Black Sea Security and Geopolitics in 21st Century: From Theory into Practice - A “New Cold War” Scenario
Black Sea Security and Geopolitics in 21st Century:
From Theory into Practice - A “New Cold War” Scenario
Dr. Vakhtang
Maisaia
Professor, Deputy
Director of the Center for International Studies
Abstract: The Black Sea
region is increasingly becoming a priority on the international agenda. In
fact, a regional approach is emerging as actors understand that common problems
need to be addressed jointly. Nevertheless, cooperation efforts are hampered by
a number of factors, such as uneven economic and political development within
and among countries, nationalist forces, and longstanding animosities between
regional players. In this context, it is imperative to foster sound policies
aimed at strengthening dialogue and cooperation so as to contain and ultimately
resolve conflicts with peaceful means. However, there is little policy-oriented
research on the challenges and opportunities for cooperation in the Black Sea
region. The
purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of terrorism and its dangers
towards the Black Sea region. The work also describes the significance of
international terrorism and its general definitions. Besides, the result and
findings are based on theoretical studies and assumptions and the result of the
analysis of the "Case Study" of the Black Sea region. Case study
examines how the Black Sea region influences the spread of terrorism and what
threats it poses for this region. Furthermore, the aspects of what makes the
region important on international arena are analyzed and the existent and
potential security issues are examined, as well as strategic importance of the
region for the EU and NATO is analyzed even from academic framework – “Securitization”
theory[1]. The theory is based
on security studies conceptual background and the background spectrum includes:
the Copenhagen School and Critical security studies as the type[2]. Moreover, the Black
Sea regional security and geopolitics are to be reviewed and scrutinized in
several modalities in aegis of the Securitization theory, like military and
economic sectors. In addition to that the Black Sea Region has to contend with numerous threats of
a conventional and non-conventional kind. These hard and soft security problems
make the region volatile, insecure and unstable. That is why the region is very vital for inter-governmental
organizations, dealing with military security (NATO case) and local actors in
case of Georgia’s national security.
Key words: Black Sea region, Copenhagen
School, Critical security studies, Securitization, NATO, EU, Georgia’s national
security
Introduction
The Black Sea Region is one of the main factors in
the make-up of security and stability in Europe and Asia. In addition to the
numerous other issues in the region, ethnic conflicts, ongoing state-building
processes, the presence of vast natural resources, and strategic transport and
energy corridors mean that the region is an extremely important and sensitive
area.
In geographical terms it is difficult to specify
the boundaries of the Black Sea Region, since there are numerous regional and
sub-regional structures. In the post-Cold War period there has been a large
measure of openness to several neighboring areas, such as the Mediterranean,
the Balkans, and the Caspian region. This kind of openness makes it difficult
to define both the nature of the region and its borders. It is reflected in
terms such as “Black-Caspian Seas Region” and “Black-Mediterranean Seas Region”.
Some analysts have even argued that the Black Sea Region is simply an
intellectual invention. In order to avoid confusion, this policy report is
based on the definition adopted by the Organization of the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation (BSEC). The Black Sea Region is one of the main factors in the
make-up of security and stability in Europe and Asia. In addition to the
numerous other issues in the region, ethnic conflicts, ongoing state-building
processes, the presence of vast natural resources, and strategic transport and
energy corridors mean that the region is an extremely important and sensitive
area.
In geographical terms it is difficult to specify
the boundaries of the Black Sea Region, since there are numerous regional and
sub-regional structures. In the post-Cold War period there has been a large
measure of openness to several neighboring areas, such as the Mediterranean,
the Balkans, and the Caspian region. This kind of openness makes it difficult
to define both the nature of the region and its borders. It is reflected in
terms such as “Black-Caspian Seas Region” and “Black-Mediterranean Seas Region”.
Some analysts have even argued that the Black Sea Region is simply an
intellectual invention. In order to avoid confusion, this policy report is
based on the definition adopted by the Organization of the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation (BSEC).
At the end of the Cold War, the states around the
Black Sea regained their freedom and escaped from a bipolar conceptual
straitjacket. This historical event not only marked the start of a move towards
independence, democracy and market economy, but also unleashed hitherto
suppressed ethnic, national and territorial conflicts, and even terrorism. From
the early 1990s onwards the region witnessed armed conflicts and an increase in
political tension. Political and territorial disagreements such as border disputes
and clashes between both peoples and states are the main reason why the
prospects for regional security cooperation are rather bleak. The Black Sea
basin was of secondary importance for the Euro-Atlantic community during the
1990s as it focused on stabilizing and integrating central and eastern European
countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea. However, in the 21st century the
changing global and regional balances created new political and security
dilemmas for the Black Sea Region. The global and regional powers increasingly
supported competing political and security agendas which, although they
occasionally contradicted each other, were clearly interlinked.
After 11 September 2001 the US increased its
involvement in the region, for example with new programs in Georgia and
Ukraine. This went hand in hand with the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) enlargement processes and global political
developments. The differing approaches to the creation of security and
stability in the region led to tension and rivalry between the regional actors.
In the post-Cold War period, the Black Sea Region
failed to develop a cooperative security vision or structure in which the
regional actors would have been the principal stakeholders. The
Russian-Georgian War in August 2008 showed quite clearly that the initiatives
designed to pacify the region had not produced a security system capable of
preventing or containing internal and interstate conflicts. One lesson that can
be learned from the August 2008 crisis is that the interplay of regional and
global forces will continue to dominate future political and military issues in
the region. It remains to be seen whether the war in August 2008 will lead to a
new cooperative security environment in the Black Sea Region. Finally, all
kinds of security issues ranging from energy security to environmental
degradation and from terrorism to illegal trafficking in arms, human beings and
drugs continue to be unresolved as a result of international rivalry.
Another important issue is energy security. The
need to achieve energy supply diversity on the one hand and the risks
associated with energy dependency on Russia on the other show the importance of
gas and oil from other sources being piped to the European markets through the
region. The energy dispute between Russia and Ukraine in late 2008 and early
2009 clearly illustrated the importance of energy security for the region and
the EU. In addition to exploration, production and transport-related problems,
oil and natural gas have become one of the main security issues in the Black
Sea Region, which as the principal energy transit route, is also a testing
ground for the interaction between producer, consumer and transit countries.
This means that the region is not only a potential hub. There are also numerous
rivalries.
Finally, a number of problems associated with soft
security issues which range from environmental concerns to the potential for
social unrest and economic collapse need to be analyzed, especially if there is
a likelihood that they will disrupt political stability and security in the
region. Potential destabilizing threats such as the global financial crisis
also need to be kept under review, as does the impact of the crisis on the
countries in the region or on the redefinition of the roles of the regional powers,
and the opportunities arising from a redefinition of the global economic
environment.
By and large, the Black Sea region is also
increasing of geoeconomic importance especially with regard to developing
energy security provisions in aegis of the European Union via the import and
providing transit opportunities from the Caspian Basin, Middle East and Central
Asia and becoming somekind of energy gateway that is so important for providing
and fostering security and stability implications in the Pan-European Area. It
is interesting to underpin that energy security in Wider Black Sea region is defined
by the concrete scientific and academic analytical school approaches reflected
in international relations, like interdependence theory[3].
Geopolitical Classification of the Black Sea Region – Wider
Black Sea Implication for the World Politics
In above mentioned passage was depicted
geographical implications for the Black Sea region but due to the geopolitical
transmission and transformation after bipolar system demolition in contemporary
international relations the regional security is being increased steadily. There
are several indications why the region has become so important and unique not
only in Cold War period but mostly afterwards. Here is to mention first of all
very unique geopolitical implication of the region. The region is applicable
with primary accessibility to “Three Oceans” line (Nord, Atlantic and Indian
Oceans – see Map#1) via gateways Black Sea Basin, Persian Gulf and Central
Eurasia. Moreover, concrete geopolitical determinants of importance of the
region is considered with three main criteria having pure geopolitical
meaning.
Map#1: The Black Sea Region applicability toward
“Three Oceans” line
These unique geopolitical indications are sought
to be as following:
1)
Combination of three concepts:
Talasokratia+Telurokratia+Montekratia
2)
“Eurasian Balkan” acronym for spurring new asymmetric
challenges
3)
Key international energy gateway providing unlimited delivery
of energy resources to international markets
Nevertheless the geopolitical implication is only
so-called “macro” level of analysis and is fitted to Pan-regional
classification and global political relevance of the region. In order to
provide so-called “micro” level of analysis and importance of the region in aegis
of the regional and local implications there are some approaches to make
classification of the Black Sea region. The classification is based on
classical geopolitical identification similar that of British geopolitical
school founder Professor Helford Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory”. According to
his theory Mackinder defined the global geopolitical system into three main
territorial areas: “Pivot Area” (or another way “Heartland”), “Inner or
Marginal Crescent” and “Lands of the Outer or Insular Crescent”[4].
