— How well is the CSTO coping with the functions assigned to it? What would you call "points of growth" and, conversely, is there anything that causes you concern?
— The assessments by the heads of delegations attending the meetings of the CSTO's statutory bodies confirmed that the organization was successfully coping with the functions entrusted to it. Both observers and representatives of the expert community generally agree with this. I would define the peacekeeping potential that the organization has as "points of growth". We are constantly improving it. For example, the introduction of the status of "coordinating state" allows us to participate in peacemaking and peacekeeping operations under the UN mandate. We consider the parliamentary dimension to be another productive area - there is a huge potential here, which, unfortunately, has not yet been fully utilized.
The analytical component of the secretariat's work is also developing dynamically. We are currently making progress in establishing cooperation with analytical structures operating in member states of the organization and a number of other countries.
With regard to subjects of concern, as in any international organization, we occasionally have contentious issues and discussions. However, the level of understanding among member states is such that these issues are quickly resolved.
— What is the key vector of the CSTO's development? How do you see the future of the organization?
— The key vector of the organization's development is related to the traditional direction of work — political and diplomatic. Indeed, the very mechanism of decision-making — and they are taken by consensus — suggests that the basic tools for fulfilling the statutory objectives of the organization are negotiations and the search for mutually acceptable solutions at the political level. We are convinced that any problem can be solved diplomatically if there is political will and a desire to negotiate.
The CSTO future will be determined by the countries that are members of this alliance. With their independence and sovereign right to independently determine their foreign policy, they choose the relevant tools to ensure national security. The history of the last two centuries shows that it is collective security that is the most demanded toolkit. The growing tension in the rapidly deteriorating system of international security, as it seems, will attract more and more attention to organizations such as the CSTO. And the socio-political demand for security may determine both the expansion of the organization's functionality and, possibly, an increase in the number of its participants.
— How do you see the impact of artificial intelligence on security? Is it more of a positive factor or a challenge?
— Like any innovation within the framework of scientific and technological progress, along with positive and creative potential, it implies a certain set of risks. In this case, they are especially noticeable in the humanitarian-technical field. First of all, the aspect related to the use of artificial intelligence in the military sphere, in the field of human behavior and mass consciousness management, and political technologies raises concern.
There are also many positive aspects. First of all, it is the optimization of many processes related to the analysis and forecasting of the security situation in certain regions and sub-regions. In my opinion, the key task at the current stage is to maintain state control over such technologies, since the fall of such a tool into the hands of destructive non-state actors can have unpredictable consequences and further destabilize the international situation.
— There is a question in connection with yesterday's terrorist attacks in Dagestan. How do these events affect the situation in the CSTO area of responsibility? Is it possible that Russia could turn to its allies for help?
— The Secretariat of the Collective Security Treaty Organization has received with deep pain the news of the tragic events in Makhachkala and Derbent. We strongly condemn the actions of terrorists and any attempts to incite interreligious discord. There is no justification for such crimes.
Of course, such events can significantly destabilize the situation at the regional level, especially given the network nature of the organization of such extremist and terrorist groups. It is necessary to wait for the results of the investigation into this crime; I am sure they will clarify a great deal. On the basis of this, the political leadership will determine the direction of its foreign policy efforts to counter the possible consequences.
To date, the Secretariat has not received any requests for assistance from the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation has its own potential and experience to successfully address such problems. The potential for bilateral inter-agency cooperation is also significant. However, I am confident that, should Russia request assistance, the allies will not be left behind.
