BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:MP-IDSA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20230301T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20230301T053000
DTSTAMP:20261029T071733
CREATED:20231223T131207Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130737Z
UID:62947-1677648600-1677648600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Interaction with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP)
DESCRIPTION:Manohar Parrikar Institute for  Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interaction with a three-member  delegation from the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) led by Ambassador  Thomas Greminger\, Director\, GCSP on 1 March 2023. The interaction was chaired  by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, Director General\, MP-IDSA. Senior scholars\,  research analysts\, and interns of the institute were in attendance. \nExecutive Summary\nThe manifold implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict  have questioned the nature of European security and its tenets. With no  resolution in sight\, the human\, economic and political costs are mounting. A  roadmap for reconstructing peace and security in Europe can be through Confidence  Building Measures\, subregional arms control\, and a dialogue on the principles  of European security. \nDetailed Report\nAmb. Chinoy began the interaction by  introducing the delegation to the various research facets and training modules  of MP-IDSA. In his remarks\, Amb. Chinoy stated that the impact of the  Russia-Ukraine conflict has been felt beyond the borders of Europe\, where  geo-security has taken precedence over geo-economics. The conflict has resulted  in the questioning of the nature of European security. He highlighted  overlapping loyalties and complex interdependencies in a globalised world\, wherein\,  India shares cordial relationships with both Russia and the United States\, as  does Germany with China. He emphasised the importance of ending the conflict  and stated that India is well-positioned to mediate a resolution. \n  Amb. Greminger introduced the audience to the  functioning of GCSP and the dialogue space it offers. He stated that the  current status of the war in Ukraine can be comprehended in four phases\,  starting with the Battle for Kyiv\, followed by the Battle for Donbas\, a  successful counter-offensive in Kharkiv and Kherson\, and finally\, the war of attrition. \nAmb. Greminger presented five possible  scenarios. First\, the highly likely continuation of the ongoing high-intensity  warfare. Second\, a continuing low-intensity conflict. Third\, an escalation  through military means in the South\, destruction of strategic civilian  infrastructure\, cyber attacks\, and\, although unlikely\, the use of nuclear  weapons. Fourth\, an unlikely scenario could be conflict termination through a  one-sided victory. Finally\, a favourable scenario could be a negotiated  conflict resolution that covers territorial issues in Crimea and Donbas\, war  crimes\, and reparations. \n Amb. Greminger discussed the  implications of the conflict and emphasised that it has had a significant impact  on peace in Europe. He first highlighted the human costs of the conflict\,  including eight million refugees\, 90\,000 civilian casualties\, as well as  skyrocketing inflation and acute food insecurity. Secondly\, he drew attention  to the critical damage to civilian infrastructure. Thirdly\, he discussed the  economic consequences\, including energy insecurity and trade disruptions.  Finally\, he focused on the political consequences of the conflict\, stating that  the world is moving towards a “Cold War 2.0” where deterrence will  dominate the landscape of European security. He also observed that security  will continue to be focused on territorial defence\, resulting in high defence  budgets. Amb. Greminger emphasised the changing nature of cooperation on other  agendas\, including transnational issues and dealing with complex geographies. \n  He presented a roadmap for  reconstructing peace and security in Europe. First\, he stressed the need for  the Russian Federation to respect international law and territorial  sovereignty. Second\, he suggested that trust can be rebuilt through Confidence  and Security Building Measures (CSBMs). Third\, the United States’ negotiated  response to Russia should include military risk reduction and subregional arms  control. The fourth step should involve a dialogue on the principles of  European security itself. This should be followed by a review of the status of  “bridge” countries (Armenia\, Azerbaijan\, Belarus\, Georgia\, and  Moldova) that share geographical proximity with Russia\, as well as the role of the  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in those countries. Lastly\, he emphasised  the importance of considering the future role of Russia in the European  security order. He concluded that peace and stability in Europe can only be  achieved through cooperation with Russia\, not without it. \nDiscussion\nAmb. Chinoy emphasised that it is highly improbable that any of the permanent members of  the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) could completely overpower one  another. He specifically noted that the collapse of Russia in this context is  nearly impossible. He further discussed the current period of great uncertainty  due to the suspension of the New START Treaty. According to him\, if neither  side is willing to make concessions\, it will only lead to an escalation of the  conflict and a one-sided victory will become even less likely. Amb. Chinoy  concurred with Amb. Greminger that peaceful negotiation is the most viable  option. However\, he pointed out that conditional negotiation is not possible.  He emphasised that territorial control is an essential aspect of the  negotiation\, and the illegal occupation of Indian territories by Pakistan and  China provides a common ground for discussion. \nMaj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) highlighted that of the likely scenarios  presented by the speaker\, only one discusses the end of the conflict. He also  discussed the role of external support to Ukraine. \nDr. Rajorshi Roy raised a query on the future of European commitment to  Ukraine. \nMr. Om Prakash Das inquired about the characteristics of ‘Cold War 2.0.’ \nDr. Jason Wahlang raised a query about Europe’s reactions to China’s Peace  Plan for Ukraine.  \nAmb. Chinoy discussed the pre-conditions for Russia and Ukraine to negotiate the end of war  and the possibilities of who would lead the Ukrainian front for negotiation. \nThe discussion ended with a Vote of  Thanks by Amb. Chinoy. \nReport was prepared by Ms. Richa Kumaria\, Intern\,  Non-Traditional Security Centre\, MP-IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/interaction-with-the-geneva-centre-for-security-policy-gcsp
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR