• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Four Stolen Years

13 November, 2012 - 00:00

One of the meny important topics broached by Zbigniew Brzezinski in Kyiv seems to have been largely overlooked. Mr. Brzezinski said that Ukraine was likely to joint the NATO sometime in 2010. Remarkably, his previous forecasts were more optimistic. In 1994-95, he predicted that Ukraine would join the Alliance in 2006 (some top Ukrainian politicians shared his euphoria; Volodymyr Horbulin was quoted as saying at least once that Ukraine would join NATO even earlier).

It is not difficult to note that Mr. Brzezinski’s “four-year plan” tallies with the Ukrainian President’s predictions. Meaning four years stolen from Ukraine in terms of economic opportunities never effected, economic reforms never carried out, a period over which Ukraine never got any nearer the Europe and Atlantic structures euphemistically associated with NATO in Ukraine but even drifted further apart.

It would be naive to expect the NATO experts preparing for what is formally described as purely political talks with Ukraine not scrutinize the latest reports on its economic situation. Here the problem is out of reach for Ukrainian diplomacy and is the exclusive domain of the very political summit. In this context, the Communist idea of proclaiming Mr. Brzezinski persona non grata may find an unexpected explanation: Ukraine’s friends in the West are sick and tired of this country sitting on its hands, so much so that their functionaries, dispatched to spur the leadership into action, get carried away with their good intentions.

Not all those trying to figure out the implications of the new Ukrainian Foreign Minister’s appointment expected that Borys Tarasiuk would take radical steps toward NATO membership. Well, he did. His clearly formulated stand in the matter deserves respect. Something long expected by the international community from Ukraine, including Russia, even if for different reasons. But here, too, if Ukraine insists, Russia will have no choice except to eventually accept it. We know about Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest. They repeated the same thing in Brussels, Washington, and Moscow. So what happened? The Russians were forced to back down, which they did. And the same is true of the Baltic States. There is little doubt that they will join NATO sooner or later. Provided, of course, they do not make as many domestic mistakes as did Latvia with regard to its Russian-speakers.

It is also true that things are changing in Russia. The former empire is becoming more pragmatic. It is interesting to note that when Mr. Berezovsky, currently CIS Executive Secretary, was still second-in-command to the Russian Security Council Secretary, he declared that Russia’s future was with NATO. His boss, Ivan Rybkin, was of the same opinion, even if not in so many words. Today, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev makes statements indicating the opposite. However, following Yevgeni Primakov’s logic, Russia seems to be opposed to NATO expansion precisely because Russia is not on the invitation list. Who knows? Some of those who have worked for the Alliance long enough consider that Russia has long been affiliated de facto, even that Russia is NATO’s informal leader, rather than the USA, because Russian is so often heard in Brussels and there are so many military and civilian Russians employed in NATO structures.

 

Rubric: