InterPressNews has interviewed a scholar of Philadelphia Foreign Policy Research Institute, Michael Cecire.

- Mr. Cecire, since Russian TV channel showed the film “Crimea - a way towards the future” in which Putin comments on the Crimean developments, politicians have not stopped discussing it. It is natural, as Putin states that he led Crimea’s occupation himself. Moreover, if the USA engaged in the process, Russia would use nuclear weapon. Most experts say that by means of this film, Putin told the whole world he is not going to stop. How would you assess the film?

-My understanding is that Moscow has put together this film to generate a comprehensive narrative of Western perfidy to justify the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. As far as I can tell, the film appears to be an elaborate weaving of conspiracy theories, innuendo, and Eurasianist rhetoric in an effort to paint the Kremlin as a moral authority and, by extension, the West as the aggressor -- which is a complete and convenient reversal of actual events. Films such as these are aimed not only at sympathetic groups abroad, but particularly for domestic consumption. As the Russian intervention takes an ever-growing toll on its economy, due to sanctions and collapsing energy prices, Russian leadership is hoping to marshal and maintain public support through appeals to nationalism and civilizational struggles. This film is a piece of that puzzle.

-According to an editor of a Russian newspaper “Moskovski Komsomolets” Aydar Muzhabaev who is Tatar by nationality, “this film was shot by Putin’s order for Obama.” How do you think, did Obama perceived the film as a challenge? What will be his response?

-In all honesty, I don't think President Obama has seen it or is likely to see it. He may not even receive a brief about it, except perhaps in passing. While there are certainly worrying signals within the film, it is only one element in a larger Russian information campaign. The Obama administration is unlikely to formulate any specific, concrete response to the film itself, but is likely to see Russian intransigence as a reason to maintain or potentially escalate sanctions.

- As Jen Psaki stated, sanctions will not be removed until Crimea is back to Ukraine. What do you think, will this decision be revised? German Chancellor Merkel has stated the same, but taking different views in Europe into account, will Europe be able to maintain an unanimous position in this respect?

-I believe the White House does intend to maintain sanctions if it can, but there is no question that the broader Western consensus on sanctions is slowly disintegrating before our eyes. Should Berlin win enough concessions from Russia, there is definitely a danger that Europe -- in part or whole -- dismantle economic sanctions on Russia, even if Crimea or the Donbas are not returned to Ukrainian sovereignty. This will be framed as "confidence-building" measures or "steps to peace," but the end result will likely be Crimea and likely parts of eastern Ukraine outside of Kiev's control. How the US reacts to this will be very telling for Western unity both today and in the future.

-As the President of the Council of Europe has recently declared, the EU plans to establish a European army. Former EU Commissioner Javier Solana supported the initiative, but Europe was still confused because of this initiative. According to some experts, the USA is losing a game with Russia. In Russia it has already been known that leftist political parties and “greens” are financed from Russia and there are many Russian spies in Europe. From your point of view, what can the appearance of the army creation mean? What happens in the USA-Russia relationships? Is the opinion real that the USA is losing Europe and we will face a new reality soon?

-There will be no European army anytime soon, at least nothing of the kind suggested by Jean-Claude Juncker's comments. European Union forces and inter-state joint forces already exist, but they are composed entirely of member state militaries and are limited by the inpidual member state mandates. Pooling men and materiel into a dedicated European force is not only a military issue, but a political question. There are few, if any, EU member states that would be interested in the establishment of a supranational force outside of national command.

However, while Juncker couched the creation of a European army as a way to deter Russian militarism, there is no doubt that Moscow would see the creation of an independent European force as a positive development. A European army would, by definition, disclude US participation and would be a competitor to NATO. Reduced US/NATO influence in Europe would surely be a welcome development from Moscow. In addition, any European army would be hobbled by the same disunity and foreign policy pergences that prevents genuine European unity over the Ukraine issue. A joint European army could, in some ways, make collective Western action less, and not more, likely. However, I do not expect to see a standing, supranational European military force anytime soon, though Russia is certainly looking at this closely as a possible means for undermining NATO.

But the broader question about US-Europe relations is worrying. While the US continues to play a major political and military role in Europe -- US troops and tanks are returning to the NATO eastern flank in numbers not seen for years -- the sense of common purpose that bound the West into a definable bloc during the Cold War is currently lacking. Part of the fault is with America, which has been (perhaps understandably) preoccupied with economic recovery and geopolitical retrenchment. Europe also deserves some blame, as both EU- and national-level governments have shown themselves to be incapable of adapting to the realities of Russian revanchism. Most European defense budgets are stagnant or shrinking, political and popular support for resisting Russian attacks on the post-Cold War liberal order has been tepid at best, and its most powerful asset -- soft power through conditionality -- has been largely broken since the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

-An article written by you published by Foreign Policy was very interesting for Georgia. As you stressed in the article, “Ukraine is not the only target for Russia and Georgia is also under threat. It is clear that the latter will remain under threat unless the West and Russia, USA and Russia resolve problems. Has a threat for Georgia increased?

-Even rapprochement between the West and Russia, which looks like a remote possibility at this point, is no guarantee of safety for Georgia. After all, it was during the Yeltsin administration -- a heyday of US-Russian relations -- that Russian forces and proxies helped facilitate separatism in Abkhazia.

The military threat of Russia, while always an issue of concern, is not the principal vector of Russian influence right now. Instead, Moscow is riding on Georgians' mounting discontent with failed Euro-Atlantic conditionality to boost local allies and proxies. Domestic troubles, fatigue with vague and endless Western "benchmarks," and a steady stream of Russian funding is helping boost support for pro-Russian organizations and political movements. If trends hold, elections in 2016 could introduce considerable anti-West factions into parliament, which could undermine or even derail the country's longstanding Euro-Atlantic consensus. This should be a concern for the West as well as a concern for Georgians who hope to see continued democratic progress, economic development, and see their country's future with Europe and the West.

-How would you assess the two-year activity of Georgian Dream and the general situation in Georgia?

- There are positive developments and negative developments. On the whole, the government deserves credit for restoring democratization. The judiciary appears to have improved considerably -- though still not without its issues -- and parliament is actually a place for debate rather than a rubber stamp assembly. Decentralization, healthcare, and welfare reforms, though not perfect, represent positive steps in the right direction.

On the other hand, the government's fixation on the previous regime seems like a misplaced priority. While justice should be served, and the dogged refusal of some UNM officials to admit to their government's past abuses surely does not help matters, the ruling coalition's pathway to success and political longevity is not adjudicating the UNM's guilt, but by building Georgia into a democratic, economically vibrant, and militarily secure state.