Comforting Signal from NATO

NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson proclaimed in Warsaw that the alliance should not relax its efforts to support Ukraine, since it is continuing its struggle with the challenges of the transition period. Lord Robertson also spoke about his desire to see a rich and flourishing Ukraine, and stated that now it is living through painful moments. But what was probably most significant was that NATO head stressed the role of Poland and its President Aleksandr Kwasniewski, whose last meeting with Leonid Kuchma, in Lord Robertson’s words, was “very important.”

That is about it, but it puts everything in the right place. The Council of Europe makes many critical comments, but since it is primarily a body that makes recommendations, one does not have listen to them thoroughly (as Turkey and Russia have already shown). Still, it would be unfortunate for Ukraine if it came to the point of our nation’s expulsion from the only European organization it belongs to, but such a thing would already not be an easy thing. The European Union either keeps silent or shows its displeasure. To demonstrate this, although Ukraine is in fact alien to the Western Europe, the latter still wants to know what is going on here, and it sends forth President Kwasniewski as its delegate. At least, he understands Ukraine and its problems and has a natural interest in this country.

The United States, willing to get information from various sources, invited to the conference representatives from both those in power and the opposition. They have every right to do this — after all, they pay a hefty share for everything that happens in Western and Eastern Europe. Yet, even after a series of speeches abroad by its Secretary of State, it is far from easy to understand what the issue really is.

Finally, NATO, as a sound player, demonstrates that it does not avoid contacts or cooperation. Since Ukraine plays a significant role in European stability, NATO proclaims its support. Simultaneously, it does not put any stress on who is right and who is wrong, who is acceptable as a partner and who is not. For this is not about aseptic sterility or the leaders’ personal qualities but more strategic things: for example, that Ukraine should be firmly linked to the system of European stability, that to this effect it has to reach levels in keeping with the standards established by itself and carry out its required military reform (recently NATO representatives have been placing special emphasis on this).

The NATO Secretary General’s speech can to some extent confirm that Ukraine is truly important in terms of some European affairs. This is exactly what once happened to Turkey, which entered NATO quite quickly as early as in 1952 but still cannot reach even preliminary negotiations on entering the European Union.

In any case, it is not at all an issue of the West turning its back on Ukraine completely because of a crisis that is absolutely evident and understandable in the post-Soviet world, a crisis that affects not so much the system itself (which is still mostly Soviet) as systemic thinking.

Lord Robertson’s speech should obviously give an impulse to other Western structures, making it possible to determine some of the priorities for the immediate future and get a clear answer to the question of what stands behind the banal words about very significant partnership coming from both Kyiv and the West.

Lord Robertson, it seems, is helping Ukraine preserve what is left of its image for purely practical reasons. However, it is perhaps Ukraine, not NATO or Kwasniewski as an envoy from the West, that will have to save our country.