On April 2, President Volodymyr Zelensky finally got that desperately long-anticipated call from US President Joe Biden. Since April Fools’ Day had already passed, some pro-Western Ukrainians must have felt an unmistakable breath of life.
All comedy aside, Ukraine has it rough: COVID fatalities have hit record highs while vaccinations at current rates may take a decade; Russia has stepped up bloodletting and saber-rattling. In a bid to flip the script on these multiple fronts with a daring single blow, on April 6, Zelensky launched a not-so-private diplomatic offensive, urging NATO to provide Ukraine with a pathway to membership. “Reforms alone cannot stop Russia,” he frankly tweeted to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg — in Ukrainian — just two days after the North Atlantic alliance’s 72nd anniversary. Within hours, NATO went on full alert, apparently changing its canned tune on Ukraine’s prospects.
Up until now, it used to be a mantra of hope through hard work — so clarifying, age-defying and all-empowering. We all had heard it a trillion times before: Just do it! Pass the required reforms, meet the strict NATO standards, and — bada bing, bada boom — you’re in! It’s all up to you. Well, not anymore. From now on, as White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki quickly noted just hours after Zelensky’s emergency appeal, membership also requires NATO’s approval — full, unanimous and consensus-based, that is. In other words, we Americans support your “aspirations,” but have you heard from the other 29 members?
What a stunningly seismic difference a week makes! Hard to miss even by Voice of America.
Since 1949 and throughout much of its history, NATO has served a deftly defined purpose: “Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Seven decades later, the Russians are training to get in (Zapad 2021), the Americans nearly opted out (under President Donald J. Trump), and the Germans appear hell-bent on keeping us Ukrainians out — without paying their fair share (at least 2% of GDP). In 2019, Ukraine spent $5.2B on defense, or 3.4% of its GDP, compared to $49.3B, or 1.3% of GDP for Germany.
Let us never forget: In 2008, Germany and France — Russia’s longstanding lobby in Western Europe — killed Ukraine’s and Georgia’s bid for a pathway to NATO membership. The snub came with a classic caveat: “NATO’s doors remain open.” We all know what happened next. Well, at least those of us living next door to Russia.
Thirteen years later — and over 13,000 lost lives later — just how wide open will the doors be swinging at the upcoming summit of the world’s most exclusive club of collective security? (That is, should Ukraine have the audacity to officially reapply for a Membership Action Plan.) Again, if you’re Zelensky and your approval ratings have seen better days, you sure wouldn’t mind playing a little blame game of your own. Last October, he tried to score some points by surveying us Ukrainians on whether we supported taking a tougher position on the infamous Budapest Memorandum. (A household name in Ukraine, the 1994 agreement had unburdened our country of the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in return for U.S. and UK “security assurances” that have proven to be largely hollow.)
Even so, given the heavy and heartbreaking price paid by Ukraine in its fight to integrate with the West, would it be wrong to finally call NATO out? Seven years into the war with Russia, can we please open our eyes and start seeing NATO’s “open door” policy toward Ukraine for what it is — a consensus-based glass ceiling? No matter how questionable his reform record and geopolitical orientation, Zelensky could try and dismantle NATO’s perennial pretense — even in its upgraded form. At least, in the court of Ukrainian public opinion. Just let him ask NATO a few simple questions and throw out a few uncomfortable facts and figures.
First, did all NATO member states qualify as refined, reformed and responsible democracies at accession? Second, have all NATO member states been such ever since? Third, have any NATO member states ever been expelled for failure to comply with the alliance’s shared values and standards?
Uh-oh… Sounds like a damningly inconvenient choice of questions right there! Believe it or not, at least two couples of neighboring NATO countries with major issues in the area come to mind:
Portugal (a founding member since 1949 — run by an authoritarian regime until 1974);
Spain (joined in 1982 — barely out of decades-long dictatorial diapers — after an attempted coup in 1981). Fortunately, since accession, these two neighbors haven’t strayed from the path of democracy. Unlike Greece and Turkey (members since 1952). Guess how many military coups (successful, attempted and whatnot) this other couple of neighboring NATO states has experienced? According to Wikipedia:
Turkey (1960, 1971, 1980, 1993, 1997, 2016);
Greece (1967, 1967, 1973, 1975).
Holy Zeus! The coup schedule in the cradle of democracy looks tighter than the Olympics.
Hold on. In 1974, Greece and Turkey almost went to war over ethnically divided Cyprus. The Greek coup and the subsequent Turkish invasion of the island resulted in mutual ethnic cleansing. From then on, tensions between the two NATO allies have flared up sporadically. Last September, a military buildup between Greece and Turkey over gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean made headlines. So much for the popular Ukrainian myth that NATO won’t tolerate anyone engaged in conflicts and territorial disputes.
On top of that, Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400 air defense systems and further military cooperation with Russia has put it under U.S. sanctions. While expulsion seems unlikely, relations with NATO remain strained. Turkey has repeatedly blocked U.S. and German access to Incirclik Air Base. Amid increased calls in the U.S. to pull out its Turkish-based nukes, Ankara has even threatened to develop its own.
Any other intra-NATO turf wars and extra-NATO webs of alliances? In 2020, Turkey’s Erdogan and France’s Macron exchanged pleasantries on matters of religion. In Libya, the two find themselves on the opposite sides of the country’s ongoing civil war. That’s not to mention Syria and Kurdistan. Shared values, huh?
Last but not least, there’s always South Korea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — neither NATO members, nor full-time democracies throughout much of the Cold War, nor former nuclear states. Still, all three enjoy full protection under the U.S. security umbrella, right? Fact: One is known to have brutally murdered a journalist — and a U.S. resident at that — and pretty much gotten away with it. That same country had ordered some $110 billion in U.S. military equipment. Well, you get the idea. From continent to continent, money talks.
And no, it doesn’t smell. In this regard, consider Germany’s push to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia. The project, in Berlin’s view, shouldn’t be linked to Moscow’s use of the Novichok nerve agent. (Presumably, as long as it’s not being pumped into the pipeline?) In the meantime, when it comes to Russia, German leaders hate to lose sight of the “bigger picture,” emphasizing Germany’s culpability in WWII and somehow attributing the terrible toll squarely to Russia, not the Soviet Union. Fact: Of the 26.6 million Soviet dead, at least 7 million happened to be Ukrainians. Of the 3.0-5.5 million who worked in Germany as Ostarbeiter slave laborers, some 2.2 million came from Ukraine. Question: Do they still count as Russians?
“We are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day, so let’s start giving…” Remember NATO’s facepalmish rendition of the ‘80s hit song in 2015? At a time when Ukraine was begging, bleeding and burning while NATO couldn’t be bothered? What’s new? Thank goodness, it’s 2021 and NATO is still in business! In the business of virtue-signaling, carrot-dangling and, as of late, trickle-ghosting.
