policy. This is not Russian policy but Kremlin policy,” said Professor Zubov, who was expelled from Moscow State University because of his criticism of the annexation of Crimea. Reacting to a question from the audience, Mr Zubov explained he had no plans to emmigrate from Russia: “I have to be with my nation, my students.”

GLOBSEC 2015 Tweets

GLOBSEC 2015 Tweets UK Prime Minister @number10gov Read the PM's speech from Global Security Forum in full: ow.ly/OxAv0 Dalibor Rohac @daliborrohac @edwardlucas challenges @David_Cameron: tough talk on #russia good, but why do we let russian oligarchs launder money in #uk? #GLOBSEC2015 John McCain @senjohnmccain Good being @GLOBSEC in #Bratislava today to discuss US policy in Europe. GLOBSEC @globsec The conference room is full! Speakers: @SenJohnMcCain, @SenJohnBarrasso and @SenTomCotton Miroslav Lajčák @miroslavlajcak Prestigious #GLOBSEC2015 opens in #Slovakia for 10th time,looking fwd 2opening it at 12:30(CEST) Радыё Свабода @svaboda @carlbildt at #GLOBSEC2015 Minsk agreements cannot be implemented without international peace-keepers in Donbass Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović @kolindagk Talking to @euronews' Isabelle Kumar in Bratislava #GLOBSEC2015 Michał Baranowski @m_baranowski PM Orban: I don't believe in European solutions to border security and migration challenges. #GLOBSEC2015 Not exactly received well. Andrej Kiska @andrej_kiska Speaking about refugees, there are no easy solutions. But it would be unfair to leave it to the most exposed states. #GLOBSEC2015 Falah Mustafa @falahmustafa During meeting w/ @UNIraq Amb.Kubiš, confirmed UN support to est.1.8 million IDPs/Refugees in Kurdistan Alexander Vershbow @natodsg Looking ahead, #NATO will build ability to deal with hybrid attacks. We must be better at sharing info, making quick decisions. Marcin Zaborowski @mazaborowski @TomaszSiemoniak #GLOBSEC2015: Energy is relevant for security, in the future defence ministers may deal with it pic.twitter.com/k1Sh5ribR9 GLOBSEC @globsec @MarosSefcovic How to change the mindset of our national decision makers so they think more regional approaches?

Martin Michelot @polyesterfreak President Ilves argues that “we are victims of mental geography”. Most especially the way West treats Cent & Eastern Europe #GLOBSEC2015 Alex Znatkevich @alexznatkevich If Martian landed in Russia, he'd decide the country prepares for a war. - Robert Pszczel @NATOmoscow at #GLOBSEC2015 Wojciech Lorenz @lorenzwojciech #GLOBSEC2015 sen. John Barrasso: president Obama made our enemies fear us less and our allies trust us less as well Phillip Blond @phillip_blond In the fight against fundamentalism our agencies never deal with religion they always argue a sociological rationale for jihad #GLOBSEC2015 CEPA @cepa @SenJohnMcCain #Russia is very effective in #propaganda and #cyberattacks Andreja Bogdanovski @bogdanovskia #Macedonia is also becoming increasingly present on #Russia's #propaganda radar. Its new to us. Visegrad Insight @visegradinsight @Viktor_Orban Future European prosperity depends on the stability of political leadership New Eastern Europe @neweasteurope @carlbildt: If the West gets fragmented, #Russia will probably move. #Putin is more opportunistic than strategic.#GLOBSEC2015 Jonathan Eyal @JEyal_RUSI Two-thirds of security specialists at #GLOBSEC2015 believe we are not winning the propaganda war with Russia Milan Nic @milann_sk If you haven't had enough of #GLOBSEC2015, read GL @cepolicy policy papers: http://www.globsec.org/ globsec2015/policy-papers Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda #GLOBSEC2015 is the best thing in CEE this year. Great debates among experts. Shame so few CEE mid-level politicians attend it. Gosia Grzegrzolka @ggrzegrzolka #GLOBSEC2015 has come to an end. A fantastic event! Congratulations to the whole team of @GLOBSEC. Well done! Edward Lucas @edwardlucas Sad to leave #GLOBSEC2015 - honoured to chair/ debate alongside stars like Snyder Zubov @IlvesToomas - many thanks to organisers !

About us Slovak Atlantic Commission Slovak Atlantic Commission (SAC) was founded in 1993, shortly after Slovakia became an independent state, by a group of diplomats. SAC supports transatlantic cooperation and actively shapes the security and international policy debate in Central Europe and beyond by fostering dynamic involvement of the Slovak Republic and Central Europe in international affairs. Activities of SAC consist of three core programmes: « Strategic Forums programme provides platforms for advancing Central Europe’s point of view in European and transatlantic foreign and security policy-making through events such as GLOBSEC Bratislava Global Security Forum, Château Béla Central European Strategic Forum and several other meetings, roundtables and discussions. « Transfer of Know-How programme reaches out to transitional nations in Eastern and South Eastern Europe. Its mission is to provide assistance and  inspiration to transitional nations on their path to democracy and stability.   « Youth Leadership Programme assists young professionals in the field of international relations, security and politics in fulfilling their leadership  potential and improve their professional performance. It seeks to enable them to apply their experience in areas of their professional activity.

Centre for European Affairs Centre for European Affairs (CEA) was officially founded in September 2011 as a sister organisation of the Slovak Atlantic Commission. It is now a full member of the Central European Strategy Council. CEA focuses on economic, financial and political aspects of the EU integration dynamics, strategic EU policies and puts a notable accent on Slovak positions within the processes of decision-making and agenda-setting on both local and European levels. The ultimate goal of CEA is to present and support a credible Slovak platform for European policy-shaping, which will be of utmost importance not only on the path towards the Slovak EU Presidency in 2016 but also in further integration process. Since its establishment, CEA has been working on three major projects – TATRA SUMMIT, QUARTETORIUM and the National Convention on the European Union.

Central European Policy Institute Central European Policy Institute (CEPI) is a regional think tank launched by SAC in 2013. Its mission is to help decision-makers and opinion-makers in Central Europe enhance regional approach to current challenges, and strengthen their voice in relevant EU and NATO debates. CEPI’s work is organised around three pillars: Security and Defence Policy, Visegrad Group in the EU and Eastern Europe Programmes are already operational. A new Energy & Geopolitics Programme is being launched this year. CEPI produces publications, organises policy workshops and undertakes advocacy activities in Bratislava, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw and Brussels.

Amb. Rastislav Káčer

Róbert Vass

Milan Solár

Honorary President Central European Strategy Council; Ambassador of the Slovak Republic in Budapest

Executive Vice-President; Central European Strategy Council; Founder of the GLOBSEC Forum

GLOBSEC Director; Managing Director, Slovak Atlantic Commission

Organizer

Strategic Partners

Main Institutional Partners

★★★★

Institutional Partners

Exclusive Partner

General Partners

Content Partners

Main Partners

Partners

EXCLUSIVE AUTOMOTIVE PARTNER

VENUE PROVIDED BY

Media Partners

MOBILE EVENT APP

Klariskรก Klariskรก 14 14 811 03 Bratislava 811 03 Bratislava Slovak Republic Slovak Republic Phone/Fax: +421 2 544 Phone/Fax: +421 2 5441 06 106 09 09 sac@ata-sac.org sac@ata-sac.org

www.globsec.org | www.ata-sac.org www.globsec.org | www.ata-sac.org