Ukraine and NATO

I don't have any kind of principled problem with the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine, but given that Russia seems very opposed to the idea it seems mighty odd for Bush to be pushing forward on the subject at this particular moment. It seems to me that it was just a few months ago when Iran's nuclear research programs were the greatest threat to humanity since Hitler and we were eager to secure Russian cooperation on UN action against Iran. But now we want to antagonize them over something that's not going to make any difference whatsoever to Americans one way or the other?

The failure of U.S. policymakers to set priorities is a bit baffling. Why not ease up on Ukraine and try to work with Russia on stuff that matters more? It's not as if getting Ukraine into NATO will be some kind of boon to American security.

Comments

Bush is just trying to secure Ukraine's strategic reserve of ultra-hot women for American use.

Posted by calipygian | April 1, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm assuming this is reimbursement for some kind of quid pro quo with Ukraine, the "quid" of which is not as widely known as the "quo."

Posted by JH | April 1, 2008 3:43 PM

Ukraine in NATO is a marginal idea. Georgia in NATO is a terrible idea. Do NATO members really want to be sworn to defend an unstable regime in the Caucuses, complete with breakaway regions and a Russian minority group?

Posted by Spike | April 1, 2008 3:48 PM

The same was said about the CE countries and Baltic states in the 90s - why push a NATO expansion through when Yeltsin and the other new democrats were in such a tough position against the ultra-nationalists and the communists. The pros and cons are still debatable today - would Russia be holding on as tightly to Ukraine if NATO hadn't expanded, would they be playing nice(r) in Georgia, would some of the Russian nationalism fanned by Putin peaked a little lower so that someone would have noticed the death of Russian democracy?

But of course every president wants to add someone new to NATO, it's as close as they'll get to adding a state to the union. So any rational approach goes out the window.

Posted by nick | April 1, 2008 3:57 PM

"But now we want to antagonize them over something that's not going to make any difference whatsoever to Americans one way or the other?"

Being bound by treaty to go to war with Russia over one of its neighbors is "something that's not going to make any difference whatsoever to Americans one way or the other"?

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 4:02 PM

Here's an idea, rather than continuing to use NATO to humiliate a defeated yet still powerful Russia, why not just disband the thing?

It's purpose has long since past.

Posted by HAnkest | April 1, 2008 4:04 PM

And don't forget Bush's plan to surround Russia with anti-missile installations, so as to better protect our dear friends in Moscow and the rest of Europe from the deadly Iranian Menace!

Maybe Putin should offer to send 150,000 heavily-armed Russian troops---including lots of spetznas commandos---to garrison Washington D.C., New York, and our Mid-Western missile silos so as to help protect his dear American friends from the horrible menace of Al Qaeda terrorists...

Posted by RKU | April 1, 2008 4:06 PM

Do NATO members really want to be sworn to defend an unstable regime in the Caucuses,

Another argument in favor of primaries....

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 1, 2008 4:07 PM

It's important for Ukraine, but it's not likely to happen. Germany and France don't like the idea any more than they like adding Turkey to the EU, and for many of the same reasons. We have recently re-established the Berlin Wall on Poland's eastern frontier.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 1, 2008 4:09 PM

bargaining chip. Something to negotiate away at a later time (like Czech-based missiles).

Posted by mike c | April 1, 2008 4:12 PM

Maybe Putin should offer to send 150,000 heavily-armed Russian troops---including lots of spetznas commandos---to garrison Washington D.C., New York, and our Mid-Western missile silos so as to help protect his dear American friends from the horrible menace of Al Qaeda terrorists...
Posted by RKU

Leave it to a Soviet-loving Jew like RKU to equate US troops trying to stabilize Iraq with Russians sending troops into the USA.

I would make a counter-offer. Russia can HAVE every non-Christian or non-white with a criminal record no doubt due to "racial oppression" now in NYC and Washington DC.

Posted by chris ford | April 1, 2008 4:12 PM

Bush is seeking short-term returns - the "new Europe" countries are so thankful about being included in the club that they support Bush's adventures in Iraq and supply troops for Afghanistan (and provide him places to visit where he actually seems popular). The flip-side is that the US commits ourselves to going to war for their defense. Are our national interests wrapped up in defending Ukraine and Georgia?

It's bad enough that it's a done deal re Albania, Macedonia and Croatia. We're going to commit ourselves go to war for Albania? Has that been discussed at all in any way that has made the media radar? Albania??

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | April 1, 2008 4:13 PM

"But now we want to antagonize them over something that's not going to make any difference whatsoever to Americans one way or the other?"

Yes. Because they're jerks, and "getting their way" in any particular moment is always the highest priority, regardless of any consequences to stated (or desired) long-term goals.

Posted by jkd | April 1, 2008 4:13 PM

it seems mighty odd for Bush to be pushing forward on the subject at this particular moment.

Why not - Bush is just overflowing with excess military and political capital these days.

Posted by McKingford | April 1, 2008 4:13 PM

Why Ukraine need to join NATO? Are you saying Ukraine weak?? Ukraine not weak!!

Posted by Subway Guy | April 1, 2008 4:14 PM

RKU must have missed the 80's miniseries Amerika.

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 4:16 PM

Letting Ukraine into NATO spells the end of NATO as a bulwark defending Europe from Russia. You have to be kidding yourself to think Ukraine will ever be truly "independent" of Russia - Eastern Ukraine (the industrialized part of the country) is dominated by ethnic Russians, Ukrainian business networks are full of Russians, the secret services and military are completely infiltrated by Russians, top to bottom. What strategic interest could possibly be served by this? Once you've let in Ukraine you may as well let in Russia and Belarus as well.

Posted by vanya | April 1, 2008 4:18 PM

Bush is just trying to secure Ukraine's strategic reserve of ultra-hot women for American use.

This is actually the most rational justification.

I've spent some time in Ukraine, and, well, wow.

Posted by McKingford | April 1, 2008 4:20 PM

It seems to me Ukraine potentially has a lot to offer NATO, considering its strategic location and sizeable military infrastructure, and indeed already it has a "Distinctive Partnership" with NATO, leading to its participation in Kosovo and Iraq. Plus, its "Membership Action Plan" (the things it must do before being allowed to join) would presumably help make Ukraine itself less of a security risk.

Of course that has to be balanced against the needs of dealing with Russia, but I wouldn't completely rule out the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine being in the security interests of the United States.

Posted by DTM | April 1, 2008 4:22 PM

Being a native of Ukraine, I am conflicted about the whole thing. On the one hand, I think it's a great idea for Ukraine to integrate with Europe and wean itself off it's dependence on Russia. On the other hand, I don't know if NATO is the way to go.

It's a very complicated game of chess they must play, as Russia will always have outsized influence in this region due to its control of energy supply and the cultural connection between the two countries. And as we all know by now, international finnesse is not the Bush administration's strong point.

Posted by Roman | April 1, 2008 4:23 PM

....why not just disband the thing?It's purpose has long since past. Posted by HAnkest | April 1, 2008 4:04 PM

Right! Every man (country) for himself (itself)! Let's have no more of these alliances where everyone has to agree on something before they do it! And where the alliance is so attractive that countries will work at changing their nature to belong! We want everyone to wallow in their traditional nationalist tribalism! They should disband the E.U., too, what a travesty!

Clue: just because Bush/Cheney abuse something, doesn't make it all bad.

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 4:25 PM

"Letting Ukraine into NATO spells the end of NATO as a bulwark defending Europe from Russia."

That hasn't been NATO's primary mission for quite a while now (basically not since the re-unification of Germany).

Posted by DTM | April 1, 2008 4:28 PM

Actually, Bush was just backing off sensibly. Someone had told him that Ukraine is near Georgia, so he'd suggested it join the Confederacy.

Posted by John Haber | April 1, 2008 4:28 PM

Expanding NATO is a terrible idea, and expanding it into Ukraine and Georgia would be a deliberate insult to Russia.

Russia is the traditional protector of Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Serbia, etc. Those countries belong by nature to the Russian sphere of influence, and to try to extend Western influence into that region would be against the natural destiny of Russia.

I fail to see much reason for NATO to continue to exist, in any case, as I see their influence as generally a malign one. It is absolutely none of the US business who rules in Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, or Russia and they need to stop meddling around with 'COlored Revolutions' and I don't know what else. Yushchenko is pretty clearly a collaborator and mediocrity put in power by the West, and the sooner he is out of power the better.

Posted by Hector | April 1, 2008 4:28 PM

I demand photographic evidence of these outrageous claims about our need to purge Ukraine of their most valuable natural resources.

Posted by socctty | April 1, 2008 4:30 PM

Hector,

NATO isn't just about thwarting Russia anymore. Indeed, it is just as much or more about dealing with potential security issues in the Middle East and Far East. In fact, if they would being willing to do it, I think Russia is actually a logical potential member of NATO.

Posted by DTM | April 1, 2008 4:33 PM

Remember the Crimean war? The West fought Russia on behalf of the Turkish empire controlling big swathes of southern Europe with orthodox Christian populations, when Russia went to war against Turkey to liberate those. The West was therefore morally wrong to seek stability by maintaining the status quo (and keep the Serbs, etc under the Turkish yoke).
Today is not much different. Ukraine has strong Russian minority. We want these Russians to fight Russians, if and when it goes to war against Turkey for example. How absurd.
No, if the west persists, the Ukrainian Russian settled territories will simply secede, and join Russia. If the West does not like it, and it won't, especially when led by the self-admitted thug McCain, there will be a nice World War III. Start digging your shelters, folks.

Posted by Jiri | April 1, 2008 4:34 PM

It doesn't seem wise to push for NATO membership of a country that seems so deeply and evenly split about that membership.

Posted by Bragan | April 1, 2008 4:37 PM

Bloomberg has a good short roundup on the situation: Rumsfeld Rides Again as Old-New Tensions Shake NATO

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 4:42 PM

Artappraiser, you got to settle down there old friend.

NATO's purpose was a bulwark against the USSR. The USSR no longer exists. So NATO's purpose is gone. Continuing with a bureaucracies (especially a military one) long past their intitial purpose is dumb.

Increasing the bureaucracy, especially if it will piss off Russia, is beyond dumb and serves no purpose.

EU is fine with me, but i'm not European so not my call. The UN, sure why not WTO? Ok, sure. NATO? nope?

Posted by hankest | April 1, 2008 4:47 PM

NATO expansion is a VERY touchy subject to Russia. And this is not about Cold war, ideology, superpower ambitions, or the spheres of influence, as the media tries to portray it. It is just common sense! - Nobody likes foreign military bases at your borders. This is a threat to your national security! Once upon a time, the US almost started a nuclear war because it felt threatened by the missiles in the neighboring country (remember Cuban crisis?). Well, Russia feels the same way about having NATO bases installed in its neighboring countries. And if threatened, Russia WILL retaliate. It already announced that it will aim its missiles at Ukraine and Georgia. Russia will leave all remaining arms treaties, nuclear nonproliferation agreements, etc. It can cut all oil and natural gas supplies to Ukraine and Georgia, and even to Western Europe. Is the US willing to supply those countries with oil and gas??? Russia can block all further UN resolutions on Iran or North Korea (Russia has a veto in UN). Without UN resolutions/prohibitions Russia can legally supply weapons to such countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. These are the costs of having Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. Now, somebody tell me, what are the benefits of having these countries in NATO anyway? Is it worth it???

Posted by AK-47 | April 1, 2008 5:05 PM

I just hope they don't let those !@#$% in Uzbekistan into NATO.

Posted by Peter K. | April 1, 2008 5:40 PM

"Nobody likes foreign military bases at your borders. This is a threat to your national security!"

If the country on the other side of your border has a military, then you have foreign military bases at your border. So, for example, the United States and Canada both have foreign military bases at their common border, courtesy of the other country. And yet somehow the United States and Canada manage not to view each other as national security threats.

Posted by DTM | April 1, 2008 6:20 PM

Makes perfect sense if the goal is hastening the Rapture.

Posted by soonermick | April 1, 2008 6:25 PM

I demand photographic evidence of these outrageous claims about our need to purge Ukraine of their most valuable natural resources.

http://www.jijasali.com/contestant.php?contestant=80

Posted by Jay M. | April 1, 2008 7:38 PM

Willy, nilly, United States can be a national security threat to themselves, when fumbling foreign policy. Bush pushes NATO expansion, where it is strongly rejected by the locals. He seeks to recruit a country, which is practically half Russian, whose capital is the historic heart of Russia, and whose lands are a geographical extension of Russia, into a military block, whose main raison d'être is countries viewing Russia as a potential enemy. The idea, to go against all reason, seems inconceivable to me, but apparently not to Bush, McCain, and most of all to Yushchenko, the Ukrainian leader.
Hector said 'Yushchenko is pretty clearly a collaborator and mediocrity put in power by the West.'
It was not the West, it was the somewhat larger Ukrainian half of the Ukrainian people, who put Yushchenko in power. Now they are being perceived as an Orange republic. The US used to promote Banana republics, now it found a new fruit. Neither is Yushchenko a collaborator, because NATO is not occupying Odessa yet. He wants to be one, yes, but that is different. At the present, the correct term should be "fifth-columnist", and that only because he took an American wife..
What worries me most is the patent reckless irrationality of this newest expansion fraught with deadly peril. Combined with the infamous NATO Balkan history of the last two decades, one could argue that from the highest vantage point it looks like the decision to go to war against Russia has already been made a long time ago. What we see are the final steps before the climactic eruption. It would also make sense that someone thinks that NATO can implement this war so easily that it is worthwhile. That in turn implies existence of secret super-weapons justifying the apparent insanity as a shrewd business move to secure natural resources of Russia. Otherwise, it is strictly 'insanity'.

Posted by Jiri | April 1, 2008 7:49 PM

The odd part is actual Ukrainians are 50%-24% against the idea.

Also, it is not really useful to talk about "ethnic Russians" in Ukraine as the folks who tend to be opposed to NATO expansion since many if not most folks in Eastern Ukraine are Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians. The divide is mostly linguistic and regional, not ethnic (Southern Ukraine, I think, has areas that are mostly ethnic Russian, but there are a lot of Ukrainians mixed in there as well).

Posted by ikl | April 1, 2008 10:06 PM

Ikl,

The difference, as I understand it, is a largely religious one- Catholics vs. Orthodox Ukrainians.

Posted by Hector | April 1, 2008 10:57 PM

Hector, no that really isn't it either. Only the Western third (at most) of Ukraine is Catholic . . . so a large part of "Orange" Ukraine (basically central and north-central Ukraine including Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy) is Orthodox. So, to oversimplify Catholic = Orange but Orthodox =/ Blue.

Anyway, as the polls suggest, even lots of people who vote for the Orange parties aren't wild about joining NATO.

Posted by ikl | April 1, 2008 11:18 PM

NATO is a military alliance. This is about selling weapons to a new customer. Simple, craven greed. Money always trumps policy with this crowd.

Posted by DTZ | April 2, 2008 12:12 AM

"So, for example, the United States and Canada both have foreign military bases at their common border, courtesy of the other country."

Can you please name those foreign countries that have their troops on Canadian territory close to US-Canadian border (except Canadian forces)? :-) Russia has nothing against Ukrainian military force. The objection is to NATO forces (bases, missiles, etc) in Ukraine. Canadian and US military forces can coexist next to each other rather easily. - That's true. US and Canada have traditionally been allies. Russia and NATO - have not! (Should I remind what was the whole purpose of creating NATO in the first place)?

The same way Russian military can coexist next to Ukranian military with no problem. NATO is a different story. Why couldn't US just put more troops in Florida after soviet missiles were placed in Cuba in the 60-s? Why did US feel threatened? Somehow people tend to view things differently when they affect them personally, and the missiles can be pointed at them.

