Dimitrios Triantaphyllou (Turkey), director of the Center for International and European Studies of Kadir Has University (Istanbul).

Sona Kyurkchyan, www.hetq.am (Armenia)

1. What makes the Chicago Summit different from the previously held NATO summits, what was its final outcome?

Nothing really other than the fact that it was held in President Obama's hometown during an election year. It also came at the heels of the more groundbreaking Lisbon Summit of 2010 which launched a new Strategic Concept for the Alliance. It seems that although it was the first post-Arab Spring Summit and post Libya operation Summit, this wasn't enough to produce major news except maybe to reaffirm that NATO is adrift with the European allies unable or unwilling to contribute more in terms of resources to the Alliance. The European allies can deploy only about 5 percent of their troops for NATO operations.

2. How does NATO intend to act in the future if not all Alliance members agree to conducting operations in this or that region? Has the Chicago Summit considered the precedence of some members’ refusal to participate in the operations against Libya?

I would tend to agree with the assessment of Thomas Ries who in a recent article suggested that the result of the inability of the European allies to contribute in a coherent manner to the evolving global security environment is “a lost alliance: unable to orient itself, unable to look forward, unable to specify vital strategic interests beyond basic platitudes, unable to agree which future threats to focus on, and unable to generate military forces capable of addressing them.” This growing deficit within NATO is compounded by the shortcomings of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in which many of NATO’s European allies take part.

3. Why after the NATO Summit in Lisbon which was not attended by the President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan because of the language of adopted resolutions, a document with the same language on the conflicts in the territories of CIS countries was adopted at the Chicago Summit?

NATO is keeping closely to its principles regarding the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of all states involved in “protracted” conflicts – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova. Armenia could not expect different language in the Chicago Summit Declaration given the makeup of the Alliance’s members and the concerns that many raise regarding the principle of territorial integrity of states. This is also somewhat linked to the development of relations between Russia and NATO and Russia’s uneasiness regarding relations between Armenia and NATO.

Angela Khachatryan, www.1in.am (Armenia)

Have Georgia's expectations from the Chicago Summit come true and do the adopted documents mean that Georgia will become a country to be admitted into the Alliance in the course of the following stage of NATO enlargement? When do you think such an expansion may take place?

I am not sure that Georgia’s expectations were necessarily met by the Chicago Summit regarding its eventual accession to NATO albeit Secretary Clinton’s remarks that the next Summit would be an enlargement one. Much would depend on the priorities of the next US administration and its relationship with Russia on a variety of global challenges as well as the outcome of the forthcoming elections in Georgia.

Armen Minasyan, www.panorama.am (Armenia)

1. The official Ankara had made a statement against Israel’s participation in the Chicago Summit. Do you think such behavior is in line with NATO principles, if we are to take into consideration the fact that a dialogue at all levels is especially important for ensuring regional security?

Of course, Ankara’s position is not in line with NATO principles. Ankara, in fact, also tried to promote without success the membership of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by attempting to change the decision by the Alliance (including Turkey) in the Bucharest Summit of 2008 to the detriment of Greek interests. Nevertheless, Turkey is an important regional security and economic actor and its growing importance needs to be taken into account. Ankara’s perceived isolation from the West on many fronts (ranging from the stalled EU accession process to its difficult neighborhood) suggests that a better understanding of Ankara’s positions need to be considered without implying that these have to be adopted wholesale by the Alliance.

2. What do you think the main outcome of the Chicago Summit was? What place did the issues of NATO enlargement through the admission of new members occupy among the adopted decisions?

The main outcome of the Chicago Summit was that the Alliance is in trouble as it failed to address seriously its strategic imperatives. There is a lack of strategic thinking by the European allies that seem to be more concerned with the threat of the financial/ sovereign debt crisis than their global responsibilities. The Libyan operation brought many of these shortcomings to the fore as the United States bore the bulk of the operation and its costs. The Chicago Summit spent time on other issues such as Afghanistan, future capabilities, and partnerships but none of these could be considered truly strategic. Similarly, the future enlargement of the Alliance was left to the future.

David Stepanyan, www.arminfo.am(Armenia)

Were the unresolved conflicts in the post-Soviet space, in particular the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, discussed at the NATO Summit in Chicago? If yes, in what format and from what angle?

The protracted regional conflicts in the post-Soviet space were discussed only inasmuch to affirm of the need that these be resolved. Though the support “of the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova” was reaffirmed as was the need to resolve these on the basis of international law, NATO basically went through the motions regarding the post-Soviet space and included the aforementioned language in the Resolution in order to have something to say as per its principles and those of the UN Charter. Much depends on its evolving relations with Russia which the Summit did not necessarily deal with properly given Putin’s absence.

