What to expect from the summit of NATO?

What relation to this the different states of NATO? What is NATO now, in ’59 own existence? These topics open a discussion in the "examination of Liberty" in Polish and Ukrainian political analysts Wojciech Boroditš-Smolinsky and Vitaly Portnikov.
Drakakhrust"April 2-4 in Bucharest will host a summit of NATO. It will be a festive adoption alliance membership for Albania, Croatia and maybe Macedonia, unless the latter can block Greece. Also walking is restricted to operations in Afghanistan, the alliance.
But it seems that the main intrigue of the summit, the main question — whether signed with Georgia and Ukraine so called action plans to achieve membership. This is not actually receiving the union, but a significant approximation approach to this. If such agreements are concluded, at some point, these countries will become members of NATO.
The other day summit, presidents Misha Saakashvili and Viktor Yushchenko gave detailed interviews to foreign media in which explained why their countries necessarily need to be in NATO. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia and Ukraine threatens harsh neuvvyazkami, if they go to the union. Vladimir Putin recently warned that at Ukraine if it joins NATO will aim Russian nuclear missiles.

South American government strongly supports the aspirations of Tbilisi and Kiev, U.S. President George W. Bush recently visited NATO summit Ukrainian capital, where he just will not negotiate on the Action Plan to achieve membership. Support accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and Central European members of the alliance, such as Poland.
At the same time, supports an old Europe — Germany and France — are the aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia negatively. Such a tangle of divergent motives here. Your eyes on what will be their resultant: apprehend plans, plans do not perceive to be found a compromise version? Vitaly Portnikov that your prediction? "
Portnikov"I am at the moment actually sure that action plans for Ukraine and Georgia in Bucharest will not be accepted. After it was announced to the public not only German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French Prime Minister Francois Fillon , it is an indisputable fact that in spite of the strong support expressed on this occasion, United States President George W. Bush.
It seems to me fundamental that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is going to perform at the Bucharest summit, with particular application in which call upon members of the alliance to negotiate not with Ukraine and Georgia, and Russia.

I currently actually sure that action plans for Ukraine and Georgia in Bucharest will not be accepted.

I agree one hundred percent with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko that one country that is not a member of NATO, can not have a veto on the accession of any State in the Union. But France — this is the same government is independent, as well as Ukraine, and if France believes that the adoption of Ukraine in NATO should agree with Russia (and, incidentally, France did not think so, when it came to the Baltic States or Poland), from her views to be reckoned with.
So if NATO countries agree that they should welcome Ukraine’s desire to join the "Euro-Atlantic civilization," it does not mean that Ukraine in the coming years and decades to come even closer to the action plan, because I do not see in the U.S. ability to force Germany and France to change their position. "

Drakakhrust"Wojciech Boroditš Smalinki-whether you agree with that assessment of Vitali? And whether you agree with the assessment of Misha Saakashvili President of Georgia, which he made the other day summit that if action plans for Georgia and Ukraine will not be taken in Bucharest, it will be virtually surrender NATO to Russia? "
Boroditš-Smolinsky"Ukraine’s Road to NATO began several years ago, when Ukraine began to prepare to join the Union army. At the present moment the problem of Ukraine’s accession to NATO — is not the problem of the military structure, this problem first society.

The problem of Ukraine’s accession to NATO — is not the problem of the military structure, this problem first society.

France and Germany — the principal members of NATO who are against Ukraine joining NATO. And the Ukrainian society does not help Ukrainian politicians in their efforts to convince Euro-Atlantic policy that you must open the way for Ukraine to the union.
Regarding your Yuri, question, I, unfortunately, agree with the views of Vitaly Portnikava. It does not seem likely that all NATO countries agreed to open the path to membership in the alliance for Ukraine and Georgia.
Also, unfortunately, I divide assessment of President Saakashvili, it can be seen as surrender, as a demonstration of helplessness NATO as an international organization. But we should not forget that all venture during the summit itself, and will be very necessary personal meetings and negotiations of Governors. They can agree on is that we do not provide our projections. "
Drakakhrust"Vitaly Wojciech already started talking about the situation in Ukraine. Seems Ukrainians’ attitude to the prospects of joining NATO is very multi-valued, in the elite — an obvious split on this issue, particularly, it is not so long ago spawned a long parliamentary crisis in the country.
If, as you see, the Action Plan for membership for Ukraine in Bucharest will not be accepted, what consequences this will have for Ukrainian politics? Will there be a country other path of NATO? "

Less than 25% of Ukrainians, a maximum of 30% (this is the most appropriate opinion polls) support their entry into NATO.

