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.