Even Mackinder endorsed simplistic
dictum upon based on which he identified then world order:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World[5]”.
In this respect, based on the classical
geopolitical methodology is possible to define geopolitical identification of
the Black Sea region. Having considered the above-mentioned passage is
necessary to figure out the following possible configuration. The configuration
is clearly identified regional geopolitical architecture in three concrete
circles, similar of British classical geopolitical school approach:
Black Sea
Basin – “Inner Core” Ring – namely six littoral states
of the Black Sea itself (Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Russian
Federation);
Black Sea
Region – “Outer Core Ring” – the land and seascape
from the Balkans to the Caucasus and fro Ukrainian and Russian steppe to
Anatolia;
Wider Black
Sea Region (Area) – “Close Outer” Ring – the territory encompasses
the following geopolitical spaces MENA, Caspian Basin, South and Eastern
Europe.
Considering the geopolitical classification is
important to clarify the dispositional characteristics of the regional
“circles”. The scheme means demonstrating true geopolitical content each of the
“circles” – for instance, Black Sea Basin associated with
“Talassokratia[6]”
geopolitics, Black Sea Region - associated with “Montecracy[7]”
geopolitics and Wider Black Sea Area (Region) – associated with “Telurokratia[8]”
geopolitics. Roughly this is geopolitical modality of the Black Sea region and
follow up the British geopolitical school founder Mackinder’s dictum is very
possible to create the same version for the regional dimension and if the
dictum exists, the one is to be as follow:
“Who rules
Black Sea Basin commands the Eurasia (Post-Soviet Space):
Who rules
Black Sea Region commands the Pan-Europe:
Who rules
Wider Black Sea Region commands the World Politics”.
This interesting approach is really containing historical
provisions detrimental influenced the regional geopolitics. The most important
and critical challenge is the fact that there are a large number of actors and
clashing interests within the Black Sea Region. In security terms the region
suffers from several historical legacies. The Black Sea Region used to be
treated as a ‘passive area’ and analyzed as the periphery of more significant
geographical units. Thus the Black Sea basin has been variously described as
the backyard of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, as an extension of Soviet zone
of influence, as the frontier of Europe, and, finally, as the extension of the
Mediterranean world. Moreover, the existence of several distinct sub-regions
within the Black Sea Region, i.e. the Caucasus, the Balkans and to a certain
extent the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, is another factor
that destabilizes the area. Time and again sub-regional identities have
prevented the emergence of a Black Sea identity, created instability, and
impeded the establishment of a comprehensive regional security framework. There are both
regional and non-regional actors in the Black Sea Region, and three principal
actors exert varying degrees of influence on the available security policy
options (reflection of the passage is
below). At present time, The Black Sea region is becoming very important one to world
markets because it has large oil and gas reserves that are only now bargaining
to be fully developed (taking in consideration of energy resources of
Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, Romania, Russia, transit potency of Georgia, Bulgaria,
Turkey and very closed disposition toward the Caspian Basin). Developing these
resources has resulted in competition both between companies to get the
contracts to develop this potential, and between nations to determine the final
export routes. According to experts of the RAND Corporation the Caspian oil
potential today is 2% of the world's total (Venezuela has one-fourth of such
reserves; Iraq, one-seventh; and Saudi Arabia, one-seventeenth). Therefore, the
Caspian Sea region's oil and gas potential and the Black Sea region's
transition ability have attracted much attention since the breakup of the
Soviet Union. Due to the unique geopolitical location, the Black Sea region
interlines four very important areas: the Middle East, the Central Europe, the
Central Asia and Western Europe thus more raising political status of the
region for the international society. The nations in the Black Sea region and
nearby "gateways" (term used by the American scientist Saul B. Cohen[9]
and in this context means geographical one for key passages of the Black Sea
for shipping of oil and gas)-the Caucasus - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine,
Turkey, Romania, Russia, Bulgaria are already major energy producers and
exporters, and production will increase with additional investment, technology,
and the development of new export outlets. The Caspian Sea is 700 miles long
and contains 6 separate hydrocarbon basins. However, the Caspian Sea strategic
reserves importance is difficult to consider by exclusion of the South-East
Europe and the South Caucasus regions. The South Caucasus' strategic importance
cannot be overestimated: it is a link between the North and the South (Russia
and the Persian Gulf), it is a source of oil and gas for the European and
Pacific markets[10].
