Giorgi Margvelashvili HARDtalk

survived. Now on BBC News, Hardtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi. This week 's Nato Summit in

Wales comes against a background of escalating tensions between Russia

and Nato over the conflict in Ukraine. With calls for tougher

action against Moscow. Russia says it is beefing up its military

strategy, because of Nato 's presence in Eastern Europe. How far

should Nato go in protecting countries that are not members of

the Alliance, like Ukraine? My guest today is President Giorgi

Margvelashvili. Of Georgia. A country that was at war with Moscow

six years ago. What is his advice to Nato?

President Giorgi Margvelashvili, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you, it

is an honour. How should Nato deal with Russia in your view? I think

the main thing is to build a solution, rather than confrontation.

And, a solution to all of the cases that we are talking about. Nato has,

since its existence, been an alliance that was bringing more

peace, more prosperity, more stability. To the region, that

Georgia and Ukraine members of, to Europe, and Atlantic community. So,

I think a solution to existing problems is what Nato should be

doing. They should understand that this is a problem not only for

Ukraine, not only for Georgia, but those are problems for Europe, and

European stability. The solution should be developed. Nato is, at its

heart, a military organisation, although also a political alliance.

When the former US ambassador to Nato said in July" with the US

avoiding any suggestion of military response to Putin' military

aggression, Nato is almost, by definition, on the sidelines. Yet,

here you are, on the sidelines saying that Nato can agree

stability". It is a military and political alliance, at the same

time, it is not only military, but shares the same values around its

lawyer says. It is on the sidelines. `` alliances. On the sidelines, you

are saying it can bring in a key role in bringing stability to

Europe? It has brought stability to Europe, it is more complicated a

environment, we had the Cold War that was resolved. It brought better

peace and prosperity to all nations, which got into Nato, and

who were in Nato before. Given that now, President Obama has said

consistently in this crisis over Ukraine, and has said it again this

week, that there is no military solution forthcoming, that is

exactly what he said. It has got to be a political settlement. He is

right, isn't he? He is right, that's what we are looking for. The

political settlement has to be a unified political attitude to what

is happening in Ukraine, and what is happening in Georgia. This is the

same case. The events in 2008 in Georgia when we had Russian

occupation, and events now, they are part of the same scenario. The same

scenario that is talking about Georgia, Ukraine, other ex` Soviet

countries, as Russia's backyard. And, Nato has to have a unified

approach to those issues. I am not talking about the military approach.

I have to pick you up on this, you are saying there is a parallel

between what is going on in Ukraine, military aggression by Russia going

in, annexing Crimea and as Barack Obama and others have said, Russian

military presidents in eastern Ukraine arming separatists, funding

and so on, but what happened in 2008 between you and Russia is not

comparable, when the war broke out in South Sethi, `` into autonomous

regions in Russia, a report in September 2009 blamed Georgia? I

don't think they blamed Georgia. First of all, this was not a

verdict. Let's go precisely to the case, it was not a verdict, but a

fact`finding mission. They described the case, they have different

attitudes on all aspects of the case, but the fact is the

following, the facts in Georgia and Ukraine are parts of the policy that

spoken out by Russia Federation politician. They are talking about

the specific right to decide the destiny of independent nations who

are very friendly. I would like to finish this situation, we want to

talk about Ukraine and Nato, and so on, but finish off what happened in

2008, there was a five`day war between you and Russia. This is what

that fact`finding mission, headed by a Swiss expert on the Caucasus, she

said that Georgian claims of a large`scale presence of Russian

armed Forces in the region, prior to the Georgian offensive in August the

7th or the eighth, could not be substantiated. It was Georgia which

triggered the war. I know a different president was in power at

the time, you are from the opposition, but that is... The

reason why I saved the situation between Ukraine and Georgia is not

comparable. `` why I say. We are talking about details of a fine ``

fact`finding mission. Those are concrete details, of who did what

By the definition, you cannot start By the definition, you cannot start

war on your own territory. Can you start a war in your own territory?

It is impossible. There was autonomy during the Soviet era, during the

1990s, they declared independence. But anyway... There were mistakes,

it does not change the overall picture which was spoken out by

Russian politicians who say they can determine the future of Judge, they

can determine the future of Ukraine, just because, at some

point, we were part of the sub Eugenio `` Georgia. This is the

scenario, this is the whole attitude. `` part of the region.

These issues go back to the security of Europe, they are not issues only

a Georgia or of Ukraine, a more stable eastern Europe is a part of

European stability, more than that. It is a part of Russian stability.

Russian Federation cannot develop effectively. If, around its borders,

it has pockets of this" problematic areas". There should be a solution.

