By George Niculescu,
Head of Research, The European Geopolitical Forum

Why use the OSCE to take a “jibe” at you know who ?

When on 6 December 2012, in the margins of the OSCE ministerial meeting in Dublin, the US state secretary Ms. Hillary Clinton warned about "a new effort by oppressive governments to "re-Sovietize" much of Eastern Europe and Central Asia" , many observers of Eurasian affairs might have wondered why she lashed out at Russia just before meeting foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss the Syrian crisis. READ MORE

• George Niculescu  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 08.01.2013  |  Markets
•  

In this research, we attempt to take a more pragmatic approach towards the topic of the conflict resolution process between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. We believe this process remains in a dangerous state of stalemate at the time of writing. More specifically, we ask whether economic incentives could help break the current deadlock. In order to do this, we posed a series of questions to a notable range of international experts familiar with the conflict, asking as to whether an approach towards conflict resolution where Armenia would return some land to Azerbaijan in return for the latter providing access to regional energy and infrastructure projects could contribute towards breaking the stalemate. The “return of land”, in the context of our research, refers primarily to the seven districts of Azerbaijan which Armenian forces took during the Karabakh war of the 1990s and which remains under Armenian control to this day. We do not assume the “return of land” to mean the return of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave itself. At the outset of our research, we were optimistic that the “economic incentives” approach could offer a fresh dimension to conflict resolution in relation to the current stalemate over Nagorno-Karabakh. We felt that all parties could exercise a degree of “Caucasus pragmatism” if the right arguments were appropriately presented to governments and public, bearing in mind the widespread desire to see the region “take off” economically. Click here to read more.

• EGF Editorial  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 27.10.2012  |  External Relations
•  

Introduction
Debates about the geopolitical, geo-economic and strategic significance of the wider-Black Sea (WBS) region have become fashionable amongst Western policy makers and the international scholarly community since the end of the Cold War. While the Black Sea represented a “front line” in the stand-off between rival superpower blocks during an age which now seems to have slipped into the bygone days of our youth, the major geopolitical realignments which have taken place in Eurasia during the last two decades have evidently led to our “re-discovery” of one of the world’s most historically significant geostrategic playing fields. READ MORE

• Marat Terterov and George Niculescu  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 31.07.2012  |  External Relations
•  

• Dr. Oktay Tanrisever  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 27.07.2012  |  External Relations
•  

The dynamics of NATO's role in the South Caucasus has been considered against the backdrop of the Wider Black Sea since both geopolitical and policy reasons make the South Caucasus a too narrow geopolitical scope for the analysis of NATO's policies. In fact, in contrast to the situation before the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, the South Caucasus is currently very rarely referred as such in NATO's statements, except for the cases where the Alliance is expressing concerns over the settlement of the "frozen conflicts". READ MORE

• George Vlad Niculescu  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 08.03.2012  |  External Relations
•  

Executive Summary
On Monday, May 16, 2011, The European Geopolitical Forum staged a roundtable discussion on the “Changing Dynamics of the Wider Black Sea in Regional Security and External Relations” at the Brussels School of International Studies, University of Kent. The roundtable featured key international speakers: Dr. Andrej Kreutz (Canada), renowned international relations specialist and author of the recent book, “Russia in the Middle East: Friend or Foe?”; and Igor Muradyan (Armenia), an acclaimed public commentator on the geopolitics and geo-economics of the Black Sea-Caucasus-Caspian area. The roundtable discussion also drew participation of officials from the Turkish Embassy in Belgium, NATO International Staff Political Affairs and Security Policy Division (IS PASP), the Mission of Ukraine to European Union, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO, the Energy Charter Secretariat, TUSIAD, the Armenian Federation of Europe, the Centre for East European and Asian Studies (Romania) and several other interested stakeholders. READ MORE

• EGF Editorial  |  Опубликовано на EGF: 13.11.2011  |  Security
•