Experts discuss Visegrad Four experience in scientific and environmental cooperation (watch or read)

19.02.2026 (Caucasian Journal). Last month, the Caucasian Journal convened our second Visegrad Four + Georgia webinar, “Academic and Scientific Cooperation; Environmental Challenges: Joint Responses,” organized in cooperation with our project partners: Arnika (Czechia), EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy (Czechia), Visegrad Insight (Poland), and the Central European Forum (Slovakia).

This webinar marked the second event within the project “Visegrad Lessons for Georgia – Overcoming Political Divides through Practical Cooperation.” To read about the first webinar in the series, click here. 
Further expert discussions will follow. 

▶ ქართულად: The Georgian version is here.

To be the first to view exclusive interviews, please subscribe here to our YouTube Channel

ACADEMIC AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION; ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES: JOINT RESPONSES

Alexander KAFFKA, editor-in-chief of Caucasian Journal: Good morning and good afternoon. I am Alexander Kaffka, and I will be moderating our second webinar. It's my pleasure to thank the International Visegrad Fund for supporting this project.

As we have already observed, the Visegrad Group has experienced serious political disagreements among the member states, yet cooperation has often been preserved in areas that are less politically sensitive, but still strategically vital, such as academic exchange, scientific research, and environmental policy. Georgia and the South Caucasus in general face a different political and institutional context, but similar risks – deepening polarization, fragile institutions, and shared environmental and scientific challenges. 

Samvel MELIKSETYAN: “The present era is a test of maturity for the elites of Armenia and Azerbaijan”

04.02.2026 (Caucasian Journal) Today’s guest is Samvel MELIKSETYAN, a political analyst and expert at the Armenian Council (formerly Research Center on Security Policy, RCSP) in Yerevan, specializing in South Caucasus affairs. His work focuses on regional connectivity and the historical, demographic, and ethnic dimensions of the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict.

 

Samvel has been directly involved in recent Peace Bridge Initiative roundtables held in both Baku and Yerevan, giving him a rare, firsthand perspective on current civil dialogue efforts at a time of profound uncertainty in the region.  (For the Azerbaijani perspective, please see our recent interview here)

Alexander KAFFKA, editor-in-chief of Caucasian Journal: Dear Samvel, welcome to Caucasian Journal! You recently took part in Peace Bridge Initiative roundtables in both Baku and Yerevan. How did these meetings feel—both as an expert, and on a personal level?

Samvel MELIKSETYAN:  Hello, and thank you for the invitation! Over the past three decades, Armenian–Azerbaijani meetings at the level of experts, media representatives, and other civil society sectors, supported by various international peace initiatives and organizations, have taken place mainly in Georgia or European countries. Therefore, the format itself was not unfamiliar, and almost everyone in the groups already knew some participants from previous initiatives.

 

Rusif HUSEYNOV: “Direct Armenian–Azerbaijan Engagement Is a Genuine Breakthrough”

20.01.2026 (Caucasian Journal) Today, the Caucasian Journal welcomes Dr. Rusif HUSEYNOV, a distinguished Azerbaijani political analyst and the co-founder and CEO of the Baku-based think tank, the Topchubashov Center. He has first-hand knowledge of key developments not only in Baku but across all regional directions. 

A widely cited expert, Dr. Huseynov offers an essential regional perspective on the evolving dialogue around security, economic development, and international engagement in the Caucasus. Caucasian Journal is pleased to ask him a series of interview questions. 

(For the Armenian perspective, please see our interview here)

Alexander KAFFKA, editor-in-chief of Caucasian Journal: Dear Rusif, welcome to Caucasian Journal! Let’s begin with what many observers consider the most remarkable development of the past months: the unprecedented thaw between Azerbaijani and Armenian civil societies. You took part in the recent forums in both Baku and Yerevan. What moments or impressions struck you most personally? What emotion or mood defined the atmosphere?

Rusif HUSEYNOV:  Although Armenian and Azerbaijani experts—including myself—have been in regular contact for several years across various platforms facilitated by different organizations, this direct bilateral engagement represents a genuine breakthrough. I feel privileged to be part of this bilateral framework bringing together Armenian and Azerbaijani experts under the Peace Bridge initiative, within which participants made reciprocal visits to Yerevan and Baku in October and November.

Experts discuss Visegrad Four experience and lessons for the Caucasus (watch or read)

18.01.2026 (Caucasian Journal). Last month, the Caucasian Journal convened the first Visegrad Four + Georgia webinar, “Political Differences, Practical Unity: The Visegrad Experience,” organized in cooperation with our project partners: Arnika (Czechia), EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy (Czechia), Visegrad Insight (Poland), and the Central European Forum (Slovakia).

This webinar marked the first event within the project “Visegrad Lessons for Georgia – Overcoming Political Divides through Practical Cooperation.” Further expert discussions will follow, focusing on various fields, including business and economics, scientific cooperation, and environmental cooperation.

▶ ქართულად: The Georgian version is here.

To be the first to view exclusive interviews, please subscribe here to our YouTube Channel

In a landmark webinar hosted by the Caucasian Journal, experts from the Visegrad Four (V4) and Georgia gathered to discuss a pressing question: How can nations maintain practical cooperation when political leaders are at odds? As Georgia navigates a challenging European integration path, the V4 experience offers a "realistic" model—not of perfect unity, but of resilient, functional collaboration.

Key Takeaways for Georgia

1. "Low Politics" vs. "High Politics": Ladislav Cabada (Metropolitan University Prague) emphasized that clashes in "high politics" (ideology, foreign policy) should not stop "low politics" cooperation. Trade, scientific exchange, and environmental protection must remain active even when leaders disagree.

2. The "TRIO" and South Caucasus Formats: Kakha Gogolashvili (Rondeli Foundation) highlighted that while the V4 was a lobbyist for EU entry, Georgia can look toward a "South Caucasian format" (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) for regional stability, using V4-style sectoral cooperation (SMEs, environment) as a blueprint.

"Now there is another format that is possible to use—the South Caucasian format between Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. These three countries can cooperate and use the experience of the Visegrad Group" — Kakha Gogolashvili

3. The Resilience of Civil Society: István Gyarmati and Giorgi Robakidze warned that the West must not "give up" on Georgia because of government friction. Instead, support for civil society should increase when official channels become difficult.

4. The Visegrad Fund Model: The International Visegrad Fund (IVF) remains the "only remaining asset" of true cooperation for the V4. For Georgia, creating a decentralized Civil Society Forum could protect independent media and fight disinformation.

"The Visegrad project itself is an act of defiance against history." — Marta Simeckova, Project Forum.

Watch 1-minute video highlights from Webinar 1 here. The full text version of the webinar is below:

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES, PRACTICAL UNITY: THE VISEGRAD EXPERIENCE

Alexander KAFFKA, editor-in-chief of Caucasian Journal: Despite significant political disagreements, the Visegrad Group has managed to preserve cooperation in key aspects. Today's discussion is not about idealizing the Visegrad model, but about understanding it realistically, what worked, where it was fragile, and which lessons, if any, might be relevant for Georgia. With that, let me turn to our first question. What is the single most important factor that allowed the Visegrad group to maintain cooperation despite serious political disagreements?