Lubica Drozenova

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.

Olympic Flame

If NATO is planning to place another missle defence system like mechanism in Ukraine then it would be obvious why Uraine people oppose it. Placing her citizens at the frontline of a possible international military conflict is the least thing most ordinary people wish to happen on their own country.

Hartlepool

Being on the front line in a nuclear war is said to be the safest place because of the close proximity of both forces to each other.

The Bear

The US should get the hell out of Europe and especially out of Britain and take their early warning systems that provide THEM with an early warning with them.

These same systems that make Brittan and other nations in which they are planted prime targets that they would not otherwise be.

To place anything in the way of military hardware in any of the New European countries after what happened in Cuba is hypocrisy to the extreme.

NATO is no longer needed. What IS needed is a pan European defence force. The world has moved on. We may not like where it has moved to or where it is likely to end up but to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Sticking ones head in the sand positions one for a perfect kick.

mattyr2k8

the UK would be just asmuch as the target as the US with or without the early warning systems in a full-scale war.

Hartlepool

Bear,what would be the response of your EU Defence force if fighting broke out between Greece and Turkey?

Do you really believe the EU Defence force is only for defence?

Will it have the French and British Nuclear deterrent weaponry or would the Germans and Italians have those?

Just a few more thoughts on what you said with regard to "sticking ones head in the sand positioning one for a perfect kick",are you all for the laying down of arms at the slightest sign of provocation from friend or enemy,or do you believe in getting even at the first and every chance that comes your way?

Westcountryman

I am certain that the Americans would share this information if we were at risk.

The UK would be a target with or without the systems.

The US has been doing it since long before Cuba. Missiles in Turkey, for example.

I strongly disagree.

Can be satisfied by NATO.

NATO isn't specific to the Soviet threat.

Exactly. As a leading military power in Europe, the UK easily qualifies as a prime target, as does France.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

The Bear

The world has moved on since the creation of NATO. We may not like the way it has moved on but not liking a thing doesn’t change it.

NATO was established at a time that Europe was still dreadfully fractured and when it was facing a real threat from the USSR. It made good sense to establish an alliance of nations both from establishing a common purpose, the defence against communist takeover, and it provided a common cause around which nations could gather and heal.

Would the UK be just as much a target without the US bases here? Categorically NOT. We’re just not worth the effort.

What would the EU defence force do in the event of a Greece vs. Turkey war? Hopefully kick seven bells out of Turkey as I hope that Turkey is NEVER admitted into the EU.

Nuclear arms in the EU? Such as we have that do not have a US key that must be turned before use should form a part of the overall EU defence force.

Americans sharing information gathered from their early warning systems? Great. You’ve got about five minutes before the first wave aimed at taking out the strategic radars on your soil hits you.

The UK a target with or without the US early warning equipment? Why should we be?

Precedence by placing missiles in Turkey? Check out the history about that. It’s not quite as it gets presented.

NATO still needed? Why? The USSR is defunct, we stand to gain FAR more by closer cooperation with Russia than confronting her as apart from anything else we share the common threat of Islamification. NATO IS no longer needed, at least not by Europe.

No, NATO served its purpose. The threat today is not the threat of the past. Here’s a thought. In every case over tha past 100 plus years every major war has started with the victor of the previous war using the same techniques and types of weapon that it used to win and every attacker using novel strategies and weapons.

In any case it’s time that the US was left to its national dotage and Europe pushed ahead. The US is like an ageing relative who once was strong but now is weak and though not realising it rather hard up. Nice to keep in touch with, but not to be encumbered by.

HighlandFP

__________________
WARNING: By reading or downloading this post you may be committing an offence under some or all of these Terrorism Acts.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/securit...m-and-the-law/

EU = Ein Volk ~ Ein Reich.

The Bear

I fail to see a conection.