Reply With QuoteSince when it has become the Euro-Atlantic alliance? Unusual name calling generally == big changes forseen.This is about extending the Euro-Atlantic alliance.
Nay
U.S. pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
BERLIN: Despite fierce objections from Russia, the United States is pushing NATO to start membership negotiations with Ukraine and Georgia at an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest in April, diplomats said Wednesday.
The U.S. pressure is likely to lead to divisions inside the 26-member alliance, with Germany and several West European countries opposed to offering Ukraine and Georgia the prospect of imminent membership. Washington and several East European countries say the alliance should not give in into threats by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who this week warned his Ukrainian counterpart, Viktor Yushchenko, that if Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia might aim nuclear missiles at the country.
Bruce Jackson, president of both the Project on Transitional Democracies and the U.S. Committee on NATO group, said NATO should not be intimidated by Russia. "These countries want to join NATO," he said. "They can do the required reforms. This is about extending the Euro-Atlantic alliance."
The United States, supported by Poland and the Czech Republic, want Ukraine and Georgia to be offered the Membership Action Plan, known as MAP, which sets in motion accession negotiations.
Richard Lugar, the Republican senator who is one of the officials leading the U.S. efforts, came out in support of the new Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, when he met her in Kiev last month.
Tymoshenko, who has made NATO membership one of her main foreign policy goals, has formally requested that Ukraine be offered the action plan. Her letter immediately triggered a protest by the biggest of Ukraine's opposition parties, the pro-Russian Party of the Regions, which said the question must be decided by referendum.
Lindsey Graham, another Republican senator who is close to John McCain, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination and who supports Georgia and Ukraine as possible alliance members, said at the Munich Security Conference last weekend that they should be offered something concrete in Bucharest.
Several East European countries are lobbying hard on their behalf. Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, said NATO could not "turn its back on the countries that share our values and demonstrate sufficient level of political, social and economic reforms." Speaking in Munich, he said that the Bucharest summit meeting "should examine Ukraine's plan for participation in the Membership Action Plan," adding that it would "also be an opportunity to review NATO's relations with Georgia."
Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech foreign minister, said: "Ukraine and Georgia should be inside NATO. But it is crucial that they have support from their populations." He was referring specifically to Ukraine, where the population is split over the issue. Dimitrij Rupel, the foreign minister of Slovenia, said it would be "strategically important to have Georgia and Ukraine on board," adding: "They have to be prepared. In any event, this is not against Russia."
Germany is among West European countries resisting the membership talks. German officials said neither country was ready and that such a decision, besides antagonizing Russia, would pose huge challenges to NATO. Several NATO allies fear the alliance could be dragged into difficult territorial disputes between Georgia and Russia. Russia already supports the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are part of Georgia.
The secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has also expressed doubts over offering a Membership Action Plan to either country, saying that Ukraine and Georgia needed more time to introduce reforms.
Another issue - NATO's plans to bring three Balkan countries into the alliance at its summit meeting - is running into problems, diplomats said Wednesday.
Membership negotiations are almost complete with Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, except for one thorny issue. Greece is insisting that Macedonia, which still has the ungainly title of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, be admitted to the alliance on condition that it not be called the Republic of Macedonia.
Ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, Greece has refused to accept the name Macedonia, claiming it could have territorial ambitions on a region in Greece that is also called Macedonia.
Until now, most NATO and EU countries did not challenge Greece, fearing it might veto important decisions in both organizations. But in recent weeks, Greece has put forward a compromise in an attempt resolve the issue.
"Greece has decided to make a difficult shift in its position by its readiness to accept a composite name including the term Macedonia, added by an element distinguishing it from the historical Greek province of the same name," said Anastassios Kriekoukis, the Greek ambassador to Berlin.
This important concession, shared by the Greek Parliament, has been made in order to reach a mutually acceptance solution with the aim of forging good neighborly relations," he added. NATO diplomats said the country might be called New Macedonia.
The Macedonian government, so far, has rejected the Greek compromise. "We will not change our name," said Zaharia Vulgarkis, spokesman for the Macedonian Defense Ministry. "The name has nothing to do with NATO negotiations. That is all there is to it."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/13/europe/nato.php
Apparently Nato already has its own problem but wants to add more.
