Agenda

NATO has been a cornerstone of Trans-Atlantic security for six decades. Looking back on the “game-changing” summits in Warsaw and Wales, NATO has rapidly adapted to the newly emerged challenges.  The rise of both conventional and asymmetric threats has led to the increase of defence budgets in most NATO countries. It seems that this trend will continue and the amount of money available for defence establishments will grow. In the meantime, driven by a Franco-German vision, European defence is on the rise.  With strong sentiments about non-duplication with NATO, the European project clearly has its own agenda. Will we be able to manage the new momentum and spend our resources wisely for the most pressing common security needs? What will be on the table for NATO leaders one year from now?

Mr Raimonds Bergmanis, Minister of Defense of the Republic of Latvia
Hon. Mr Harjit Singh Sajjan, Minister of National Defense of Canada
Dr. Claudia Major, Senior Associate, German Institute for International and Security Affairs

Mr Paolo Alli, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly

Dr. Hans Binnendijk, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relation, John Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies

Moderator: Dr. Žaneta Ozoliņa, Vice Chairman of Latvian Transatlantic Organisation, Professor of the Department of Political Science, University of Latvia 

Populism is gaining traction on both sides of the Atlantic.  Some leaders are seizing the opportunity, but the cornerstone security institutions and governments are losing their political trust.  Who or what will defend our present values and political establishments to bring us back to where we were before we lost ground? Does the rise of nationalism mean the rupture of present security designs?  Do we need to revise NATO’s values to leave the trans-Atlantic relationship intact against populist assaults?
 
Mr Tod Lindberg, American political expert and a Research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution 

Moderator:  Mr Adam Reichardt, Editor-in-Chief of New Eastern Europe 

It seems that the current US administration has given up on being leaders for the advancement of liberal international order, including global movement towards greater economic, financial and trade integration. Globalisation is driven by international trade, investment and information technology. It has significant effects on economic development and prosperity, for individuals and societies around the world. Although extreme poverty has been cut by half during last 30 years, inequality levels in "rich" countries have left low-income “blue collars feeling bitter across the US and Europe resulting in electoral choices that oppose further and deeper global economic integration. With India and China on the economic rise and defending globalisation will EU come forward to reclaim the global economic leadership?
 

Mr Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice – President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, also in charge of Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union

Dr. Sergei Guriev, Chief Economist, The EBRD

Mr Michael Stumo, CEO, Coalition for a Prosperous America

Mr Martin Gauss, Chairman of the Board, Air Baltic Cooperation
 
Moderator: Mr Brooks Newmark, Researcher in Oxford University, United Kingdom
 

The Eastern Partnership was established to establish a free trade area, to define and build its relationship with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. It provides an avenue for discussions on trade, economic cooperation, travel and other issues. However in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova EU has much higher expectations that are not always met within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. Many in these countries believe that the Eastern Partnership program is designed to bring neighbouring countries closer to the European Union. Is the Eastern Partnership stuck on the road? Could it provide broader reassurances for citizens of EaP countries of an open door policy in the future?

Sessions are held under "Chatham House Rule" and will not be broadcasted

H.E. Mr Andrei Galbur, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova 

Amb. Ojārs Kalniņš, Chairman of Foreign Affairs Commission, Saeima
Ms Tamar Khulordava, Chairperson of the European Integration Committee of the Parliament of Georgia

 
Moderator: Mr Damien McGuinness, Correspondent, BBC Berlin, Germany
 
 

Three years after the occupation of Crimea, Ukraine is facing a stalemate. Although Ukraine and Russia are both trapped in Donbass, none have declared being at war. More so both countries maintain diplomatic relations and trade with each other; both President Poroshenko and President Putin refused to renegotiate the Minsk-2 agreement, which was signed two years ago calling Russia to return control of separatist territories to Ukraine. Neither Ukraine nor Russia is interested in taking formal responsibility of Donbass due to many reasons. For Russia, Donbass is the perfect reason for interfering in the rest of Ukraine. Neither of the two countries can afford the reconstruction costs of the destroyed region. The current state of affairs can not stay this way forever. What are the available alternatives for Ukraine?

