One phrase President Kuchma said after his negotiations with German Chancellor Schroeder, later echoed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Zlenko after his return from Brussels, as long as a year ago could surprise many people and irritate even more. It was about Ukraine being ready to go as far in its cooperation with NATO as NATO itself is ready for it. The existing world situation is pushing Ukraine toward reviewing its priorities of extending its relations with the European Union and NATO, Minister Zlenko said. Like President Kuchma, Zlenko did not speak about Ukraine’s entering NATO but stressed that its doors should remain open to all.
Ukraine previously worked out its strategy for systematic entry into NATO as a mechanism for European and global security. For many reasons, most of them internal, it was not completed and became history. At that time Kyiv was striving to get closer to the West, simultaneously carrying out its own policy. There was no September 11 changing so many of the very fundamentals of international politics. In conclusion, there was no cassette scandal which finally pushed Ukraine off to the roadside of European processes. There was no real rapprochement in positions between the West as a whole and NATO as one of its political instruments with Russia, which positioned itself as one of the leading players, having a right not only to pose questions but make others take its interests into consideration, precisely against the background of the anti-terrorist operation. After all, one can hardly doubt that Ukraine’s relationship with NATO, in fact not too bad, can be simply different, truly partnership ones. All we need is to convince everybody including ourselves of this and stick to this course without deviating toward any multivectored waffling. There is no surprise that this proposal was made or that there was no immediate reply.
Claiming the need to revise the Ukraine-NATO relationship toward their being extended is in fact something of a signal of turning to normal status than a new tendency in foreign policy. Moreover, this time Russia, to whom NATO suggested to create a new mechanism for making common decisions, will not seriously protest, and its mass media will be full of speculations on Ukraine-NATO topic again. Thus, no matter what the politicians say about Ukraine’s independent and self-sufficient relationships with the US, NATO, and the European Union, in real life these relationships will be based upon the maneuvering room left according to the treaties between Russia, the West, and Ukraine. In any case Ukraine will remain second rate for now, pitiful as this might be. And Ukraine itself is to blame, being unable to use its chances with its elite following a course laid by others. Maybe this is not all that bad, if this position appears to be a transition to creating a new elite that will suggest the society a new policy. Maybe then some questions will simply disappear, being replaced by new ones, like conditions for a normal level adequate to Ukraine’s potential relationship with the European Union. For this declarative support from Chancellor Schroeder will not be enough; we will have to prove our right to this in practice.
Thus, in fact all this is about getting back to normal, however with a clear understanding that it will be based on new conditions, which are absolutely suitable for our using them in our own interests.
