NEWS AND VIEWS: Ukraine and NATO - a pessimistic view (11/12/06)

NEWS AND VIEWS

Ukraine and NATO - a pessimistic view

by Roman Kupchinsky

Why does Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko insist upon Ukraine joining NATO?

What would Ukraine stand to gain if it were to be accepted into the North Atlantic alliance?

Some Ukrainians might find this question puzzling. There is, after all, a potential enemy.

His name, like that of the evil Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter novels, is never mentioned in public. The dilemma is that Ukraine, according to its current national security doctrine, is a strategic partner not only of the United States, but also of the unmentionable one.

NATO membership, its proponents claim, would ensure that the full might of the alliance would be brought to bear to preserve Ukrainian independence if the unmentionable strategic partner sends in troops to defend Crimea (as an example) from brutish Ukrainian chauvinists intent on harming the local Russian-speaking population.

Ukrainians, for various reasons, prefer to believe that the role of NATO, as explained on the alliance's website, is still valid: "NATO is committed to defending its member-states against aggression and to the principle that an attack against one or several members would be considered as an attack against all."

Is this really the case, or are we being hoodwinked by some bimbo in Brussels who forgot to update the website 10 years ago?

"Defending" means the use of weapons. Today even a moderate, half-hearted defense means having the weaponry needed to do the job.

NATO has weapons, tons of weapons. The best weapons money can buy. They have tanks which get better mileage than the average SUV so frequently spotted on American highways.

The country whose name we are loath to mention also has a weapon. One which has no armor and no caliber - it is a simple, everyday hydrocarbon used to boil borsch and to heat our homes. It is called gas. This unnamed strategic partner of Ukraine has more gas than any country on Earth and it is determined to use this gas as a weapon.

It can close the valves on the gas pipelines to Europe and sit back, smile and watch most members of NATO freeze their little European fannies. It can create economic chaos whenever it chooses to. So - how will NATO go to battle with this country to protect Ukrainian independence?

I challenge Mr. Yushchenko to answer one simple question. How will NATO defend Ukraine if it cannot defend itself from a cutoff of gas by the unmentionable one?

What will NATO do to counter an invasion of Ukraine - bomb the gas and oil pipelines? Bomb the gas fields? My guess is that it will scratch itself in the fanny and wonder what the real reason for its continued existence is. It has not been able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan; it plays no role - thank God - in Iraq and it has no role in the post-Soviet world. It is simply there, a monument to the battles it never fought and pays its bureaucrats great salaries to keep silent.

NATO, for those who care to know, does not matter anymore.

NATO lost the battle for Ukraine even before it began. So why all the moans and groans about Viktor Yanukovych refusing to join the losing side? Who stands to benefit from all this nonsense?

President Yushchenko is certainly entitled to retain his romantic views of Ukraine in the European Union and in NATO, and dream that his country is truly a "European country." But who cares anymore outside of the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States which, in desperation, seems to be more committed to having the Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933 finally acknowledged?

Prime Minister Yanukovych, on the other hand, is more pragmatic. He has the rare instinct of understanding that NATO is not the answer to Ukraine's security needs. As a matter of fact, he does not believe that any threat exists, and this happens to be his greatest problem.

In order to ensure himself from having any future conflicts with Vladimir Putin and his mob in the Kremlin, Mr. Yanukovych hastened to appoint Yuri Boiko to head the Ministry of Energy and Fuels.

In all respects this was a brilliant move. Mr. Boiko, being a professional in the corrupt gas business, has been part of the problem since Day 1. This immediately made him highly acceptable to Moscow.

Mr. Boiko, by all accounts, does not know what NATO is, but he most certainly knows what Gazprom is, and acts accordingly. This pleases Mr. Yanukovych to no end, and in return he turns a blind eye to all of the sleazy dealings Mr. Boiko is involved in. Mr. Boiko means peace of mind, and this is what Mr. Yanukovych longs for given some the more miserable specimens from his own party that he has to deal with every day.

So when "Yanuk" showed up in Brussels on his highly publicized visit to NATO, nobody in their right mind believed that he would kowtow to losers. He paid his obligatory respects to the place, told them not to hold their breath when it came to Ukrainian membership and hurried home.

The Oleh Rybachuk-Viktor Yushchenko concept of Ukraine in NATO and in the European Union turned out to be a terrible failure. These were ideas whose time had passed, and nobody was willing to risk their careers supporting hallucinations.

Roman Kupchinsky is former director of the Ukrainian Service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

| Home Page |