Sessions are held under "Chatham House Rule" and will not be broadcasted

 
H.E. Pavlo Klimkin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

H.E. Mr Linas Linkevičius,  Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Lithuania 
Dr. Paul D. Miller, Associate Director of the Clements Center for National Security, The University of Texas at Austin
Amb. Robert Brinkley CMG, Chair of Ukraine Project, Chatham House
Dr. Anders Åslund, Resident Senior Fellow, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
 

Moderator: Dr. Jana Puglierin, Head of the Alfred von Oppenheim Center for European Policy Studies 

As for today, Britain is politically dominated by Brexit. Sufficient progress in negotiations between the European Commission and the British government is lagging behind schedule. Consequently, the end-date of formal negotiations is impossible to define. And the successful completion of much more difficult talks on trade might be a phantasy for Britain. Meanwhile British consumers grapple with increasing prices and an economy that is losing its steam. Therefore both sides need to avoid the risk of “no deal” which wouldn’t be beneficial to either Britons or Europeans. Will the Brexit promises to the electorate match the real policy outcomes for the British people? What lessons do Britons and Europeans need to draw from the tricky divorce called Brexit?

Sessions are held under "Chatham House Rule" and will not be broadcasted

 
Mr Mark Andrew Pritchard MP, Member of the UK Delegation to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
Sir Simon Fraser, Deputy Chairman at Chatham House, Managing Partner at Flint Global
Dr. Alasdair Allan, Minister for International Development and Europe, Scottish Government
Mr Ian Bond, Foreign Policy Director, Centre for European Reform
 

Moderator: Ms Natalie Nougayrède, Editorial Board Member, The Guardian 

We have witnessed Russian interference in democratic elections in the US, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova and other European countries. Interference is carried out through supporting a political candidate of choice with financing, on-line activist groups and bot-driven networks pushing through positive narratives in social media. At the same time, political opponents are slandered using hacking and disinformation by disseminating sensitive information, lies and fake stories. The influence of foreign agents’ operations can be best defended by societal awareness, collaboration between government agencies, media, and internet technology companies.  How can the election process be legitimated in a representative democracy if foreign agents implement broad scale operations to systematically influence election results? 

Sessions are held under "Chatham House Rule" and will not be broadcasted

 
Amb. Alexander Vershbow, Distinguished Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council
Ms Carmen Romero, Deputy Assistant Secretary General, NATO Public Diplomacy Division
Mr Julian Röpcke, Political Editor for the Bild
Mr Patrik Maldre, Senior Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst, FireEye iSIGHT Intelligence 

Moderator: Mr Jānis Sārts, Director of the NATO Strategic Communication Center

With the complicated security context and up-coming Presidential and Parliamentary elections, how well Ukraine is balancing its domestic policy priorities with maintaining a good pace for the required reforms to stay closer to the EU? 

Dr. Aurel Braun, Professor of International Relations and Political Science, University of Toronto and an Associate of the Davis Center at Harvard University. 

Mr Marko Mihkelson, Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, Riigikogu

Moderator: Dr. Christian Leuprecht, Professor of Political Sciences at the Royal Military College of Canada 

President Vladimir Putin approved Russia’s new economic strategy earlier in May. The cause for the first new strategy since Yeltsin’s strategy of 1996 is found in a number of factors, including the extension of Western sanctions, slow economic growth and the “exhaustion of the natural resource export model”. Substitute of imported products is a painful choice for Russians, so the new strategy calls for a deeper engagement with the global economy and aims to achieve a growth rate higher than the global average by 2020. However, Kremlin prefers selective engagement with BRICS, CIS, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization instead. Russia aims to deliver economic success without cooperation with the West. Can economic success be achieved by alienating the world’s most advanced economies? Could Russia’s political success be achieved without improving its relations with its neighbours?  Is it possible to become a prosperous country and a great power at the same time?

 
Mr Mikhail Mikhailovich Popov, Deputy Secretary of Security Council of the Russian Federation
Dr. Celeste Wallander, President of the US Russia Foundation for Economic Advancement and the Rule of Law
Dr. Bobo LO, Russia Research Fellow, French Institute of International Affairs
Dr. Andrey Kazmin, Former Chairman of Sberbank
 
Moderator: Mr Brian Whitmore, Senior Russia analyst for RFE / RL 

The power of the word in today's world, hijacked and warped by the technologies now in play, requires voters and citizens with mastery of skills allowing them to put their fingers on the facts, and see through the smoke and mirrors to the realities. It is no longer an irony to say that a repeated lie (“alternative facts”) becomes a truth at some point. The world might seem easier if constructed according to the needs of a few. As the powerhouse of falsehood, how is the world being constructed and deconstructed by for ordinary Russians by leadership at the Kremlin? Why should the rest of the world care?

