Following the failed attempt on the part of both the United States and Ukraine to provide Ukraine with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the April 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, Ukrainian membership in NATO has become a dormant if not a non-issue. The United States once a strong advocate of Ukraine has been silent. Much of it can be explained by a change of administrations in both countries. Certainly, the Obama administration has been less forthcoming on Ukraine than the Bush administration. Undoubtedly, the Yanukovich regime has stifled what was once a grand design of European integration by President Yuschenko and has transformed Ukraine into a global pariah. So then what is Ukraine’s current outlook for NATO membership. The answer is unclear.
On 16 March 2009, a U.S. high-level bipartisan commission (Hagel-Hart Commission) recommended that the new American administration reach out to Russia in a number of ways, including the withdrawal of support for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. It recommended that the American government accept that "neither Ukraine nor Georgia is ready for NATO membership," and that the United States does not now have "a compelling security interest" in NATO membership for either country. The U.S. commission further recommended to its government "to develop options other than NATO membership" for Ukraine and Georgia and find other ways "to demonstrate a commitment to their sovereignty."
No doubt Russia's policy of rearmament, renewed aggressiveness, and a demonstrated willingness to implement that part of its military doctrine which calls for military intervention in its "near abroad" to "safeguard" Russia's "national interests" had a major impact on the Commission. Furthermore, political expediency, particularly in the Middle East, influenced this decision to sacrifice Ukraine and Georgia. Unfortunately, this Commission manifested ignorance of or disregard for NATO’s genesis, its history and purpose.
Undeterred U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has declared on more than one occasion that "we should continue to open NATO's door to European countries such as Georgia and Ukraine and help them meet NATO standards." But the Secretary’s words fall on deaf ears since no one seems to know where the U. S. President stands. Germany and France have been non-supportive of Ukraine’s security interests, to say the least, and this may have been further aggravated by the recent election of a Socialist president in France. The “reelection” of President Putin and the introduction by the Russian Orthodox Church of a new term loosely translated as “the Russian world” should have stirred up renewed concerns over Russian aggression, but instead they have brought Chancellor Merkel and President Putin closer together and persuaded a heretofore unprincipled President Obama to become even more “flexible.”
Today, Ukraine itself has become less than proactive as to NATO membership partially because of its Soviet past, an increasing Ukrainian skepticism toward the West's intentions and all of this severely aggravated by the Yanukovich regime’s non-Western orientation and thuggish behavior. This has enabled such non-friends of Ukraine as Chancellor Merkel to shroud her essentially longstanding Russophile policies in a “concern for human rights” cover. Ukraine’s imprisoned former prime-minister deserves western intervention. However, she should not be used as a weapon in Angela Merkel’s continued belligerence towards Ukraine in order to please her friend, Vladimir Putin.
The subject of Ukraine’s security not only for the sake of principle, but more so on a geo-strategic level needed to be addressed at the Chicago Summit. Irrespective of Germany, France and even President Obama, Ukraine remains a lynchpin and buffer between today’s NATO and the country, in essence, for whom NATO was formed. A militarily strong and modern democratic Ukraine is NATO’s best weapon, even better than the radar and anti-missile shield contemplated for Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania. Without diminishing the significance of any current NATO member state, after all Ukraine in size and population is one of Europe’s largest countries. Ultimately full NATO membership for Ukraine serves not only Ukraine but furthers NATO’s purpose as an alliance defending itself from the world’s most dangerous possible aggressor. We need not name that aggressor.
Tangible action such as an imminent offer of MAP sends the right message to both the cynical Ukrainian population and the aggressive Russian rulers. It also puts Ukraine’s current regime in a quandary. Let’s be both honest and practical for a change, given its size and location, Ukraine is a most appropriate candidate for NATO membership. The process should be facilitated and expedited. Frankly, Ukraine without NATO is not secure and NATO without Ukraine is a geo-strategic illusion.