Anna Bartkulashvili, freelance reporter (Azerbaijan)

1. Before the beginning of the summit the American expert Alfred Ross forecasted that in Chicago America was going to ask for additional funding, soldiers and fighters from its NATO allies. What particular problems have conditioned such a prognosis and to what extent have they been solved at the summit?

None of these issues have been resolved as the Summit showed that the European Allies are either unwilling or unable to invest more in terms of defense. In fact, European defense spending has fallen by more than 24 billion USD in the last three years while the Libyan operation that Europe led could not have been completed successfully without US involvement including electronic jamming, air defense suppression, 80 percent of the fuel and most of the bombs uses in the operation. As the European allies reduce their defense capabilities and commitments and the gap with the US grows, so does the frustration and impatience in Washington. Similarly, the drawdown in Afghanistan is also troubling and is not properly planned.

2. What does NATO’s “smart defense” program consist in and what was the particular cause of adopting it?

“Smart Defense” is an attempt to optimize the diminishing commitment to the Alliance by its European allies and the need of the US to shift some of its resources to other threats such as the Pacific. In times of budgetary austerity, the focus is on specialization and cooperation or in other words, how to do more with less. Discussions between France and the United Kingdom about the prospect of sharing their aircraft carriers are indicative of the potential of “Smart Defense.” The objective is to ensure that NATO and its member states maintain the military capabilities to undertake the core tasks of the Alliance as these are put forward in the new Strategic Concept which was adopted at the Lisbon Summit in 2010.

3. Was it possible to efficiently react to all the problems NATO is currently facing and what priority directions for activity were selected at the Summit?

No. NATO is in trouble because both the political commitment of many of its European allies as well as their material commitments are lacking. NATO has evolved into a defense organization with global reach given the exigencies of today’s globalized world at a time of dwindling resources and a false sense of security in many European countries as well as the implications of future or lack thereof of the eurozone. As a result, the Chicago Summit raises awareness of the myriad of security challenges and proposes some initiatives but does not necessarily put forward a new strategic blueprint.

Tarana, www.contact.az (Azerbaijan)

What place did the issue of NATO’s future development occupy on the agenda of the Summit?

The issues of future capabilities and the need to implement Smart Defense as well as strengthened partnerships with countries such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, inter alia, were raised in the Summit and hold a prominent part of the Summit Declaration. Yet, these cannot be successfully implemented if the current European mindset with reduced defense spending and capabilities does not change.

Emil Babayan, www.news.am (Armenia)

What were the results achieved at the Chicago Summit after the discussion of the strategy in Afghanistan before and after 2014? Will the Afghan party be ready to assume complete responsibility for ensuring the security in the country at the time of the withdrawal of NATO troops, and will the civil war in Afghanistan have been suspended by that time? What achievements and failures in Afghanistan were highlighted in the Chicago Summit?

The drawdown in Afghanistan was a major part of the Chicago Summit. Decisions were taken regarding the reduction of the military presence of NATO troops, yet there seems to be a preoccupation with the fact that the withdrawal of troops is coming at a time that the Taliban are becoming more emboldened with attacks across the country. Also at play are the funds that the Afghan National Security Forces require to meet the challenges of transition and taking the lead. Out of the expected 4.1 billion USD needed by the Afghan security forces per year, 1.3 billion USD need to be provided by non-NATO members and partners. But there seems to be a shortfall.

Emma Bayramova, www.tribuna.ge (Georgia)

1. What’s new in comparison with previous decisions on Georgia in the documents of Chicago Summit?

The new developments regarding Georgia are the remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the need to deal with enlargement at the next summit and the participation of Georgia in the meeting between NATO and the aspirant countries. This does not mean that the Chicago Summit was very clear on the prospects of future enlargement for Georgia.

2. Does Georgia have progressive achievements on its way to the Alliance?

Though Georgia has met many of the criteria for membership, the fact that it has not yet started negotiations for a Membership Action Plan (MAP) is detrimental to its bid in contrast to the other aspirant countries from Southeastern Europe. The Georgian government deftly downplayed expectations before the Summit, yet it is not happy that the Chicago Summit Declaration only reaffirms the decision taken in Bucharest that Georgia will one day join the Alliance. Clearly much depends on the results of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Georgia this year and its Presidential ones in October 2013.