Commentary: Georgia and NATO, ever closer but not yet together

A major NATO summit in Warsaw concluded this weekend, with a strongly worded communiqué pledging support to eastern European allies against Russian threats at a time leaders are ramping up defence spending in an increasingly uncertain world.

"We remain committed in our support for the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova,” said the NATO statement. More support was pledged to Georgia and Ukraine at the summit, and deeper military links agreed.

As expected, the Summit did not give Georgia a Membership Action Plan (MAP), widely seen as a requisite step for membership. This despite it being in many respects a model NATO partner, participating in joint military operations and working with NATO command structures. Montenegro, a newer NATO ally compared to Georgia, was invited to join in December. Yet the Summit Communique makes it clear that the door for full NATO membership remains open for Georgia, and its contribution to the Atlantic alliance is now increasingly recognised.

In a visit to Tbilisi last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry, in meetings with Georgia’s prime minister and president, pledged more military cooperation in a memorandum which went further than previous US-Georgia military agreements, which mainly focused on joint military operations.

"The memorandum… will support the acquisition of defense and related articles to improve the interoperability, sustainability and deployability of Georgia’s forces… to be able to work and cooperate with the other forces of NATO," said Kerry.

Further steps to increase NATO-Georgia security capabilities were announced in Warsaw. “Support to the development of Georgia’s air defence and air surveillance” was one of the things pledged in a joint statement. Air defence is an area in which increased cooperation is particularly important, said Tina Khidasheli, Georgia’s defence minister. “We have been asking NATO for additional capabilities and, even more important, integration into NATO’s system, and that’s what we received [in Warsaw],” she said.

NATO said ‘significant progress’ has been made on implementing the Substantial NATO Georgia Package introduced at the last NATO summit in Wales in 2014, with a Joint Training and Evaluation Centre (JTEC) inaugurated in Georgia, and many experts from NATO allied countries travelling to the country to advise on issues such as cyber defence and aviation.

At a time when the number of global threats is increasing, there are signs of a reverse to a long-term downward trend in defence spending by European powers. However, only the United States, Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece hit the NATO target of two percent of GDP going on defence spending each year. 

"The majority of allies are still not hitting that two percent mark," said President Obama. "So we had a very candid conversation about this.” The American president was recorded as saying “free riders aggravate me” with reference to the NATO commitment, in an interview with the Atlantic earlier this year. "In good times, and in bad, Europe can count on the United States. Always," he said in the Polish capital.

France and Germany have recently announced plans for multiyear increases in defence spending, after years of cuts. “We still have a long way to go. But I believe that we have turned a corner,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Warsaw.

NATO is strengthening its operations security in the Black Sea region, which is especially important to regional stability given a sharp increase in terrorism in Turkey over the past year, and continued fighting in Ukraine.

"We’re bolstering our efforts on NATO’s southern flank,” said Obama in Warsaw. "We’re going to do more to help partners from North Africa to the Middle East to Georgia strengthen their own defence capacity.”

NATO and the United States both reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine at a time when there is still ongoing fighting in the east of the country. “The U.S.-Ukraine defense relationship is transitioning from ‘crisis-response’ to an enduring partnership aimed at developing more capable, NATO-interoperable Ukrainian Armed Forces,” said a White House statement at the weekend. A NATO ‘Comprehensive Assistance Package’ to Ukraine was unveiled in Warsaw, which will offer advisory and practical support, as well as funds.

Many analysts and observers said Britain’s recent vote to leave the European Union cast a shadow over the summit. Although ‘Brexit’ will not directly impact on NATO, such a radical change to the world order is likely to have deep and unpredictable consequences for years to come. "We are at a NATO meeting, but most of the discussions have not been about NATO issues, they have been about the outcome of the referendum and the consequences," said Philip Hammond, Britain’s foreign minister.

Some Georgians are worrying that increasing Euroscepticism at the heart of Europe – not just in Britain but also in Germany and France – will mean focus will move away from countries like Georgia, and European leaders will be unwilling to spend political capital on expanding alliances and commitments overseas.

Many Georgians feel understandably feel let down by the EU and NATO in recent months. The EU long said a visa-free deal for Georgian tourists was on the cards, but postponed it last month. This was ostensibly to ensure more safeguards are in place, but more likely because of domestic political concerns, as well as because of German concerns on a Georgian deal’s implications on a potential Ukrainian peace agreement.

Georgia has made all the relevant demands NATO requires in order to become a fully-fledged member, and contributes more to NATO’s international operations than many existing members. However a MAP is not on the horizon despite NATO saying Georgia has “all the practical tools to prepare for eventual membership” in December.

“We welcome the significant progress realised since 2008.  Georgia’s relationship with the Alliance contains all the practical tools to prepare for eventual membership,” said the NATO final statement. “This year’s parliamentary elections will be another key step towards the consolidation of democratic institutions.”

During the Warsaw summit six major Georgian political parties, in a significant display of unity during an election campaign, issued a joint statement affirming support for NATO aspirations. Although opposition to NATO is more widespread than in recent years in Georgia, there continues to be a widespread political consensus. 

“We stand united on one principle: that Georgia is a sovereign, independent state, and the Georgian people are committed to building a European democracy that cherishes freedom, economic opportunity, and security, and aspires to full membership in all Euro-Atlantic institutions,” the joint statement said. 

The signatories include the ruling Georgian Dream party, coalition partner the Republican Party, main opposition party United National Movement, and three smaller parties.

“We believe that Georgia’s membership in NATO will positively affect the process of Georgian statecraft, as well as contribute to security and stability in the wider region.”

This a commentary by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)