The US suggestion that Kiev could bypass NATO’S membership rules and join the alliance anyway has shocked the world’s diplomatic community. Freelance writer Alexey Sazonov reports for RT on what’s behind the surprise move.
On December 1, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Ukraine and Georgia will eventually join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but they have a “long road” ahead to meet the entry criteria.
The Bush administration has begun the final push to accomplish one of its most important goals in Europe, that of encircling Russia with NATO countries. According to the New York Times, “the United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies
to offer … Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements.” Now, the question is whether it would make sense for NATO to take such an action, and would this produce a split in NATO.
Any measure to bypass the requirements through which all NATO countries had to go may cause an outrage in the ranks of the organisation as well as set a dangerous precedent.
NATO unity
The purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not to create a coalition and to wage war, but rather to avoid it. Condoleezza Rice’s proposal to accept Ukraine in NATO’s ranks seems to be putting the organization’s unity and the security of its members at risk. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization signed in Washington D.C. in 1949 states the following on enlargement of the organisation: ”The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. (…)“
Ukraine’s involvement in the war in Georgia in August of 2008 has not helped Ukraine’s chances of getting the approval of top ranking European members of NATO. European nations, although condemning Russia’s actions, have stayed away from committing their forces to the conflict, and would like to avoid doing so if possible. In addition, Kiev’s outcry about a possible Russian attack on Crimea has made some members scratch their heads and ask themselves whether they really want to put themselves at risk of an open conflict with Russia.
Unlike the Western European nations, the Baltic States, along with Poland and the Czech Republic have expressed support for Washington’s…
Posts Tagged ‘saakashvilli’
NATO membership: Bush’s goodbye gift to Ukraine?
Posted by closerview on December 2, 2008
Posted in Politics | Tagged: bush, georgia, kiev, member, members, membership, NATO, russia, saakashvili, saakashvilli, tbilisi, ukraine, white house, yuschenko | 2 Comments »
Independance of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and NATO’s Drive East
Posted by closerview on August 26, 2008
Independance of the Breakway Republics
Russian President Medvedev announced on August 26th, 2008 that Russia has recognized Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence and will start setting up diplomatic relations with the two nations. The West, almost immediately, reacted with anger and frustration. Russia is “out of control”. Washington has lost the diplomatic leverage over Moscow. The Kremlin now has the means by which to enforce its interests and it has made clear that it’s interests and decisions will not only be defended diplomatically, but also with the use of force. What has to follow now, in order for South Ossetia and Abkhazia not to end up like Taiwan, is international recognition of the two nations. If Russia can persuade E.U. of necessity of the step towards independanceofthe Caucasian republics, then U.S. will be left with no choice. It is a matter of Moscow having something to offer to the E.U., because Washington will not budge on the issue, and E.U. is dependent on Russian gas and oil, which may be used by Kremlin as leverage. First step has been taken – Moscow recognized the independance of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the people of the two republics are celebrating, and Russia has promised to provide help to Tskhnivali and Sukhumi whenever trouble should arise. Now, it’s up to the Moscow’s diplomats to work the situation in their favor.
NATO’s Drive East – Ukraine
U.S., 4 Turkish, Polish, and Spanish ships have been seen in the Black Sea. The Russian Flagship “Moskva” has already left port of Sevastopol with an “undeclared” purpose, which troubles the West. Ukraine has been trying to show NATO that they have power over Russia. This was exemplified in Kiev’s attempts to tighten their hold on the Black Sea Fleet with illegitimate orders for the Fleet to notify the Ukrainian authorities of any ship movements 72 hours, follow by an approval from Kiev, which may or may not happen. This was disregarded and Russia sailors know not to answer to any orders from Ukrainian officials. As it turns out, Ukraine does not have a firm hold on the Russian Naval Forces in the Black Sea. In addition to U.S. seeing this as evidence of Ukraine not being strong enough against Russia. Ukrainian people are more pro-E.U. than pro-U.S., which basically means that if the Ukrainian people do not see the partnership with U.S. as a way to get into E.U., they will not back their government’s decisions.
NATO’s Drive East – Poland
Poland has finally allowed the United States to put their missile defenses in Poland. It is simply ridiculous of the United States to state that their missiles defenses are aimed at Iran. They are closer to Russia than anything else troubling the West, and Iran has no reason to fire missiles at Europe. Polish people are scared, especially after Russia declaring that their missiles (some nuclear) are aimed at military bases in Poland. The Polish people have no one else to blame but their leader – Leh Kachinski, for endangering his own people. Poland has no business regarding Georgia, Ukraine, or Russian politics aside from those that concern trading relations between the two. Poland has developed magnificently in the recent decade, aside it’s eastern neighbor, and should not engage in outside politics of the Big Game, for it does not have leverage power, or much voice on global international issues.
Rest of NATO
British Foreign Minister Miliband decided to put together an anti-Russian coalition, being quoted as calling to the international community to “put together as wide a coalition to stop Russian aggression against Georgia.” (http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/26/miliband/ Anatol Lieven of the British newspaper the Times quoted Lord Salisbury:
Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire, dispensed immense global power; but that did not mean that he liked playing about with that power.
Faced with proposals for British policy that he understood to be deeply damaging to the interests of other great powers, Salisbury would look his colleagues in the eye and ask simply: “Are you really prepared to fight? If not, do not embark on this policy.”
The full article that Lieven wrote, criticizes Miliband’s words and actions. He points out that the West’s threats towards Russia – not being able to join the WTO, canceling the membership of G8 – are empty and meaningless. Russian economy has performed well even without the WTO so far, and really has not many reasons left for joining this organization. The G8 is a meaningless organization without India and China, so Russia really could care less whether it is considered part of G8 or not. Miliband seems to be trying to get himself in the picture, and put himself up there with the politicians that made a difference in history. This is not the way to do this today. Diplomacy and rationale are key to making history today.
The Conclusion
Russia has declared South Ossetia and Abkhaziaindependent. The two Republics are celebrating. This may be a short-lived celebrations as the rest of the world is yet to recognize the two new additions to the world community. It seems like it may be a long process. U.S. and the rest of the west are trying to threaten Russia with different things that they assume are hurtful. In the short-run, they may make Russia stumble, especially economically, but the guys sitting in Kremlin has all the things planned out. It seems like they have a way out of every situation that the West puts them in. It seems that they have anticipated every possible action and have already planned every “just-in-case” scenario. Now, Western threats to Russia sounds more like frustrated gasps, such as those that one makes when he gets punched in the solar plexus.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: Abkhazia, black sea, black sea fleet, conflict, crimea, E.U., gori, independant, independence, k georgia, kremlin, miliaband, missile defense, moscow, ossetia, poland, russia, saakashvilli, ships, south ossetia, tbilisi, tskhinvali, U.S., ukraine, war, washington, yuschenko | Leave a Comment »
U.S. Double Standards, Yuschenko and the Black Sea Fleet, Georgian Territorial Integrity
Posted by closerview on August 14, 2008
The Informational Battlefield (Cont’d)
www.kommersant.com
Russia Revealed Double Standards of the U.S.
Russia’s victory in the battle with Georgia has agitated western media, giving a solid ground for speculations about the increasing power of Moscow and about the progress in Russia’s relations with the West.
According to Britain’s The Times, the world witnessed a brilliant and tough chess game past week, where Moscow checkmated. Having sacrificed Kosovo, Iraq, NATO membership for Baltic states and deployment of the U.S. missile defense site in the Czech Republic and Poland, Putin arranged a trap in Georgia. Moscow has made no wrong moves since the column of its tanks and armored vehicles entered the Roki Tunnel.
All hawkish statements of U.S. President George Bush notwithstanding, the rude error of Georgia manifested the double-standard policy of the West in respect of the sovereignty of certain states.
According to The Financial Times, Russia made clear it would do anything in the defended state despite the ceasefire deal for South Ossetia. The agreement that both parties inked Tuesday could be interpreted differently, and Georgia, with its smashed army, has no pressurizing levers except the worldwide diplomatic support.
It is obvious where this informational war is going. Russia lost the informational battle during the campaign in Georgia. However, the informational balance seems to be shifting towards Kremlin. It is not that they are spinning the facts, they have the right facts on hand, they just need to prove to the world that they were right. Not to say that this is all clean politics, Russia just set everything up from the start, to have all the facts be in their favor, so they would not need to put any spin on information that they provide to the world. From previous conflicts, Russia has learned, that if something is not calculated well, it won’t matter how good your Foreign Minister is, or how much diplomatic support you have, it boils down to whose side the facts are on. Ethnic cleansing, mass bombardments, and use of force in the first place, are all synonymous with Georgia’s actions in the war, not with Russia. So even though Saakashvili spent his every waking moment speaking to the media, Russia planned things carefully. Notice how calm Lavrov is, he knows that the battle of Western hearts and minds would’ve never been won while the campaign was on the move. Nevertheless, now is the time that Russian Foreign Ministry will present hard facts and raw material to justify their actions and show the world that Russia is a world power to be dealt with. That it won’t stand on its knees and bow down to the will of Western leaders.
Ukraine and the Black Sea Fleet
Ukrainian President Yuschenko in the past few days signed more orders regarding the Black Sea Fleet than he has in the past year, probably. One of the saying that the Black Sea Fleet has to warn the Ukrainian government of it movements out of port not less than 72 hours in advance, another requiring the Russian Fleet to fly Ukrainian colors and flag on its masts, and a row of other ridiculous orders. Anatoliy Nagovitsin, a Russian high ranking officer in Moscow said, “We have only one chief of armed forces – and that is the President of the Russian Federation – of the Black Sea Fleet, and requests and orders from the outside are not legitimate” SOURCE.
It is ridiculous to listen to Yuschenko, as he basically says that the Black Sea Fleet is “allowed” to use Ukraine’s territorial waters and the port in Crimea as long as it is for show. Russia needs its fleet in the Black Sea and the navy played a vital role in the war in Georgia. Russian ships are there to do their duties to Russia, not to Ukraine. However, if Ukraine is threatened, Russian Navy will not stand by as their neighbor gets attacked. Yuschenko also said that Russian Navy’s actions in the war with Georgia could mean terrorist attacks against it while harbored in Ukraine, which will mean loss of Ukrainian life (I apologize for using personal opinion here, but Ukraine and Georgia are tight allies, and I highly doubt that Saakashvili will have spec ops operations conducted on Ukrainian territory). Yuschenko is trying to show the West that he has some power over Russia and that he is ready to join NATO. Although he himself is contemplating entering the Northern Alliance, because they may just stand by as their ally gets put in its place by Russians.
Georgian Borders
Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia will remain as part of Georgia. After what the Georgians have done to them, there is no going back. Sergei Lavrov, in an interview to Echo Moskvi, a Russian news radio station, said that “you can forget about Georgian territorial integrity”. Georgia will not be able to keep control of a people that do not want to be part of it for one, and against whom they committed such atrocities. According to Lavrov, giving their territories back to Georgia would be like a slap in the face to the South Ossetian and Abkhz people. that would mean that they fought and died for nothing more than another stand off. “It is impossible to imagine that Georgian peace keepers will be able to do anything in South Ossetia, and that not Russia’s position, that’s an objective fact” added Lavrov.
No matter what Unites States will say, not matter what resolution will be in place in the end, one things is definite. Russia will not allow South Ossetia or Abkhazia to be integrated back into Georgia. Only the autonomous republics’ independence will put in place a firm agreement between Russia and the West. Otherwise is will be a fragile, shaky peace, that may erupt into an even bigger conflict than what has happened.
The Conclusion
Washington’s double standards right now will bite them back, and bite back hard. All of U.S. allies are watching Washington’s reactions to this conflict in awe, as now they are sure whether the U.S. will come to their aid in case of need. NATO is losing its reliability, it seems, with regard to the smaller nations involved.
Ukraine is trying to put its few words into the conflict and is trying to get Russia angered over the Black Sea Fleet. However, never forget about the FSB, for one. The Russian agents are informing Kremlin of every move in Kiev. If anything starts brewing, Moscow will not stand by, it will make it’s point clear and intentions known. The Ukrainian government will have to deal with its citizens begging them not to go to war with the Russians, because they know what a real war is – Ukraine will never forget World War 2 and the Germans.
Georgia’s borders are no longer what they are. Although officially Georgia’s borders are the same as they were a month ago, expect to see South Ossetia and Abkhazia have their independence recognized sometime in the near future. There is no other option. The people of these two republics will never want to live under the rule of a regime that they curse and despise.
Posted in Politics | Tagged: black sea, black sea fleet, civil rights, conflict, crime, genocide, georgia, kiev, lavrov, ossetia, putin, russia, saakashvili, saakashvilli, south ossetia, territorial integrity, U.S., ukraine, war, washington, yuschenko, yushenko | 3 Comments »
to offer … Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements.” Now, the question is whether it would make sense for NATO to take such an action, and would this produce a split in NATO.