The writer is an
analyst and the
President of all
Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US and its western allies: NATO, have been involved in creating unrest in many parts of the east of the country. The design of the political instability, as well as the turmoil in the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is just to achieve a few goals such as selling US weapons; maintaining financial viability through funding in the name of support and assistance; and keep an eye out for potential threats; Russia and China. With US regional control declining sharply over the past few years, the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, is being considered. The US-Syrian system is disrupted by Russia. US fraud has subsided in Pakistan. The ability of the US to monitor closely the deployment of weapons is difficult, so what could be a better option than involving Ukraine to achieve the goal and the goal is to maintain a state of great power. But the question is why do Western powers want to make Ukraine a NATO member, even at the expense of war? In 1992, ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’, the Policy was a manifestation of the ‘Imperialist mindset’. This document describes Unilateralism ‘policy and military action to prevent imaginary oppression that may be threats from other nations and to prevent countries from rising to the position of supreme power. It is clear that the ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’ is still in the bloodline of US defense policy.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), since its inception in 1949, Nato has grown from 12 founding members to 30, including a number of former Soviet republics. The Ukraine conflict is fueling debates over whether the increase has angered Russian President Vladimir Putin and whether the alliance can achieve its grand goal of ensuring freedom and security for its members. The reason for this attack was that the expansion of the eastern North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) threatened at some undisclosed time in the future to allow Ukraine to join the group as a treaty alliance and thus bring about the dreaded Atlantic security alliance in a dramatic distance. Russia’s western borders – too. In this context, understanding the NATO history of Russia’s security challenge can help to identify the roots of this conflict. It may also provide a clear picture of what institutional and institutional guarantees the Kremlin can accept enough to withdraw its troops and weapons and participate in discussions with the administration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
NATO’s self-proclaimed mission when it emerged on April 4, 1949, had three sides: to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union; to prevent the revival of the civil war in Europe through the strong presence of North America on the continent; and to promote European political integration. Apparently the legacy of the Nazi epidemic and World War II was very much on the minds of the founding members of NATO. Although NATO claims to be partially accountable for its creation in response to the threat posed by the former Soviet Union, the emphasis has been on military co-operation and self-defense on its part. Article 5 of the Convention stipulates that one or more armed attacks will be regarded as attacks on all, and that after such attacks, each alliance will take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. feedback.
A broader point at the time was that in 1955, when the Cold War was raging, the Soviet Union signed the Socialist Republics of Central and Eastern Europe into the Warsaw treaty, including Albania, which withdrew in 1968, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. , East Germany, Poland, and Romania. The Pact, in fact, a political and military alliance, was considered a straightforward anti-NATO strategy, and its focus at the time was that while East Germany was still part of the Soviet Union, the Federal Republic of Germany had joined NATO. in May 1955, and Moscow began to worry about the effects of West Germany’s reinforcement and armaments on its borders. Indeed, the Treaty provided the Soviet Union with an opportunity to incite sedition and opposition in all satellite regions of Europe, including Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland in 1980-1981. All of that began to emerge in the late 1980s, when the very low pressure of the inevitable recession in many allies of the Eastern European Pact undermined the ability of military allies to make any real strategic difference across the region. Thus, it came as no surprise that in September 1990, East Germany withdrew from the Treaty to reunite with West Germany, and soon Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland withdrew from all Warsaw Pact military tests. The Treaty was officially abolished in early 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.
Even when the Soviet Union was dissolved in Russia and the former Soviet republics, NATO, strengthened by conditions and the hope that world power would prosper, it began to expand. While in the office of US President Bill Clinton, NATO began, in a series of rounds of negotiations and expansion, to pull the former Warsaw Pact into its membership. After the merger, while Germany retained NATO membership, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined the alliance in 1999. But that is not all – in 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia joined the agreement. organization. In 2009 Albania and Croatia signed, in 2017 Montenegro entered the bloc and in 2020 it was an opportunity for Northern Macedonia.
Ukraine’s interest is its sovereignty and territorial integrity, while Russia wants Ukraine and other post-Soviet states should not be allowed to join NATO. It may undermine Ukraine’s freedom of choice, but perhaps that may guarantee its core security interest.
The most frequently quoted line in this field of inquiry is US Secretary of State James A. Baker’s remarks to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that there will be no expansion of NATO power NATO forces one inch to the east. While Moscow is holding the remarks to further anger over NATO’s expansion into the Baltic region, it is true that in the early 1990’s, the Two Plus Four negotiating zone – which includes East and West Germany and the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and and the United Kingdom – the agreement was that a united Germany could be part of NATO. In 1997 and 2004, NATO expanded to include former Communist countries in spite of Russian opposition. Following the 9/11 attacks against the US, Russia provided unwavering support for the US-led terrorist war in Afghanistan. However, the very next year, in 2002, the US independently withdrew from the ABM Agreement without consulting Russia. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, surpassing Russian opposition. Therefore, there have been many problems when President Putin had serious complaints against the US and NATO.
In 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, the NATO Allies adopted Ukraine and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership and agreed that these countries would become NATO members. This caused quite a stir in the Kremlin, which Russia considered to be a political betrayal. That development led Russia to invade Georgia and control its few territories; and in 2014, when Ukraine came close to an economic bloc with the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and took Crimea. In the 2000s, Mr. Putin went on to say, speaking of the growing alarm and anger at NATO’s continued growth in Eastern Europe, and saying in Munich in 2007 that it was clear that the NATO expansion had nothing to do with any modern development. alliance itself or to ensure security in Europe. Rather, it represents the intense anger that has undermined trust.
It is still unclear what Putin wants to gain from the military attack. The stated purpose is the safety of Russian-speaking people in Donetsk and Luhansk, part of which has been controlled by Russian-backed separatists. Putin has announced his intention to oust Ukraine. But the way Russian forces launch air, sea, and missile attacks against various Ukrainian cities, it seems Putin wants to weaken and weaken Ukraine so that it will not pose a security threat to Russia in the future. He also wants to force the US and NATO to take Russia’s opposition and concerns seriously. What could strengthen Putin’s resolve is the US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan and the realization that NATO will not fight Russia over Ukraine, until it has become a member of NATO. Russia has managed to raise $ 600 billion, of which Russia can live for many years. Russia also has China with great economic power on its side. Europe imports more than 40 percent of its gas and oil from Russia, which also benefits Moscow. Therefore, many European countries, including Germany, do not like the toughest sanctions. Ukraine’s interest in its sovereignty and territorial integrity, while Russia wants Ukraine and other post-Soviet states not to be allowed to join NATO. It may undermine Ukraine’s freedom of choice, but perhaps that would guarantee its main interest in security.
One thought on “Why West is so keen to make Ukraine a member of NATO?”
I always was interested in this topic and stock still am, regards for posting.