Nato wants to ensure that whatever happens now, in Ukraine, Putin

understands that he cannot consider future military ventures in his

influence. The executive general of Nato outgoings says there should be

a military unit on permanent high alert, this force can travel light

but strike hard. If needed. Of course, we already know that Nato

has a response force that the summit will contest `` but the summit will

consider a faster spear troops on a rotating basis, thousands, and they

will be supplied by Nato allies, with equipment in critical `` with

equipment in critical areas position there. Is it something you will

support? We are becoming a part of that force, starting in 2015, we are

becoming part of the later quick response force. `` Nato quick

response force. We are also looking for more security for our country

and region. Can you finish on this force? You think it's a good idea

and will be unanimously approved, and it will be something that

Georgia is going to be actively supporting and actually contributing

to? Georgia is actually one of the biggest contributors to Nato and

European led... EU led military operations. We are the biggest

country which is a nonmember State to the mission in Afghanistan, our

men and women are engaged in that process actively, and we are part of

the operation in the Central African Republic. You have been partners

with Nato in `` since 1994. We have been engaged in Kosovo, Iraq, we are

a very responsible player when we talk about global security. We

should be enjoying security in our territory as well. With this

proposed force, are you not worried that Russia says it is not happy

with it? The editor of Russia and global affairs told BBC radio this

week that this new force would be seen by Russia as a profoundly

destabilising act, it amounts to the denunciation of the Nato Russia

founding act 1997, if the force goes ahead, the re` militarisation of

Europe will be on the cards. I think that we all have to prove to

politicians in the Russian Federation that there was not a

single move from Nato towards Russia that has been aggressive or somehow

problematic for the Russian Federation. If we look at the status

right now, we consider that Russia has the most secure Borders, the

most secure partnership with their of European union and of Nato, you

can start demonising any kind of action. But, if you look at the

reality, Russia has been partnering with the EU, trading with EU. Nato

countries, not only on trade issues, but on military partnership. Why is

Nato dangerous? Russia is saying that this force is a denunciation of

the Nato Russia founding act, stating that Nato will avoid

additional permanent stationing, a substantial combat force. Nato says

that not doing that with this proposed new force, they would not

be permanently positioned somewhere, but would be able to be deployed, a

permanent force which can be deployed at short notice. Russia is

saying, that is not good enough for us. We see it as a violation of our

understanding. Are you not worried? We are always worried and concerned

about Russia being unhappy, but we want to be realistic. We want to be

realistic together, with our allies in Nato, together with Russia's...

We have to see and look at the facts, that neither the independent

states which have suffered from Russia's aggression, nor the Nato

states have ever created any kind of problem or confrontation with

Russia. This is a fact. Once more again, you can hear declarations

that are trying to demonise any kind of activities, but there is not a

single case where Ukraine, or Georgia, or Nato allies have created

any kind of complications from Russian Federation. They do not see

it that way. For example, the Kremlin adviser Popov says Nato is

an external threat to Russia, and Nato enlargement is a threat to the

Russian security, but here you are, Georgia is saying you want to be a

member of Nato, and Russia say that. That puts you in a difficult

position? We are in a difficult position, but we have to stick to

the main truth that I have already mentioned. Plus, the main goal here

is to unite Nato members, and make them understand that not only can

you make the Kremlin understand, but make Nato members understand that

there is a clear policy towards countries of eastern Europe.

Including in Ukraine, including Georgia, making a more safe and

stable world. And, trying to explain this... How can it be a safer and

more stable world that `` when Russia says it is something that it

actively dislikes and doesn't want to happen.

point of upsetting Russia? If we are not clear about the countries, the

independent countries, around Russia and their future destinies, does

this make the world more secure? Does this make the future of Europe

more secure? As the Prime Minister of inland, which shares of border

with Russia `` Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, there are

too many people who want to isolate the Kremlin. I don't think that's

the right way forward. You say you don't know why you are upsetting

them, they have no right to. That's not isolation. On the contrary, the

message we are trying to send to Moscow is that peaceful, prosperous,

stable Georgia is an opportunity for Russia, versus a country on their

southern borders, which has double magic areas, which has pockets of

uncontrolled territories, where you have drugs and trafficking. Those

are issues. This is a rational message to Moscow. A rational

message to our European partners. That a more stable Georgia and

Ukraine isn't a threat but an opportunity to Moscow. They don't

want a more stable Georgia. Let me ask you this. Moscow might ask you

this. Why do you have to be in the western sphere of influence? You are

part of the Soviet Union at one time, you have a lawned history with

this part of the world, you do a lot of trade with Soviet republics. Why

not say, we are part of the Eurasian union, why do you have to be part of

the EU? Originally we were part of European culture and European

civilisation and this is our national choice. If you accept the

choices, the freedom of choice of the nation, then you have to accept

the freedom of choice of Georgia, of Ukraine and of the other independent

nations, which have their own vision and their own destiny. If you accept

the Russian attitude of the privileged interest areas, then he

will get a much on safer world in future. This is one thing. The

second thing is, why not? This is not against Russian interests, it is

not threatening Moscow, it is creating a better environment for

the Russian Federation. Eventually, if we build a safer caucuses, within

`` this is within European interests. Resources from the

Caspian Sea, resources from the East, they are going to move through

the new silk roadway to Europe, securing a better Europe. You say

clearly you see yourself as part of Europe, you signed the associated

agreement in June and want to be members of the EU, members of Nato.

