• Jimmy Choo Filipa Wallet
  • Burberry Nova clutch
  • Alexander Wang duffle
  • Yves Saint Laurent
  • Dolce
    < Previous Post | Next Post >

    Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine

    Posted by Kyle Atwell in US Foreign Policy on Friday, November 7. 2008

    Ukraine and Georgia were previously anticipated to take the next step toward full NATO membership, attaining Membership Action Plans (MAPs), at an upcoming December NATO Ministerial.  However, Georgia’s conflict with Russia and the destabilizing, perennial internal political squabbles between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko in Ukraine has made a 2008 MAP for either country all but impossible to imagine. 

    Steven Pifer, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, believes that in this situation, it would be unwise for the US to push hard for MAPs in December.  Instead the US should develop a Plan B for moving Georgia and Ukraine toward membership:
    Rather than pursuing a quest certain to end in diplomatic failure, Washington needs a Plan B. It should aim to shape a December outcome that sends positive signals to Kyiv and Tbilisi while making clear that NATO does not concede Ukraine or Georgia to Russia’s geopolitical orbit.

    Seeking MAPs in December, only to fall short, would not be good for Ukraine or Georgia or for their long-term NATO prospects. Likewise, it would not be good for the U.S. government to make a big diplomatic push to persuade allies to agree to MAPs – and fail again, as it did in Bucharest.
    Pifer outlines his own Plan B proposal here.

    The US State Department appears to have come to the same conclusion that a December MAP is out of the picture; US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor announced this week that Ukraine may still qualify for a MAP in 2009, according to Trend News.  Taylor qualified this statement by saying progress in Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership will require evidence of political stability in a country that has been far from politically cohesive in past months or years. 

    While working at NATO during the Bucharest Summit in April, I felt there was strong sentiment in the NATO corridors that both Georgia and Ukraine would achieve MAPs this December.  The US pushed hard for the two countries to be granted MAPs at Bucharest, but these ambitions were vetoed by skeptical countries like Germany, certainly heavily influenced by Russian opposition.  It was determined however that the MAP issue would be revisited in December, and all Allies agreed the question is not if Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO Allies, but when.

    Given Russia’s invasion of Georgia and Ukraine’s disastrous political infighting, it may seem the skeptics were right to hold off for now.  In fact, Taylor’s suggestion of a 2009 MAP for Ukraine may be over-optimistic in itself, according to Taria Kuzio who published an op-ed, highly critical of President     Yushchenko, in the Kyiv Post:
    If Yushchenko follows Leonid Kravchuk in serving only one presidential term, then the last chance he has of fulfilling his dream of being the president who takes Ukraine into the preparatory stage of NATO membership will be in 2009, his last year in office. Ukraine, though, could also fail the test of political stability in April 2009, during NATO’s 60th anniversary summit when Ukraine and Georgia could again come under consideration for membership action plans.

    Yushchenko’s preference for pre-term elections over compromise, because of his loathing of [Prime Minister] Tymoshenko, means that a new parliamentary coalition and government will not be in place until March 2009, a month before the NATO anniversary and too little time to show NATO doubters, like Germany, that Ukraine is politically stable.
    It seems like Georgia and Ukraine's bids for NATO membership have been bundled together up to this point; it may be time to change this.  Georgia and Ukraine are two different countries in different political situations, and each may very well progress toward NATO membeship at its own pace. 

    Popular support for NATO membership in Ukraine currently and consistently hovers in the low and below 30 percentile; it is hard to imagine Ukraine will be an ideal candidate for NATO membership in 2009, even if it does get its political house in order. 

    On the other hand, with some 70% of Georgians desiring NATO Membership, Georgia's leadership and population are motivated to join the Alliance.  The Allies should leverage this motivation to encourage positive democratic reforms within Georgia, while moving it closer to NATO membership as previously promised.  NATO's decision regarding Georgia's membership should be determined by Georgia's actions, not Russia -- by whether or not Georgia progresses toward meeting the qualifications of a good NATO Ally.

