Askold Lozynskyj
According to “Politico” there are seven NATO member countries opposed or reluctant to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO. Citing four anonymous U.S. and NATO officials and diplomats, “Politico” named the seven countries: United States of America, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Slovenia, Hungary and Slovakia.
While some countries are more important than others in the case of an invitation to NATO, the operative rule is consensus rather than a vote, majority or otherwise. So each country has to be addressed individually regardless of size or military value because NATO is an alliance of equals. Granted their contributions, but also influence vary very widely. The USA contributes and influences more than any other member.
Hungary because of its reputation and history dating back to the world wars and its current populist autocrat leader is perhaps the worst member in terms of loyalty, but, perhaps, easiest to persuade. Viktor Orban is a buffoon recognized as such by all of Europe if not the world and even in Hungary. He has been in power for fourteen years, much longer than any democratically elected ruler, which is a sign of a problematic society. He is currently serving a six month term as President of the Council of the European Union, which has proven to be a great embarrassment to Europe. This is a symbolic role, but Orban has been anything but symbolic. He has no ideological or moral underpinning. His country is under sanctions by the European Union and in the past his waiver at the least can be purchased with only a moderate release of some money withheld, the balance remaining to influence his behaviour in the future.
Robert Pico in Slovakia is similar yet less egregious. Pico is a recent problem, not the outrageous caricature like Orban and a very corrupt functionary so amenable at the right price. His affinity for Russia and Putin is not very strong. Frankly, Slovakia should not even be in NATO as it offers very little military might. Its Soviet past as a satellite country but united with the dominant Czechs is a matter of some interest. Fear of Russia based on proximity is a factor common to countries within the former USSR such as Moldova, Georgia desperately trying to be independent but fearful. Slovakia is close enough to Russia so any pro-Russian rhetoric has to be balanced with that proximity in mind.
Tiny Slovenia with a population of 2 million people shares an apparently troublesome border with Hungary. As a NATO member it deployed from 60 to 90 troops in Afghanistan and several IFVs (Infantry fighting vehicles) and armoured transport vehicles. Given its size it is difficult to fault Slovenia on its contribution. “Politico” fails to provide any information on why Slovenia would oppose Ukrainian NATO membership. There is no history between Slovenia and Ukraine and the only influence or concern may be its proximity, border with Viktor Orban’s Hungary.
Belgium contributed a c-130 Hercules and four F-16 aircraft and no forces to the Afghanistan effort. Belgium is a quandary. No one benefits more from its NATO association since Brussels is the hub of NATO and the European Union. Yet Belgium gives nothing back and in addition, despite sanction against Russia profits in its continued trade with Russia. Explaining its
opposition to Ukraine’s NATO membership is easy because of its continued trade with Russia, but at the same time, its position as to Ukraine can be ignored because of its reliance on being the centre of NATO and EU. Frankly, while the move may be costly in terms of new infrastructure, Brussels can be very easily replaced with a more reliable hub.
In view of the above, these four obstructionists are a very temporary problem, easily disposed of with a modicum of, let’s call it, persuasion. In the case of Hungary and Slovakia, President Elect Trump certainly holds much influence.
Spain, Germany and the United States are a curious group of naysayers. They are also the biggest contributors to Ukraine’s war effort.
Researching the issue of Spanish opposition, my conclusion is that Spain is cowering behind the United States. Similarly, so is Germany. So the only question which remains is why is the United States which has supplied under President Biden the most military assistance to Ukraine, also Ukraine’s biggest opponent to NATO membership. Can it be the same reason as the specious justification for limiting the range of American missiles in Russia?
Spheres of influence, balance of power, appeasing the enemy are all as antiquated concepts as the Monroe Doctrine. The Democrats under President Biden represented a very old guard, anti-Russian but, let’s call it circumspect to the point of appeasement.
The Democrats under Presidents Barrack Obama and Joe Biden have been shortsighted and feckless. President Obama was a disaster in foreign policy, particularly, on Ukraine. President Biden has been much more experienced but much too slow (call it deliberative) and too appeasing in his actions. As a result the free world has been misled and Ukraine has suffered. Spain and Germany as well as the four minor players can be led by the United States if America decides to lead and not simply deliberate and appease.
If President Trump is inclined to lead the world, and NATO, at the same time help Ukraine with little expense, enhance NATO with Ukraine’s experience and not continue the policies of his predecessor, he should invite Ukraine to join NATO.
November 6, 2024