1. Experts on Central and Eastern Europe

in Balkans 2018 · Baltics 2018 · Economics 2018 · EN · Europe 2018 · EX-USSR · Germany 2018 · Great Britain 2018 · Industry 2018 · Moldova 2018 · Nation 2018 · Politics 2018 · Polska 2018 · Skepticism 2018 · State 2018 · Ukraine 2018 373 views / 9 comments
          
95% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию

Balkans        Belarus     Danube        Europe           Russia           Ukraine            Ex-USSR         Moldova       Polska

GEOMETR.IT  neweasterneurope.eu

 

  * Successful reforming is the key to security of Central and Eastern Europe 

Region suffering from security deficit 

Despite the different foreign policy goals and orientations, the six post-Soviet countries united within the EU Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy are interconnected in geopolitical and security perspectives and experience significant pressure from Russia that seeks to retain them in its sphere of influence.

Moldova’s region of Transnistria, Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as Ukraine’s Crimea and certain areas of Donbas are all occupied by Russian troops. Armenia and Azerbaijan continue a bloody dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, both receiving military support from Moscow. Thus far, out of the six EaP countries only Belarus has avoided a territorial conflict; yet Minsk pays a high price by having to prove its loyalty to Moscow which includes providing land and resources for the provocative anti-western military drills such as “Zapad-2017”.

Hence, it is no wonder that 98 per cent of experts interviewed by the East European Security Research Initiative Foundation (EESRI) in December 2017 considered Russia’s aggressive policy as the largest external threat to the security of EaP countries.

Among other important external threats named were the following: regional conflicts (61%); tensions with neighbouring countries including those driven by growing populist sentiments (47%); location of the EaP states at the centre of the NATO–CSTO/Russia competing interests (39%) and of the EU–EEU/Russia competing interests (21%).

What are the major external threats to security of the Eastern Partnership countries? (No more than three options)

None less important was to identify the factors that most negatively influenced the capabilities of the EaP countries to address external threats.

It is noteworthy that besides the obvious lack of reliable international mechanisms and security guarantees (53%), the experts chose a set of domestic issues, such as internal institutional weakness and high levels of corruption (44%);

oligarchic models of the EaP states (32%);

weak economies and low living standards (26%);

and weakness of democratic institutions (24%).

Reforms on the top of agenda

Answering the question as to “What kind of external assistance is most needed to strengthen security of the EaP countries?”, a relative majority of the experts chose the option not directly related to security: “Assistance in creating anti-corruption bodies and in reforming legal systems” (52%).

The next three most popular options were also related to reforms: 48% of the experts pointed to the need for external assistance in reforming armed forces and military training; 37% indicated the need for advisory support in the reforms, including in security and the defence sector; and 35% pointed to the need for assistance in reforming democratic institutions.

At the same time, the options “Arms assistance including with lethal weapons” (26%), and “Financial aid/loans/investments” (24%) were less of priorities. Surely, it is not about the underestimation of the importance of weapons and money, but about the first priority of the reforms agenda.

What kind of external assistance is most needed to strengthen security of the EaP countries? (No more than three options

Symptomatically while answering the question “What measures could NATO take to strengthen security in the Eastern Partnership region?” the experts more often chose the option “Assistance in reforming security and defence sector” (69%) than “Granting aspirant status to countries seeking membership” (45%).

A similar situation was in the answers to the question about the measures which the European Union could take: the experts more often pointed to “Assistance in economic and social reforms” (55%) than to “Granting membership prospects to the EaP countries seeking membership” (44%).

* The publication is not an editorial. It reflects solely the point of view and argumentation of the author. The publication is presented in the presentation. Start in the previous issue. The original is available at: neweasterneurope.eu

 * * *

GEOMETR.IT

Почему русские покидают Европу? 20.02.2018

УНИРЯ. Подкожная политика румын  20.02.2018

СЕРБИЯ: Нас на конвульсию не возьмёшь, товарищ 20.02.2018

Дэн Сяопин и Си Цзиньпин  20.02.2018

Konferencji Bezpieczeństwa: co to za «steel tanks?  20.02.2018

Dreams for Visegrad, nightmares for Berlin  20.02.2018

Willy Wimmer über München Sicherheitskonferenz  20.02.2018

GEOMETR.IT

 

9 Comments

  1. Many countries in the region have aging populations, while younger workers have moved to Germany, the UK and elsewhere in search of better jobs and higher pay. The EBRD warned that a scarcity of skilled workers could hold back growth over coming years.

  2. f you were to believe everyone you talked to, you would conclude that Eastern Europe just doesn’t exist! When pressed, Eastern Europeans admit that Eastern Europe exists, but they all believe that the region starts just east of whatever country they happen to live in. I like this definition. My father was French, so Eastern Europe, for me, starts in Germany. Sorry, Germans.

  3. They just want a simple binary division (thereby eliminating the concept of a central region). For example, if you want to divide the US with a north-south split, you would probably use the old Civil War dividing lines. If you want a simple east-west split, you would use the Mississippi River, even though it’s an imperfect split.

  4. I´m from the Czech republic, which is located in CENTRAL europe along with: Germany, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary,
    If you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO divide Europe into east and west, than I am ok with being on the east side, it makes sense to be with other slavic countries on the east side, BUT in your article you don´t use “Eastern Europe” as a geografical statement, but as a political statement, and THAT is what pisses most “Eastern” *cough CENTRAL cough* europeans off. After the fall of comunism and in the 25 years that followed, some countries prospered (Czech rep., Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia,) while other didn´t and remained poor (Moldova, Albania, Ukraine)

  5. why don’t people classify Austria as Eastern Europe?
    It was pretty much surrounded on 3 sides by the Eastern bloc in the cold war era, it used to be part of an empire including Hungary, Sertbia and Czechoslovakia, its architecture seems to tie it to those countries, and its economic history is tied up with the Danube, which flows east.

  6. Those terms West and East Europe had their meaning in the past when there was a clear division in Europe with countries belong to Wester or Eastern military alliance

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from

Priorytety V4

* Grupa Wyszechradzka o granicach w UE: Frontex powinien być tylko wsparciem

Balkanausbruch

* Das Mazedonien-Referendum ist ein Schlag ins Gesicht progressiver Politik.
Go to Top