    Permalink - Comments (14)
    Defined tags for this entry: , , ,

    Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by three young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.

    The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.

    RSS Feed Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.



    Trackbacks
    Trackback specific URI for this entry

    No Trackbacks

    Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    Zyme - #1 - 2008-11-07 12:29 -

    Why not concede Georgia into Russia's Orbit?

    They are the strong men in the region, Western ambitions in this region are laughable and would mean unnecessary provocation.
    Just as Russia had to concede the Balkans, we should now be honest and recognize who pulls the strings in the Caucasus.

    Any other American policy within Nato structure is doomed, as France and Germany will surely enforce the above.

    You cannot simply cut off a part of a country's traditional sphere of influence without granting additional influence elsewhere and at the same time assume that relations to this country remain positive.

    Comments (4)

    quo vadis - #1.1 - 2008-11-07 14:53 -

    Why not concede Germany into the US Orbit?

    We are the strong men in the region, Russian ambitions in this region are laughable and would mean unnecessary provocation.
    Just as we had to concede the Caucasus, they should now be honest and recognize who pulls the strings in Europe.

    Comments (2)

    Zyme - #1.1.1 - 2008-11-07 17:36 -

    Ha!
    I like your humor :D

    Comments (4)

    Kevin Sampson - #1.2 - 2008-11-08 01:54 -

    Why not concede all of Europe to the Russians? They, in return, could 'concede' South America, Central America, and the Caribbean to us.

    Comment (1)

    Zyme - #1.2.1 - 2008-11-08 03:11 -

    I got the idea of your repetition. The answer is simple - you can give it a try.

    Comments (4)

    Marie Claude - #1.2.2 - 2008-11-08 08:36 -

    Kevin, you can't afford them anymore, uh, our banks possess yours

    Comments (2)

    quo vadis - #1.2.2.1 - 2008-11-08 20:20 -

    Seems like the US Federal Reserve is the ultimate creditor, not European Banks:

    http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/10/fed_lets_european_central_bank.php

    Comments (2)

    Kyle - #1.3 - 2008-11-14 20:19 -

    Russia had to "concede" on the the Balkans because Russia doesn't have power over the Balkans. Georgia need not be conceded to anybody, but rather should have the opportunity to pick its own path. NATO is not trying to force or coerce Georgia into its sphere, but they have left the door open. The vast majority of Georgians have and continue to support a Western path, including NATO membership. Russia on the other hand, is forecefully trying to keep republics that, well, don't necessarily want to be Soviet states.

    Even if the issue were about conceding, David Satter makes an interesting commentary on striking power broker deals with Russia at Forbes:

    "Don't listen to "realists." Self-described "realists" have suggested that Russia be given a free hand in the former Soviet republics in return for cooperation on issues that are vital to U.S. and Western security. This call to make a "deal," in addition to its blatant immorality, ignores the fact that it makes sense to reach an understanding only with those who will keep their side of the bargain. The fact that the Russians are seeking to deny the former Soviet republics their rights as sovereign nations is all the indication one needs that an unenforceable "gentleman's agreement" to cooperate with the West will be violated the minute it ceases to be to Russia's advantage. The rejection of a moral framework for relations, meanwhile, will set the stage and help provide the justification for new and more outrageous Russian demands in the future."

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/obama-putin-russia-oped-cx_ds_1114satter.html

    Comment (1)

    Zyme - #1.3.1 - 2008-11-14 20:24 -

    "The rejection of a moral framework for relations, meanwhile, will set the stage and help provide the justification for new and more outrageous Russian demands in the future."

    Only if you are not prepared to face them with their means. Surely if moral arguments are all you got, then they have you at a disadvantage if you let them go. The moment you struggle for your own sphere of influence with mutual means though, the chances are equal again.

    Comments (4)

    Clear Thinker - #1.3.2 - 2008-12-24 03:30 -

    Kyle, your commentary is so typical of so many people in our country today. You apparently know nothing of the Ukrainian, Georgian, Russian or former Soviet people, their history, their bloodlines and heritage. If a people speaks the Russian language it creates a bond that is not as loose as you may think to separate ones self from the mother. The dismantling of the Communist Soviet Union gave independence to former Republics like Ukraine and Georgia but neither country is separate in blood. I look forward to discussing this further and hope you and those who think like you are open for the heated debate this needs.

    The last thing the US Administration needs to be doing is continuing the dogma of the Cold War which pits the US against Russia. NATO's expansion to countries that border Russia is an attempt to segregate Russia from the rest of the world. We seem to forget too easily that Russia has India, China, Iraq, Iran, most of Africa and South America. This is not like the American Civil War where there were clear lines between North and South. Russia's allies are interspersed around us. We are in no position to continue the same insane policies of the Clinton and Bush Administrations that strained relations between two powers that should be the closest of allies.

    Comment (1)

    Pat Patterson - #1.3.2.1 - 2008-12-24 07:21 -

    Does tht mean that Russia is planning on surrendering to any of the Scandanavian countries because the Vikings were the first to set up a separate and identifiable Russian state?

    Comments (2)

    Pat Patterson - #2 - 2008-11-08 17:02 -

    But will the French banks be allowed to even bail out a canoe after the Japanese suggest certain reforms to Credit Agricole and the Emirates put the squeeze on Societe General? Why not skip the middle men and go straight to the ones actually bailing out the two biggest banks in France?

    Comments (2)

    Marie Claude - #2.1 - 2008-11-09 21:51 -

    uh ???

    why Credit Agricole should care for japanese suggestions ?

    it's a provincial compartimented agricultural bank, whose members receive big EU subventions, didn't you know ?

    for the other banks, we, the tax payers, can assure you, there isn't any problem

    your biggest threat, isn't it ? :lol:

    Comments (2)

    Remington - #3 - 2009-02-05 14:40 -

    The next ambitions and the next division. Why not to accept the existence of two countries on the map, I think you understand what I mean, and the problem will be resolved.

    Comment (1)

    Only registered users may post comments here. Get your own account here and then log into this blog. Your browser must support cookies.

    The author does not allow comments to this entry
    We appreciate any thoughtful comment!

    Would you like to read more?
    Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.

    Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
    More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.





    BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
    If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
    And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"

     

Contact Us

Email Joerg Wolf, Kyle Atwell and Andrew Zvirzdin at:

ar-team AT atlanticreview.org

We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.

Sponsor

Latest Comments

Marie Claude about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

the surfer is still on the wave did you find what you were re-searching?Comments ()


Marie Claude about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =teMlv3ripSM&translated=1Comments ()


Pat Patterson about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Ah, Albert(a) is back at the keyboard. In all this you still haven't offered an [...]Comments ()


Marie Claude about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

in you soporific dreams ! suppose that I'm not buying your sources !Comments ()


Pat Patterson about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

And the old adage about a monkey, if given enough time, might produce a great piece [...]Comments ()


Pat Patterson about U.S. Generals Indicate No Quick Withdrawal from Afghanistan

I try to follow Groucho Marx's advice when it comes to joining groups.Comments ()


Tips From Our Readers

(More)

The above links on transatlantic issues have been recommended by trusted readers. More information about this web 2.0 project ;-)
 
 

Blogroll

Recommended Blogs
 

SUPPORT THIS SITE

Use these links to shop at Amazon USA or Amazon Deutschland:
 

 

Google the Site

Hot Topics

Click on one of the following links to see all Atlantic Review posts about this topic in a chronological order with the latest post on top:

















Click here for the full list of all topics.

Read posts from specific Atlantic Review authors

Ad

Read all about Quicktrim weight loss, and other wrinkle treatments.