Refusing to award MAP to Ukraine and Georgia,
NATO practically loses the chances of its further expansion

Lubica Drozenova

At the beginning of April in Bucharest there will take place the next summit of NATO, where three Balkan countries, namely Croatia, Macedonia and Albania, are expected to be invited to NATO. But the question regarding Ukraine’s and Georgia’s bid for NATO Membership Action Plan, or MAP, remains opened, first and foremost, because of the position of Germany, France and a number of other countries.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the key problem is the stance of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, which is based, entirely, on V. Putin’s arguments that if even the Ukrainian leaders possess the will to join NATO, it is not enough to realize this idea, with a low level of support for it, showed by Ukrainian people. Georgia has the other problems – the territorial ones. Can it really be a secret for the Chancellor of Germany who is the author and organizer of these problems for Ukraine and Georgia?
Croatia, Macedonia and Albania have, surely, a right to be the NATO member-states. Alliance has, as well, the right to accept them. But what does the NATO membership of these countries give to Alliance in the context of prospects for its further expansion as the system of collective security? To be unbiased, it gives too little. One can’t say it about Georgia and, especially, Ukraine.
Three Balkan states being accepted to Alliance, Moscow will hardly react too aggressively, as it’s obvious that the military might of these countries is so weak and their geopolitical position is of so small importance for the Russian Federation – they can be easily kept under control with gas supplies, taking, especially, into account the last agreements between Russia and Serbia.
There is thereupon something that I’d like to point out – refusing to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia, NATO will practically lose the chances of its further expansion. At the same time Russia will have an opportunity to realize, in future, its long-standing goal – to become “the third Rome”. It isn’t a secret that without Ukraine Russia can become a strong and powerful state, and it will be one, especially with its resources potential. But it will remain Russia. It will never get the might and power of the Soviet Union.
The Russian leadership, to do the justice, understands it very clearly unlike the leaders of some NATO member-states, which prefer to enjoy the pleasures of the here and now and never worry about the future. By making an example of Moldova, Vladimir Putin has recently demonstrated how one can achieve his aims to be realized in this or that region. He had “guaranteed” the sovereign state of Moldova that the part of its own territory, namely Transdniestria, would be returned to it, if it abandoned the idea to join NATO. Has V.Putin asked, in this case, the opinion of average citizens of Moldova or even that Transdniestria? V.Putin usually considers only his own opinion. Or has he, after all, asked Angela Merkel & Co. for advice in this case?
Considering that the NATO leadership hadn’t practically reacted against those claims of V.Putin, it did, actually, support the Kremlin’s methods, in such a way.
What does it fraught for Ukraine with? The answer is obvious – Ukraine will face a massive economic, political, information and cultural campaign of Russia in order to discredit it and to destabilize the situation in this country, and which is appeared to be a real threat to its territorial integrity.
Therefore Ukraine is threatened with territorial problems, controversies, differences in mentality, and ethnic conflicts. If blood is needed, it’ll appear to be – Russia has gained enough experience in Transdniestria, Abkhazia, Ossetia or Chechnya, and Ukraine has Crimea, where this experience can be applied.
I doubt that Europe benefits from such scenario of further development of events in Ukraine. Ukraine may be nearly the only ex-Soviet state which has managed to ensure stability during the years of its independence, though the preconditions to destabilize the situation were too obvious. Besides, in 2004 Ukrainian people has uniquely demonstrated the aspirations to live in a free country and to be among the European states.
Can Europe need one more Orange Revolution in Ukraine to make sure of true preferences of Ukrainians? There’s no chance that two revolutions will happen one after another. A counterrevolution may only happen in such a case. But it’ll inevitably throw Ukraine back, where the Kremlin would like to see it. And does Europe agree on this?
I’d like to remind Mrs. Angela Merkel thereupon that when the Czech Republic was going to join NATO, the majority of its population was opposed to it too.
Why don’t Angela Merkel and her supporters speak about it? Why does Europe give Ukraine the green light to join neither NATO, nor the EU? Why doesn’t Europe change its policy from obstacles to assistance?
What is the key factor here – the fear of Putin or the dream about low-priced Russian gas? But there is free cheese only in a mousetrap. Well, Angela Merkel & Co. are, perhaps, satisfied that Vladimir Putin speaks easily about Russia’s readiness “to help in Afghanistan” by sending its soldiers again to give their lives in this country. Why Angela Merkel doesn’t express concerns about Russia’s readiness to shed blood of its citizens in Afghanistan to gain control over Ukraine?
The Kremlin is almost ready to do anything to halt Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Why is Ukraine so necessary for Russia? The answer is obvious – Ukraine is, geopolitically, a key state of the region, and its position will determine, to a large extent, the prospects of Russia and the further expansion of NATO as the system of collective international security. Neither in Berlin and Paris, nor even in Brussels, have they seemed to be able or capable to understand it yet. It’s hard to believe they agree with such policy of the Kremlin.

No duplicate threading please. Thanks. Other thread deleted.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

The US should pull out of NATO anyway.

Cost too much. And we have no further need to be in Europe. "Europe for the Europeans" I say. If there is a future problem, they can handle it.

And let the Union do things their own way? Amen brother

__________________
"Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. It's just an oppressors way of suppressing a minority..."

"Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals."

"Knowledge is knowing how to, Wisdom is knowing why."

"An open mind is like a castle, with its gates unbarred and guards asleep."

I think the SCO would relish NATO going away or the US pulling out of it, Russia would definitely be pleased.

I've an impression Western media increase (may be even not deliberately) the functional role of the SCO. It's true that SCO was created to oppose the growing influence of the US in the Cental Asia countries, both economic and political presence of the USA in this region wasn’t in the interests of the biggest members – Russia and China. In its today’s form the SCO it’s mostly a political “forum”, aimed to discuss some problems of the states-members, no more than that. Its aim is antiterrorist activity and the region security. It’s highly unlikely SCO becomes one day a real integration union, with Russia and China under the rule of one “supranation” entity… Practically impossible.
It's also true that the exercises held by SCO last year put other countries "in the guard", but the reality is that the further "military" oriented evolution of the union isn't in the interests of the members.
It's more likely Russia will try to develop another security organisation - CSTO (includes some former Soviet republics).

__________________
Best regards,
Tatiana Kuznetsova,
Political correspondent,
http://www.finamrus.com/

Russia wouldn't be the only ones pleased.

Americans would be saving billions of dollars by removing all forces from Europe.

'They' can .... ? what evidence is there to support that claim ... a resurgent Russia , War in Afghanistan the US would be ill advised to leave NATO .

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

I am confident that a NATO, minus the US, can handle themselves against Russian aggression. I do not believe we Americans need to be there anymore. It cost way too much to maintain our forces in Europe, there is no enemy that directly threatens us, the Euros really don't want us there, and we could use the troops to guard our borders against foreign interlopers that are invading our country.

Dont bother thinking about that. The US is far too afraid about a Union that would be forced to develop robust military capabilities itself. After all it could make independent military decisions then with a certain leverage. No, I think the US prefers the NATO over that.


Regarding the original point of this thread. The reason why the EU does not see a scenario for the Ukraine to join has as most important reason one of internal nature. The EU struggles with the current enlargement and before the reform treaty is not really fix it won't set any new further steps in the enlargement. It has already enough to do with the current candidates and the problems at the Balkan region.

The EU has to stabilize internally first before it can dare thinking about an Ukraine joining. Apart from that, what says the east of that country to such a project? As far as I know the Ukraine is deeply divided on that issue itself. The EU is not quite eager on a new member where the half of it sees the EU perhaps as enemy.