Mr. Mikhail Fishman, Programme host and commentator at TV Rain in Moscow 

Moderator: Ms Linda Curika, Communications officer, ‎NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence  

Those who challenge the existing rules-based liberal world order, chose to do it by attacking the hearts and minds of the people in the first place. Both conventionally strong rivals and extremist groups justify their military actions as defence of the "real" values, which run contrary to the beliefs and values of democratic societies. Obviously, the West needs to get more serious about reclaiming the core values of democracy, which are often taken for granted and in that way no longer constitutes a specific value anymore. But will that be enough? Where are the thresholds between the tolerance of liberal societies and need to take decisive steps to preserve the life-style the West is currently enjoying? What is the role of the military in defence of democratic values?

 
Ms Katharine Cornell Gorka, Senior Advisor, Department of Homeland Security
Ms Karin Enström, Member of Parliament, Sweden
Mr Jānis Garisons, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence of Latvia
Mr Derek Chollet, Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor for Security and Defence Policy, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
 
Moderator: Prof. Dr. Julian Lindley-French, Vice President, Atlantic Treaty Association

There were times when social media changed regimes, inspiring so many discussions on its role to empower citizens, bring a new meaning to direct democracy and ensure the means of accountability for politicians. And while all that can still be applied today, there is more and more evidence on the reverse effects on a broader scale. Social media can and is being used in an increasing number of cases to shape public opinion, electoral campaigns, beliefs and values with astonishing precision, targeting societies and communities on an individual level. Our shares, likes, posts, tweets and Google searches are providing a massive set of data, that when combined with technology enables manipulations of political perceptions, actions and decisions of the wider masses that may well be favorable for the elitist few. Thus, building new regimes instead of overthrowing them. While social media, consciously used, is still an effective tool for citizens, it also provides an unprecedented power to manipulate, exaggerate and export beyond borders political sentiments, values and ideas favorable to one or another group of people on a scale that can change the political agenda beyond the borders of just one country. Both for the good and for the bad. Is the balance lost for good?

Mr Christophe Ginisty, Digital Strategist, Communications and PR executive 
Mr Ben Nimmo, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab 

Mr. Konstantine von Eggert, Programme host and commentator at TV Rain in Moscow 
 
Moderator: Mr Adam Reichardt, Editor-in-Chief of New Eastern Europe 

Since the end of the Cold War, the countries in North Europe have shown their shared strategic interest and ability to develop a pattern of regional cooperation that has strongly contributed to peace, well-being and economic growth. Soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, the eight Nordic-Baltic countries have created one of the most successful formats of regional cooperation in Europe. Everything that has been accomplished within the Nordic-Baltic group has been achieved within the political and legal parameters set by the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. Is it time for the Nordic-Baltic countries to act together to make themselves heard again, while the EU is going through the Brexit saga? In what way can the Nordic-Baltic countries be an important facilitator to the European security infrastructure facing Brexit and immigration crisis in the South? Can the Nordic-Baltic countries make the difference in discussions about the direction of the EU political, security and economic reform towards a Europe that takes actions to deal with the most concerning challenges of its citizens; a Europe that is positioned strategically and globally?

Mr Urban Ahlin, The Speaker, Chair of the Riksdag Board, Swedish Parliament
Mr James Joye Townsend Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for European and NATO Policy, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Transatlantic Security Program, Center for New American Security
Ms Anna Wieslander, Director for Northern Europe, Future Europe Initiative at Atlantic Council and Secretary General of Swedish Defence Association

Mr Uffe Ellemann – Jensen, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Honorary Chairman, Baltic Development Forum, Denmark 

 
Moderator: Dr. Bo Lidegaard, Former editor-in-chief of the Danish daily Politiken

European prospects are weakened by citizens and populist politicians blaming the European Union for their own socio-economic aggravation and policy failures. Above that - the migrant crisis of 2015 was unexpected and badly managed by the European Union. Many European politicians have not yet come to grips with how to manage migration, economic slowdown, and increasing unemployment rates among the youth. But should the European Union take all the blame for recent policy failures? Brussels is an easy target for national politics when sound labour, economic growth, border control or migration policies are not in place or properly functioning. What is the tolerable political and economic level of populism for the European Union? What are the potential costs of populism to Europeans and what can the European Union do?

 
Prof. Dr. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, former President of the Republic of Latvia
H.E. Mr Sven Mikser, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Estonia

Mr Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the EU Commission in charge of Better Regulation, Inter- Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights 

Dr. James Jay Carafano, The Heritage Foundation’s Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies
 
Moderator: Mr David Eades, Presenter, BBC World News
 
Concluding remarks: H.E. Mr Edgars Rinkēvičs, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia