Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s special and standing envoy to NATO, authorized by the president to monitor the missile defense and other issues, stated in a recent interview with Ekho Moskvy Radio that Russia had succeeded in preventing Ukraine and Georgia from becoming NATO members, when asked what made him especially proud of his performance in Brussels.
As usual, he stole someone’s thunder, considering that Ukraine failed to become a NATO member country not because of Rogozin’s wheelings and dealings, but because the Ukrainian political leadership misunderstood Ukraine’s strategic objectives; because those “upstairs” lacked an adequate statesman’s mentality; because they wanted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, without bothering to consider the consequences. Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership would open up horizons in terms of economic growth and European standards in all spheres of life. The European Union leaves the door open for Ukraine. Everything depends on its leadership and its being prepared and willing to accept the European rules of the game. In this sense very little depends on Rogozin, much as he claims otherwise.
The Day asked Dr. Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA (Ph.D. in politics), lecturer at the Taras Shevchenko National University in Kyiv, to comment on Rogozin’s statement and on who is to be held responsible for Ukraine’s failed NATO membership.
“This isn’t Rogozin; he acted as instructed by Vladimir Putin, by Russia’s political leadership. They were carrying out a well-planned strategy aimed at preventing Ukraine from joining NATO in general, and European civilization in particular, and at returning Ukraine into Mother-Russia’s embrace. Ukraine’s admission to NATO would signify its access to European civilization, with NATO serving as an entrance. Russia’s strategic objective was to have Ukraine isolated from civilized Europe. It’s easy to figure out Putin’s strategy, considering his program article carried by Izvestia. His end goal is Russia’s expansion by the year 2015, by having Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan back under Kremlin rule. Putin formulated his project as a Eurasian Union. Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO membership would make their territories inaccessible to Russia, so this marked a turning point in Russia’s geopolitical strategy. Doubtlessly, this marked Russia’s spectacular geopolitical victory over Ukraine and the West. Naturally, this calls into question Ukraine’s national sovereignty, considering that Ukraine’s failed NATO membership spells failed EU membership, with NATO and EU being the two pillars that continue to uphold the European community of nations, their peace and quiet.
“What we’re faced up with today is the only possible outcome of Ukraine’s failed NATO membership, due to Yanukovych’s statement during the Bucharest summit, although at the time our government-controlled media reports were all about the possibility of this membership. His statement dealt a heavy blow to Ukraine’s MAP prospects in 2006, considering that Ukraine stood the best chance at the time. Russia, of course, spent the next two years reinforcing its position, securing support from its two good old allies, Germany and France, convincing both that Ukraine couldn’t be regarded as a true nation-state. In the end, Ukraine and Georgia were denied MAP. One can see the consequences, just as one can see a similar situation within the European Union.
“Russia and NATO take asymmetric stands, with NATO regarding Russia as a partner in the ongoing struggle against international terrorism, and Russia regarding NATO as its number one strategic enemy and clear and present danger, simply because NATO’s expansion spells a broadening of democracy and security in Europe, something Russia will never accomplish. The Kremlin will never be able to guarantee security and defense to its members the way NATO has been doing. Any collaboration in this region of the world is out of the question, as evidenced by the fiasco of the missile defense system talks.”
