Georgia changes military paradigm

 

Yesterday the Georgian government adopted the new National Military Strategy, aimed at “reflecting the reality which the Armed Forces of the country are facing today.”  The new military paradigm is focused on “deterrence against a potential enemy” and “providing Georgia's security.”Georgia will continue to fulfil its international responsibilities and to cooperate with NATO and the EU. 

Yesterday the Georgian government adopted the new National Military Strategy, aimed at “reflecting the reality which the Armed Forces of the country are facing today.”  The new military paradigm is focused on “deterrence against a potential enemy” and “providing Georgia's security.”

Georgia will continue to fulfil its international responsibilities and to cooperate with NATO and the EU. 

 

Nika Chiradze, the head of the Center for Security and International Relations Studies, told Vestnik Kavkaza that the new National Military Strategy of Georgia has a defensive character. “The previous strategy of 2005 said that we do not expect aggression against Georgia in the near future. The new edit has corrected this point due to the events of 2008. So the document pays attention to the protection of Georgian territories from possible aggression in the future,” Chitadze says.

 

There are other changes in the new Georgian paradigm. “Now it fully considers close relations with the European-Atlantic union, including launching NATO standards. The army had been divided into the Eastern and Western groups; the Joint Headquarters turned into the General Headquarters.”

 

Irakly Aladashvili, the editor-in-chief of the analytical magazine “Arsenali”, spoke about the peculiarities of future cooperation between Georgia and NATO within the new strategy. “The alliance offered Georgia “improved cooperation” instead of a MAP. It is unclear what this means, but it seems NATO is searching for “a middle option” to avoid giving us a plan of joining the alliance and to avoid offending us,” Aladashvili stated. According to the expert, separate provisions of the “improved cooperation” are also unclear.