Posted by AK-47 | April 2, 2008 12:31 AM

"NATO isn't just about thwarting Russia anymore. Indeed, it is just as much or more about dealing with potential security issues in the Middle East and Far East."

Right - they've been OH SO EFFECTIVE in Afghanistan...

NATO can't find its ass with both hands.

Yes, the EU needs to have a military organization to defend its interests - when those interests are directly threatened, i.e., when countries outside the EU start to threaten the borders or the interior of the EU.

If you want a bunch of nations in NATO, put them in the EU and give them equal rights.

That will put a stop to that shit fast.

Otherwise, it's bullshit. NATO has no business being in Afghanistan or the Middle East or anywhere outside of the EU.

Neither does the US, frankly.

DTZ is right - it's about money and hegemony and controlling access to resources - in other words, primitive chimpanzee thinking. "Hey, there are bananas over there! Let's go kick that troop out or beat them down and take them!"

It's that goddamn simple and that brain dead. Anybody who thinks like that should be frickin' shot dead before they can cause more trouble.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 1:36 AM

Russia is the traditional protector of Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Serbia, etc. Those countries belong by nature to the Russian sphere of influence, and to try to extend Western influence into that region would be against the natural destiny of Russia.

This is why Ukraine needs to get into NATO; to rub the Russians' faces in the fact that the "Russian sphere of influence" is Russia, and Russia alone, and every other country gets to decide its policy for itself. I've had it with those arrogant, murderous knuckle draggers throwing their weight around Europe. The famous Russian "fear of encirclement" is another way of saying "Oh no! Everyone who we share a border with seems to hate us! It must be a conspiracy!" The reality - that it's just because Russia is a bad neighbour - never seems to get mentioned.

Posted by ajay | April 2, 2008 5:16 AM

Why not ease up on Ukraine and try to work with Russia on stuff that matters more?

Simple: the people setting out foreign policy don't believe there is any value in "working with" other countries to achieve things. What they see is a zero-sum contest for global power, comparable to the Great Game that the Brits used to play. By definition, anything that expands the area under our military hegemony at the expense of some other power's is good and desireable.

Posted by joe | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM

Ajay,

NATO is America's sphere of influence and is way more of an imperialist institution than anything the Russians have been doing lately.

Ukraine has always been in the Russian sphere of influence and must continue to remain so. The American-Western European oligarchies must be taught a lesson that not every country in the world must be at their beck and call. Russia must put a stop to the explansion of Western influence in places of the world it has no business expanding into.

NATO was an imperialist institution at its founding (not that the Warsaw Pact was any better) and it continues to be an imperialist institution today.

Posted by Hector | April 2, 2008 9:51 AM

ajay is exactly right. Russia's "protection" has included perhaps the worst state crimes of the last century or two.

In my view sphere of influence arguments don't apply here. I don't know anyone in Ukraine who expects their profound economic interconnectedness with Russia to disappear with NATO, nor do they want it to.

Just their historically well-founded terror of imminent genocidal persecution at the hands of a massive police state. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 2, 2008 2:24 PM

AK-47,

Well, of course Canada is part of NATO, so I would bet there are non-Canadian NATO military personnel in Canadian military installations all the time. But I think your real point is that somehow in the same way that the US viewed USSR nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the US during the Cold War as a threat, Russia today will view a NATO presence in Ukraine as a threat. While that may be an accurate description of Russian thinking, it completely contradicts your original claim that this is not about Russia reliving the Cold War and trying to have its own separate spheres of influence. Indeed, as I noted before, I personally see no reason Russia couldn't join NATO itself--it would be a logical participant for much the same reasons as Ukraine, and even more so.

Richard Steven Hack,

One can argue about whether or not NATO should have a post-Cold War mission (and hence whether or not NATO should even exist), but that doesn't really change the fact that NATO has in fact adopted a new mission in the post-Cold War era.

