On March 11, GMF Bratislava, in cooperation with the Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, held a one day seminar entitled "Global security threats and Central Europe." This workshop brought together 30 experts from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Britain, Israel, Turkey, and the United States. In three thematic sessions, the seminar examined global security threats as perceived by Central European countries, the responses and contributions of these countries to strengthening security, and the perspectives of major security players on a regional level, such as Turkey and Israel, and global level, such as NATO, EU and the United States. A relatively broad consensus exists when it comes to perceptions of security threats in Central Europe, a fact only supported by the region's membership in NATO and EU. In most Central European countries' security policies, there is little difference of opinion in regard to topics such as international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and failed states. At the same time, as a result of varying historical experiences, differences do still exist.  A good example of these diverging views is Russia, a country regarded by some as a security risk due to a combination of political non-transparency and the dubious role of Russian energy policy as a foreign policy tool. Differences are also transparent when it comes to the planned U.S. missile defense system. Poland and the Czech Republic both agreed to this project, but at the same time, Czech Republic faces strong domestic opposition as well as a lack of support from neighboring Slovakia. These problems could be solved by placing this system in the framework of NATO. Compared to the above mentioned issues, differences in opinion among Central European countries in relation to Iranian nuclear plans appear negligible. In this respect, differences are more obvious and directly relate to other major security players in the Greater Middle East. Whereas Israel clearly classifies Iranian nuclear and missile programs as a threat, Turkey does not consider Iran an enemy but instead is enjoying the best-ever relationship with this neighbor. At the same time, Turkey feels well protected through its security and military alliance with the United States, while EU membership is becoming less of a priority for the Turkish government. Turkish NATO and U.S. connections have been improved by the fact that, despite good economic relations, a security and military alliance between Russia and Turkey is not possible. As major players in world security, the United States, EU, and NATO have shared perceptions of global security threats but they do differ significantly in their responses to them. Participants voiced much criticism at the EU. Traditionally, EU is very rhetoric and not responsive.  European Security Strategy, drafted as early as 2003, has since failed to be implemented, even though there have been clearly defined security threats. In this respect, the EU greatly differs from the United States and is further handicapped by chronic deficits in information exchange and defense costs.  NATO, in turn, faces a major challenge with its global mission to Afghanistan, seen by many as a major test. In conclusion, the seminar demonstrated that, in respect to perceptions of and responses to major security threats, there is a complex relationship between the countries in Central Europe, Middle Eastern states, and global security players. Seemingly uniting factors, such as shared historical experience or geographic location, do not automatically result in similar perceptions of security threats. In addition, even if threats are viewed in similar ways, responses to them may still significantly diverge. Leaving such differences unnoticed and omitting the necessary dialogue on security threats would be detrimental to building a sustainable and transatlantic security framework.