Since when it has become the Euro-Atlantic alliance? Unusual name calling generally == big changes forseen.This is about extending the Euro-Atlantic alliance.
Nay
Quite sure that NATO will handle those. The world has changed dramatically in the last years and decades so its only natural that there is some dispute during that process.Originally Posted by Afro-European
The USA tries to further reduce the Russian sphere of influence in east Europe, that wont change even if Ukraine and Georgia wont join NATO within the next decade.
Most likely Ukraine and Georgia will stay/become some sort of "privileged partners" of NATO in the near future and the USA will compensate them if NATO dismisses their wish for a full membership.
Nato, as a "defensive" alliance was created to counter the Soviet threat.Today the USSR doesn't exist anymore,the US and Europe says out loud that they don't see Russia as a threat yet they still "cornering" it.
What will Ukraine and Georgia benefit from joining Nato(beside hosting US military bases,maybe missiles and buying their weapons)?
Last edited by Afro-European; 02-14-2008 at 03:51 PM.
Georgia in NATO...this is so ****ing redicilous!
Nato is made of countries thatas they put it themselves)
-Share "Werstern Values"
-Are "democratic" countries
-Are part of the "Free world"
So as you can see,this as nothing to do with "North and Atlantic"(read Croatia,Macedonia,Albania,Georgia,Ukraine,etc).
NATO was created to counter every threat that might emerge, back in the cold war it was mainly the Soviet threat but that has changed and will change again in the future.
Nations do join NATO because they fell saver afterwards.
Maybe Ukraine and Georgia want to join NATO because they believe that it would be easier to counter Russian attempts to take inappropriate influence in their countries then.
The usual
Taking the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at this point would be a giant mistake.
Both countries have problems with Russia and will continue to do so in the future. Their small problems with Russia could very fast escalate into serious problems with NATO which has so far absolutely nothing to do with it.
There has to be at least a certain buffer zone between Russia and NATO members so that there is a certain room to breathe on both sides.
Russia can continue to bully them while NATO can hint that they will ensure both countries safety if Russia takes things to far.
Thats a situation that kept peace between Taiwan and China for a long time now.
A direct outspoken offer of defence by the USA towards Taiwan would spark a conflict with China right away.
Instead of doing that it worked much better just to hint that the USA might come to Taiwan's help if China should decide to went over for "police action"
-Thanks for the read.
What is the genuine benefits of bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO?
Do you mean the USSR will rise again or Russia will become another USSR?Humm knowing the fact that Russia is only 1/10th economically,militarily of the ex Soviet Union,i don't see that happening soon.Plus Russia will keep bullying Ukraine and Georgia even if they join Nato.The stakes are very high over there.
Well put.Assume that Russia backs Abkhazia and South Ossetian independance,Georgia intervenes and gets into fight with Russian troops in those regions,Russia fights back and things escalate,what would Nato do in that case?Will Nato then apply: "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all"? I'd be very curious to see that.
Taking the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at this point would be a giant mistake.
Both countries have problems with Russia and will continue to do so in the future. Their small problems with Russia could very fast escalate into serious problems with NATO which has so far absolutely nothing to do with it.
There has to be at least a certain buffer zone between Russia and NATO members so that there is a certain room to breathe on both sides.
Russia can continue to bully them while NATO can hint that they will ensure both countries safety if Russia takes things to far.
Thats a situation that kept peace between Taiwan and China for a long time now.
A direct outspoken offer of defence by the USA towards Taiwan would spark a conflict with China right away.
Instead of doing that it worked much better just to hint that the USA might come to Taiwan's help if China should decide to went over for "police action"
The way NATO acted in Kosovo suggests that after a referendum in those breakaway regions they will leave Georgian governance and become independant territories... but of course that would only be if NATO acted in the way it did in Kosovo, which it wont.Will Nato then apply: "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all"? I'd be very curious to see that.
Curious? I'd be absolutely fvcking terrified to see that. Was the cold war really not good enough?
Posting Permissions