By the way, I personally think the invasion of Afghanistan for the purpose of destroying Al Qaeda was a reasonable self-defense effort on the part of the countries in NATO. But you don't have to think that in order to think it actually makes for a safer world to have existing military powers form alliances such as NATO, and I think those benefits are sufficiently independent from all the other issues associated with EU membership that it makes little sense to require EU membership as a precondition to NATO membership--and obviously, many existing NATO members violate that rule, including the United States and Canada.

Hector,

The United States, Canada, and the relevant countries in Europe are partners in NATO (as we in the United States know, we can't dictate foreign and military policies to our NATO partners), and as I have mentioned, I see no reason why Russia could not become another partner in NATO along with these other countries. Of course, maybe Russia sees an advantage for itself in having an exclusive influence on places like Ukraine, but it is circular reasoning to say that Russia must have an exclusive influence on places like Ukraine because otherwise places like Ukraine might be influenced by countries other than Russia.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 4:33 PM

Mr. Powell,

Who were the last people to intervene in the Ukraine to rescue them from Russian domination. Hmm....let me think for a minute....oh that's right, the NAZIs.

The arguments of the NATO advocates are remarkably similar to those made by the Nazis 70 years ago. He was an enemy of Russian influence too, you know. Perhaps that should give you pause, but I don't think it will. If it had not been for the Russian Army, all of Western Europe would have fallen under the slavery of the Nazis.

DTM,

Western economic and political structures have no place in the Russian sphere of influence. Any attempt to spread Western ideas about 'liberal democracy' and 'free market capitalism' to the Ukraine will quite rightly be seen by Russia as acts of aggression. Russia's destiny lies in its heartland and in its identity as an agrarian, Christian-socialist, cooperativist nation, under a strong and authoritative central government, not in accepting Western influence and Western ideas.

Posted by Hector | April 2, 2008 6:38 PM

Now you sound more like a mullah, Hector. Russia will never view spreading ideas on democracy as aggression by the West. Those same ideals have been home in Russia at least since the French revolution. NATO is not about spreading the ideals of democracy, when it wants to anchor its warships in Odessa. Russia's destiny does not lay in your individual pipe-dream, but rather in finding self-expression as a throughly modern, streamlined democratic society, because all the prerequisites are there.
You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by sphere of influence. Ukraine and Russia are both in each other's sphere of influence, for instance. Serbs are in Russia's sphere of influence, because they share many cultural elements with Russia. It is their choosing. If the sphere of influence means taking orders from you, then it's not influence, but occupation and dictate. Ask yourself what you can give to Russia, not what you can impose on it.

Posted by Jiri | April 2, 2008 9:56 PM

Hector--
In fact the Nazis were welcomed with open arms in places like Ukraine and the Baltics after Stalin's depredations, and they probably would have won the war if they hadn't treated potential allies so savagely.

It's certainly true that the Red Army beat the Nazis, but it's also true that most people in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, etc. found little to choose between the two. Robert Conquest has authoritatively put the figure for dead in the Ukraine due to Soviet oppression in the 1930's at five million. The killings and often-fatal exiles to the Gulag continued for decades afterwards.

Ukrainians do not expect or want NATO troops to pre-emptively go to war against Russia on their behalf, but it is certainly understandable that they would want as many hedges as possible against a return to that kind of history. Lots of Russians currently look to Ukraine as an example of how it's possible to recover some economic freedom and political diversity from the ruins of the Soviet totalitarianism. This is hardly "Western aggression".