But not everybody sees Georgia that way. Jonathan Giles, a respected

analyst from London, says Georgia and Ukraine are different. Georgia

is a faraway country. Ukraine is in the of Europe, Georgia has no common

borders with the EU. Ukraine shares borders with four EU member states,

also members of Nato. What happens in Ukraine is of a different order

to what happened in Georgia. Well, then, he doesn't listen to Putin. He

doesn't listen to the messages from the Kremlin, he doesn't listen to

what the Russian politicians are talking about. They are talking

about Georgia, about Ukraine, about the Eastern partnership countries

which decided to have their own destiny as nations that don't have

the right of their independent choice of the nationstates are an

area of Russian special interests. But you have to balance your

interests. That's what we are doing. You say you don't it is in your

interests to cut relationships with Russia but aren't you doing that by

saying you want to be part of the EU and Nato? They would see that as a

threat to their interests. That's a wrong confrontational paradigms. If

Georgia has a choice towards Europe, towards joining European markets,

towards being more secure and stable, if Georgia has more trade

and more opportunities of Caspian resources being traded through

Georgia to Europe, by the way we have an ocean that unites us with

Europe. If Caspian oil and gas goes for a pipeline... Saying this is

confrontational to Russia is the wrong way to think. We bring

solutions, we don't bring problems. Anyone who thinks that the solution

of Russian problems is in Georgia doesn't simply analyse what is

happening in Russia. What did you want from this Nato summit in Wales

this week? You said obviously you want to see your membership with

Nato speeded up somehow, the United States has said that is something

they would welcome, but there are several Nato countries, important

ones, France, Italy, Germany, others, who say they don't think you

should join. It was discussed in 2008. Even now, a French government

official has said Nato's actions must not contribute to the tension

or worse in the climate around Ukraine. It has flatly ruled out

admitting Ukraine or Georgia at this juncture. At this summit we are not

joining. At the same time, in 2008, it was said bluntly and repeated

several times that nature is eventually open to George. The

second thing is that what we want, yes, we want another firm step to

Nato membership but at the same time we want better and secure... A

secure environment in Georgia, in the caucuses. How? Through

increasing partnerships, by engaging more of Georgia in Nato. I mentioned

our contribution to Nato missions but we also want more Nato in

Georgia. America says they want to do that, they want to help you

increase your defence capability. We want more intensive partnerships.

That's where we are going. This isn't creating a threat, this is

creating great possibilities. Nato members themselves are divided about

the wisdom of inviting Georgia and Ukraine to become members of

their... That's why we understand that Nato is a military, political

alliance and there are differences. There are differences of the

concrete cases as well. I understand the conservatism of Nato. Now they

are facing a crisis where they have to decide and to think and rebuild

actually some of their security systems. I do understand the

conservatism of this point but that doesn't change the global attitude.

But it's not just conservatism. There are also concerns about

governance issues in Georgia and whether your country meets the

standards required by the EU and Nato. The Nato official in charge of

your region says there are concerns for instance about the independence

of your judiciary in Georgia. He isn't the only one to have said

that. Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Policy Chief, says they are

concerned about governance issues in your country. First of all, one of

the basic Nato requirements are `` was to build a democratic society

and a democratic system. One of the main benchmarks for us was peaceful

transfer of power were from one government to another and actually

that happened during the three recent elections. Sure I'm a duke

came to power. `` and Duchesne. These and achievement on our record.

Nobody is talking about the elections. Now we go further. We are

a society, a stake in transition. There are some concerns. They are

positive steps but there are concerns. Do you know what the one

big concern is? I doubt I know. B finished. `` let me finish. Will

society transfer more effectively within the EU and Nato structures or

left alone? Your government has been accused of the politics of revenge

by diplomats who visited your capital after the elections, because

the former president and also some former officials have `ish `` you

have issued arrest warrants for him and others on allegations of abuse

of power and for using excessive force against protesters in 2007.

You have attracted a lot of criticism for that. On example,

Senator John McCain and three other senators, the pursuit of justice

should not become a tool of political recognition and a source

of national decision, especially when Georgia has so many pressing

challenge is at present. How do you answer your critics? We listened

very intensely and tentatively to what we hear around the world of

this issue and very important. Is it a vendetta? That's exactly what I'm

talking about. More engagement, more comments, that in the comments but

engagement of owl Western allies and very respected politicians, is

something we are looking for `` our Western allies. The political

verdict was the elections, when his power was taken, he was out of

governance. Critical vendetta... Political society cannot sustain a

vendetta in courts. In court, there are questions not on political

issues that on the issue of criminal. In this case, every

respected politician, who respect his country, who respects the

institutions, has to respond. He does say it is political

persecution. We have to leave it there. Thanks very much.