Besides one should perceive the regional geopolitical perspective. The Caucasus
has an important geopolitical role to play as a link between the North and the
South (Central Eurasia, which is Russia, and the Middle East) and the West and
the East (Western Europe-the Balkans-the Caucasus-Central Asia-Southeast
Asia-the Far East). The true mechanism of managing the "resources"
distribution requires stable and cohesive political stability and basement. It
drives all nations to engage into a new relationship mechanism and by joint
effort to build democracy, free-minded society and rigid statehood. Otherwise
to say the broader Black
Sea-Caspian-Central Asian dimension, bringing in all countries of the Black
Sea and Caspian Sea, would be based on the existing mechanism of the
Organization for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) of which the
countries of the Caucasus and the South-East Europe are members. The BSEC
organization itself would be upgraded in operationally, with full membership
now appropriate for the EU in view of the status of Bulgaria, Romania and
Turkey as accession candidates, and possible association links with the South
Caucasus as well as their membership in the NATO. The institutionalization
might be laying foundation for further development of the Black Sea reserves
exploitation to benefit all participated nations and societies. This is a real
chance for the regionalization success achievement and integrative negotiation
ends.
Military Dimension of The Wider Black Sea Regional Security:
NATO and Russia’s “New Cold War” Competition
Threat assessment criteria is being considered as
the most prevalent academic instrument in reaching true realms of logics of
international relations. In the 21st century threat identification
has determined and transformed into concrete systematic modality. Having
considering the “Copenhagen School” securitization concept where there are five
ring of security provisions that are enlisted in the following way:
Political
Security
Military
Security
Economic
Security
Society
Security
Environment
Security
Therefore with enumerating “five ring” provision
in 20-21st century’s two academic sub-fields in international
relations have been emerged. Namely, Strategic and Security studies as a whole,
represented the most important contribution to the research of security issues
in aegis of the political science. Even today, some authors consider them to be
the only real research platform in the area of research of security[11].
In that manner is important of true classification of threat identification
that could be clarified in manner of: threat-challenge-risk. However, the
classification is still plausible and general and yet to have confirmed in
academic and analytical methodology frame. Nevertheless, there are two types of
the threat that is already identified but in general way – symmetric and
asymmetric threats[12].
Namely, military security dimension is more
applicable for analyzing situation and importance of the region in aegis of
international politics. Treating the region from the military perspective is
necessary introduce a jargon “Geostrategic Gateway - space or area vitally important from global
security and military perspectives, like “southern limited flank” in aegis of
the CFE Treaty of Istanbul OSCE Summit. Relatively the Black Sea regional
security is referred as “Geostrategic Gateway” mainly due to contemporary “New
Cold War” provision where a coercive competition between NATO and Russia for
getting dominance over the Black Sea region.
Due to the
strain relations between the West and Russia, from one standpoint an economic
war between EU/USA and Russia via sanction policy level and a military
confrontation between NATO and Russia via demonstration “military muscles”
between competing forces. In that scope, mainly NATO-Russia military
confrontation one of the dangerous “combat zone” is sought to be the Black Sea
Basin and its littoral territories which is labeled as the “Black Sea Security
Dimension”. The flawed geostrategic situation in the area is making possible to
deteriorate geostrategic environment in the area further on and the indication
derives from those actions taken by the Kremlin incumbent authority. As it is
known, on July 27th 2015 a new naval doctrine was declared and later
approved by the President of the Russian Federation. This document has
identified new version or interpretation of the military doctrine that was
approved by the National Security Council in December of 2015. The naval
doctrine has identified strategic areas and basins, such as the Artic and the
so-called “Atlantic” direction, which includes the Black Sea basin. The
doctrine also undermines the role of the fleet (both military and civilian),
the shipbuilding industry, harbours and rigging infrastructure as priorities
for the further development of Russia’s naval economy. How is seen based on
these documents, Russia is trying position itself as a great power with ability
to increase its military capability on the Caspian-Black-Mediterranean Seas
axis. The centre of this axis is the Black Sea, a basin from which NATO risks
being excluded. The Russian policy-makers seek to regain its nation’s great
power status-quo with domination in the basin with controlling three key
points: Crimea, the mouths of the Danube and the Bosporus. Having considered
the latest events, Russia has partially achieved the strategic goals – first
occupied and then annexed the Crimea and reinforced military positions and
capabilities in the peninsula, with creation of so-called “Mediterranean Task
Force’ within the Black Sea Fleet and detachment of combat ships and boats for
the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf region, Russia pursued getting its control
Bosporus (the Task Force was reinforced by the nuclear carried submarine
“Rostov-on-Don”, which sailed from Novorosiisk to join the Force and equipped
with newest strategic weaponry system “Kalibr” missiles). With this
reinforcement naval forces, Russia is seeking to get under the control the third
pillar – the mouth of Danube. However, in order to more reinforce its presence
in the Black Sea basin, the Russian authority announced that 30 new ships are
to be supplied to the Black Sea Fleet, including six new frigates, six new
submarines and other smaller vessels for naval landing. In addition to that the
Black Sea Fleet will be reinforced its anti-access strategy (A2/AD) against
NATO forces. Moreover, according to the “Jamestown Foundation” – official
Moscow decides to set up in the Crimea an “unapproachable fortress” and
military key-spot. In the peninsula with only 2.2 million population, the
Russian militaries received several SU-27SM and MIG-29 fighters, SU-25M ground
attack aircraft, IL-38N maritime patrol and anti-submarine aircraft KA-52K attack
helicopters and KA-27ASW helicopters. In addition, the Kremlin is sought to
deploy at the Crimea its strategic military armaments, which enables to carry
on nuclear warheads. A regiment of TU-22M3 strategic bombers, which can be used
as platforms for different high-precision missiles, will be deployed at
Gvardeyskoye airfield, 15 kilometers northwest of Simferopol. Having considered
the fact that in the North Caucasus Military District now transformed into
operational-strategic HQ “South” already deployed strategic bomber jets with
nuclear devices and equipment TU-160 “Black Bear” and TU-95M in Engelsk
airfield and in Rostov-na-Donu military airfield already arrived “4+1”
generation modernize aircrafts SU-34 and SU-35 also capable to carry on nuclear
tactical bombs and “air-to-land” cruise missiles with precision guide systems,
as well as creation of two battery of strategic strike rocket complex
“ISKANDER-M” targeting Georgia and Ukraine becomes clear that Russia have
sufficient enough strike capabilities to operate properly at any operational
directions. This is enough to demonstrate military “muscle-show” toward these
yet uncontrolled nations. The Kremlin decision to launch unprecedented before
massive military drills “KAVKAZ-2016” second phase in aegis of the sudden alert
mission operational-tactical level with involvement of 11 thousand servicemen
and with usage of strike military capabilities – S-300M air-defense complexes,
SU-34 jets, tactical-operational rocket systems “ISKANDER-M”, etc. means that
Russia seriously considers beginning of war campaign in the region at any
directions. According to Warsaw based magazine: “New Eastern Europe”, together
with the new naval infantry and Special Forces units, some of which have
already been used as part of its hybrid war, Russia will own a significant
strike force, which could help implement different military combat operations
in the Black Sea basin. In 2016 the Russian Ministry Defense announced some
interesting points on further reinforcement of the military capabilities in the
area. As for example, Russian government would spend $2.4 billion by 2020 to
provide its Black Sea Fleet with state-of-the-art ships, submarines, air
defense systems and naval infantry. On similar way, the Caspian Fleet is being
reinforced with new military ships and vessels equipped with sea-to-sea and
sea-to-land cruise missiles “Kalibr” and “Bulava”, even covered the operational
tactical zone in Syria and Iraq. Taking together all these factors, and precise
attention to the regional security environment, if the Russian government
completes its missions in that way how it prescribed in the naval doctrine, the
Black Sea Fleet will have full control over the Black Sea by 2020. In that
retrospective provision, the military balance at present time between the NATO
and Russian forces decreased in proportion of 2:1 in favor to the NATO ones but
in that reinforced conditions by 2020 the balance will be absolutely opposite
in the same proportion but in Russia’s favour. In that configuration, Georgia
is in dangerous positions due to its littoral space and its unfrozen sea ports
that Russia needs very badly. Hence, Georgia is to be perceived new aggressive
steps from the Russian authority after the Parliamentary elections, namely
toward the ports directions. Hence, the Georgian government and society have to
very attentive toward any provocations spurred from the Russian side.
Conclusion
The Black
Sea regional geopolitics is still actual and very relevant from theoretical
framework of international relations and security studies and from realpolitik
perspective. However, this achievement would be made fragile,
as the Black Sea region has become one of the world's most tragic humanitarian,
political and economic disaster zones. The region enters the 21-st century
still drinking the deadly cocktail of 19th century nationalism and
great power rivalry. The insecurity of the region also blocks the development
of the wider Black Sea-Caspian-Central
Asian economic axis. New dangerous challenges - terrorism and low intensity
conflicts can subvert the Security System of the region. These might be
considering as "external" but little aware political constraints that
curb and grave all prosperous dreams of the nations. Hence, the regional system
in the Black Sea area is very dual fold and prone toward instability but with
opportunity for enhancing security provisions in nearest future.
References:
1) Buzan B., Waever O. and De
Wilde J. “Security, A New Framework For Analysis”, Lynne Reinner Publishers,
London, 1998
2)
Eka
Beraia “The U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities in the Post-Cold War Period
(1990-2016): Georgia’s Case from Transnational Challenges (Including Migration)
towards Enhancing Institutional Transformation”, Ph.D. thesis at International
Black Sea University (IBSU), American Studies Program, Tbilisi, Georgia, 21
September, 2017
3)
Iulian
Chifu, Andriana Sauliuc, Bogdan Nedea “Energy Security Strategies in the Wider
Black Sea Region”, Editura Curtea Veche, Bucharest, 2010
4)
David
Minix, Samuel Hawley “Global Politics”, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York,
1998
5)
Robert
D. Kaplan “The Revenge of Geography”, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York,
2013
6)
Gearoid
O Tuathail “Critical Geopolitics: the Politics of Writing Global Space”,
Routledge Publishing House, London, 1996
7)
Vakhtang
Maisaia “The Caucasus-Caspian Regional and Energy Security Agendas – Past,
Contemporary and Future Geopolitics: View from Georgia”, second edition, IREX,
Brussels, 2007
[1]
Buzan B., Waever O. and De Wilde J. “Security, A New Framework For Analysis”,
Lynne Reinner Publishers, London, 1998, pp.17-24
[2]
Robert Ondrejcsak “Introduction to Security Studies”, Centre for European and
North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA), Bratislava, 2014, p.25
[3]
Iulian Chifu, Andriana Sauliuc, Bogdan Nedea “Energy Security Strategies in the
Wider Black Sea Region”, Editura Curtea Veche, Bucharest, 2010, p.9
[4]
Gearoid O Tuathail “Critical Geopolitics: the Politics of Writing Global
Space”, Routledge Publishing House, London, 1996, p.33
[5]
Robert D. Kaplan “The Revenge of Geography”, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New
York, 2013, p.74
[6]
Talassokratia – geopolitical means sea power domain in politics
[7]
Montecracy - geopolitical jargon implies influence of mountainous geographic
terrain on foreign political and military strategic decisions
[8]
Telurokratia – geopolitical jargon means land power domain in politics
[9]
David Minix, Samuel Hawley “Global Politics”, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New
York, 1998, pp.50-51
[10]
Vakhtang Maisaia “The Caucasus-Caspian Regional and Energy Security Agendas –
Past, Contemporary and Future Geopolitics: View from Georgia”, second edition,
IREX, Brussels, 2007, pp.15-17
[11]
Robert Ondrejscak “Introduction to Security Studies”, Centre for European and
North Atlantic Affairs (CENAA), Bratislava, 2014, pp.24-26
[12]
Eka Beraia “The U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities in the Post-Cold War Period
(1990-2016): Georgia’s Case from Transnational Challenges (Including Migration)
towards Enhancing Institutional Transformation”, Ph.D. thesis at International
Black Sea University (IBSU), American Studies Program, Tbilisi, Georgia, 21
September, 2017, pp.72-73
Comments
Post a Comment