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 2:48 AM

it is certainly understandable that they would want as many hedges as possible against a return to that kind of history. Lots of Russians currently look to Ukraine as an example of how it's possible to recover some economic freedom and political diversity from the ruins of the Soviet totalitarianism. This is hardly "Western aggression"

Bob, why are you creating a dreamworld? Seventy percent of Ukrainians does not wish Ukraine to join NATO. Some other polls have it closer to 50-50, but in each case the majority is against the NATO idea. So, your speculation about the hedges is all about nothing. Obviously Ukrainians believe that the best hedge is truly friendly relations with Russia. They believe that inviting a big bad gunfighter into their house to protect them from a friendly neighbor would be counter-productive. Besides, explain to me why the US president would go all out to push this idea, and why would Mr. Yushchenko conceive the idea that he knows better than his nation, and try to sneak Ukraine into NATO with utmost dispatch? Does Yushchenko not realize that his NATO idea will lead to internal strife, and possible secession of half the country? Are those actions of a wise leader? And why should NATO want to creep up the closest the West has been to Moscow since the Crimean War (not counting Nazis)? Why does NATO not extend an invitation to Ukraine, Belorussia, and Russia together? Ukraine is not more democratic than Russia, and Belorussia is not less desirable as an ally than Albania. So, why not? Why try to push Turkey into Europe while keeping Russia out of it? Such actions are in essence as anti-European, as they are anti-Russian.

Posted by Jiri | April 3, 2008 5:12 AM

Hector: If it had not been for the Russian Army, all of Western Europe would have fallen under the slavery of the Nazis.

Hate to contradict you, Hector, but (give or take Sweden, Switzerland and a few offshore islands) pretty well all of Western Europe did in fact fall under the slavery of the Nazis, who were at the time the close friends and allies of the Soviet Union.

Posted by ajay | April 3, 2008 10:22 AM

Jiri--
Those polls have moved around quite a bit over the last ten years or so. At one point the pro-Russian ex-Soviet rocket factory manager and quasi-dictator of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma was in favor of an opening to NATO.

I don't have any illusions about the prospects of Ukraine getting into NATO any time soon, or for that matter Turkey getting into the EU. But I don't see anything wrong with the process going forward. I think the idea of including Russia and Belarus is okay too. Why not?

The simple fact is that NATO has become a largely symbolic organization. As a fighting force minus the US, it can't even meet it's obligations to provide support to Afghanistan at the request of its government, and with full UN approval. The idea that it would start a war with Russia in Ukraine seems like true "dreamworld" stuff to me.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 11:17 AM

"But I think your real point is that somehow in the same way that the US viewed USSR nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed at the US during the Cold War as a threat, Russia today will view a NATO presence in Ukraine as a threat. While that may be an accurate description of Russian thinking, it completely contradicts your original claim that this is not about Russia reliving the Cold War and trying to have its own separate spheres of influence."

My initial claim was that Russia's opposition to NATO expansion is based not on propaganda of the sort: NATO is the imperialistic evil, we need to stop the spread of capitalist ideology, etc, but is based on real threat to national interests (including military). Since the collapse of USSR, NATO has demonstrated its continued intention to isolate Russia. When USSR agreed to the reunification of Germany and, consequently, -the Eastern Germany becoming part of NATO as well, US president assured soviet leaders that NATO will not expand eastward any more. It seems that all these promises were soon broken and ignored. Does this look like a friendly act towards Russia? Or maybe placing missiles in Poland (Russian neighbor) and Check Republic (to protect from... Iran??? - find Iran on the map...and then look where Poland is :-)) is the act of cooperation between NATO and Russia??? Well, in these circumstances, tell me, why should Russia trust NATO? Pure and simple... with no propaganda and popular cliches (about freedom, democracy and other BS).., just based on what have happened... Why?

"Indeed, as I noted before, I personally see no reason Russia couldn't join NATO itself--it would be a logical participant for much the same reasons as Ukraine, and even more so."

Well, apparently NATO does. Russia will never be allowed in NATO, because the whole purpose of creating NATO was to counter Russia (talking about starting the cold war). In fact, in 1954, USSR asked to join NATO to help ensure security in Europe. Wouldn't it be logical to admit it (with a list of rules and restrictions that apply to all members)??? NATO, however, strongly rejected Soviet Union's request. Doesn't it tell you that the main purpose of NATO was not exactly security in Europe, but rather something else??? So, once again, why should Russia trust NATO and its declared goals when the actions speak louder than words?

Posted by AK-47 | April 3, 2008 2:17 PM