Portnikov"Ukraine will continue to approach NATO, they are my applets cooperation with the Alliance, and they continue to operate. Regarding the situation in Ukraine itself, I do not think that the Bucharest decision to change something.
We must realize that the Ukrainian political elite uses only NATO propaganda standpoint. It seems now as a researcher Wojciech stated that Ukrainian society is split into two parts on NATO. This is not so. Ukrainian society is split in half on a case of, on the support of the "orange" or "white-blue". There is really one half of a second. As for NATO, at least 25% of Ukrainians, a maximum of 30% (this is the most appropriate opinion polls) support their entry into NATO.
If found Ukrainian politician who would Ukrainians said that it is possible to join the EU, but not join NATO, support for joining NATO in Ukrainian society would be reduced even more. After all, most of those Ukrainians who support joining NATO, considering it a prerequisite of EU membership. And this last thought is maintained substantially larger part of society.
But the thing is that even that most of the Ukrainian society, which supports accession to the European Union, does not understand, does not divide the Euro-Atlantic values. Most of the Ukrainian society was strongly opposed to the NATO operation in Yugoslavia in 1999. Most of the Ukrainian society was strongly opposed to Ukrainian peacekeepers were sent to Iraq. Ukraine hitherto not recognized Kosovo’s independence, moreover, in the Ukrainian political lobby has a fine line to support the management of Serbia and solidarity with the outside of Russian policy in this matter.
So in reality Ukraine — antyevraatlyantychnaya 100%. And there is no split. And those political forces that favor joining NATO, just use it to get the support of those people who, I repeat, do not aspire to NATO and the European Union. These
people put an equal sign between the European Union and shafted that awaits them in the organization. With all this other part of Ukrainian society puts an equal sign between Russia and shafted that awaits them in the form of lower prices for energoelementy. Well, about the last zeal Belarusian listener knows even better than Ukrainian. "
Drakakhrust"I think. Warsaw What it looks slightly different. And I have to for you, Wojciech question than can explain the difference in approach and the U.S. states of Central Europe on the one hand and" an old "Europe on the other to expand the alliance? Dependence Russian energoelementov? Since Poland depends on them more than, say, France. Warsaw But pro-NATO aspirations Kiev and Tbilisi support, and, for example, Paris and Berlin — no. Why? "
Boroditš-Smolinsky"The most simple explanation is that for Poland Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the EU — a strategic goal. We are aware of the situation as Makar, that we can not without the help of others to assure Europe, namely Germany and France, in Central and in Eastern Europe can solve the case without looking at what will be read undemocratic Our homeland.

For Poland, the Ukraine’s entry into NATO and the EU — a strategic goal.

In our opinion, Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the EU and meets the interests of Poland and NATO interests. Because Poland supports these initiatives.
For France and Germany, the situation is completely different, these countries always, if you look at our history, look at Poland and Ukraine as countries in the impact zone of the Russian Federation. "
Drakakhrust"Hot debate over NATO prospects of Georgia and Ukraine once opened into the background the broader question: What is NATO now, after 59 years after its creation? In publications devoted to the summit, I read that it will be great success for earlier announced by President Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to send to Afghanistan additional 600 fighter. This is approximately one battalion. Around this unfolds a difficult game: Canada Prime and then be able to convince their government not to withdraw the Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.
But you know, if you talk in military terms, the countries of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union can create danger in a country that has an army of a million men. From this danger and they aspire to NATO. Maybe danger and no. But if there is, does it protect you from the alliance, in which a great victory, the problem to be solved at the summit Union considered the direction of the war the 1st Battalion additional? "
Boroditš-Smolinsky"This is a very fundamental question — what is the reality of NATO. All international organizations, including NATO and the European Union, to find their identity. This really looks bad when such a large organization is very durable reflects how many troops to send. But NATO — is today the world’s only union that has the ability to protect the interests of not only political, and military means. This is — a great force to be controlled, which may be necessary to reform and that she could live in a global world " .

NATO — is today the world’s only union that has the ability to protect the interests of not only political, and military means.

Portnikov"I have already stated that Ukraine and Georgia NATO — it’s a sign. I do not think anyone really thinks about the security system. Many think about standards. And this really important point, which we must keep in mind. Standards NATO — political, economic, military — indeed the country closer to the EU. But it may be that these standards could be achieved without NATO. But the question, as Ukrainian or Georgian society really ready for these standards. "
Boroditš-Smolinsky"Poland does not think the situation so that if Ukraine joins the European Union and NATO, it will always support the Polish approaches. We look at it this makarom that our people and our policies better understand the situation in this part of Europe than Germany France and other countries. Even if our situation will be different if we differ in our own approaches, it will be easier to talk to all the countries of NATO and the European Union together than when Poland will solve these problems without the help of others. " Tags: Our homeland, European Union, USA, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia and NATO

Like this post? Please share to your friends: