The document discusses political developments in Central-Eastern Europe, highlighting key events such as Kosovo's independence, NATO's position on Georgia and Ukraine, and Russia's military actions in the region. It explores the implications of these developments for NATO and EU relations, addressing the challenges posed by an assertive Russia and the notion of a 'variable geometry approach' for assessing state sovereignty. The analysis concludes with the importance of continuous monitoring and assessment of each country's integration and independence in relation to Western institutions.

1. Central-Eastern Europe Political Development:
Opportunities and Threats
Iulian Chifu*
1. Phenomenon of the recent years:
- Kosovo independence
- NATO Bucharest Summit – April 2008. Georgia and Ukraine denied MAP,
future accession to the Alliance
- Russian-Georgian war - August 2008. Consecutive recognition of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia
- Eastern Partnership of the EU 2009 (after Black Sea Synergy – 2007)
- Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis- January 2009
- Foreign Affairs Strategy, Defense Doctrine, Nuclear Doctrine of the
Russian Federation (September 2008 – 5-th of February 2010)
- New European Security Chart proposed by Kremlin (Arbatov Group
proposal – Serghei Karaganov, Medvedev proposal)
- START 2 Treaty (9 April 2010).
- Towards a nuclear Iran (September 2009-2010)
2. Themes of reflection for Western partners – including those in Central
and Eastern Europe members of NATO and EU:
- the future of Western alliances – NATO Strategic Concept, Lisbon,
nov.2010, EU after fatigue, economic and financial crisis, Lisbon
Treaty, EU Foreign Affairs Service, transatlantic link, US in Europe.
- How to address a more assertive, offensive and revisionist Russia,
based on the Spheres of Interest in post-soviet space – 4 track address
of Europe (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia; Central Asia,
Republic of Moldova, Caucasus; Baltic States, Eastern Europe;
Turkey, France, Italy, Germany).
- Rewriting the rules of Security in Europe? (Paris Chart for a New
Europe, 1999 OSCE Chart for Security in Europe): - status quo
defended, tabula rasa and renegotiations, negotiating some points for
respecting Russia’s demands.
- How EU, NATO, US address the new democracies.

2. 3. Russia’s instruments for dependence and “limited sovereignty”
(Brejnev doctrine renewed):
- Limiting NATO aspiration and cooperation
- Limiting EU cooperation in energy security, ESDP cooperation.
- Stopping Security Sector Reform in any form, international
cooperation / Western cooperation in that matter.
- Officials linked to Moscow imposed in key positions: defense,
intelligence, interior, councilors of President, Prime minister, Minister
of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Interior, Supreme
Council for Defense and Security
- Political control of parties, committees in the Parliament
- intelligence control
- mafia and criminal activities control
- trafficking and smuggling control
- energy control, energy security projects blocked or missing
- economy take-over of lucrative branches, especially linker to energy
consumption imported from Russia – oil, gas, electric energy.
Conclusions:
- These points gave us the indicators and signals to establish at what
respect a country for the CEE is dependent or independent, sovereign
in real terms or with limited sovereignty.
- These assessments and the behavior of each country with the Western
institutions are defining the degree of openness and integration that
will be offer to every particular country - “Variable geometry
approach”
- Monitoring and continuous assessment: The parameters will be
surveyed in time, with updates of the evolution of each country.
- The geographic contiguity is going to play a major role. Each
country will be judge according its own merits but every policy will
address a group of countries. Two countries could be privileged by
this approach: Republic of Moldova, if changes allowed to be
included in the Western Balkans package (still limited chances) and
Ukraine, due to its strategic weight, importance but depending on
internal appetite for reforms and independence.
* Iulian Chifu is prof. dr. at the National School for Political and Administrative
Studies Bucharest and the director of the Conflict Prevention and Early Warning

3. Center, Bucharest. He is specialized in Conflict Analysis, Decision making in crisis
and the Post-Soviet Space.