Thursday, may 25, will host a NATO summit in Brussels. It is already known that among the topics that will be discussed by the leaders of the Alliance will be the allocation of responsibility between allies and NATO’s role in combating terrorism. Ahead of the summit, the Washington sent to their allies another clear signal that NATO’s expansion is also being considered by the United States as one of the key issues.
There is a «party»
Among the many analytical centers of the USA is think tank, which is considered a highly influential Heritage Foundation. Influential because, according to The Washington Times, the Fund is «a key ally of Donald trump and his still young administration.»
Apparently, so the article on the website of the Heritage Foundation, categorical and similar to the instructions for those whom they are intended. It is difficult to assume that the analytical center, being a «key ally trump», writes articles in the void, not directing them to anyone. Instructions written in a form which suggests alternatives. The reader cannot shape the belief that this is the official position of Washington.
How to behave on 25 may
One of such instructions is a recent article, addressed primarily to participants of the NATO summit in Brussels. It says: «In the interests of the US to NATO was holding the door open for deserving membership of European countries».
At the same time the article is addressed and Moscow.
«Russia says that it sees NATO expansion as a «provocation». However, no third party shall have the right of veto regarding the decision of sovereign countries — members of NATO,» says the Heritage Foundation. Keeping in mind that the decision to expand the Alliance (including the territory of the former USSR countries) accept «by sovereign members of NATO.»
What kind of «worthy of membership countries» in question?
Who are waiting for NATO
In may-June it is expected to complete all formal procedures on the admission of Montenegro to NATO, which will become the 29th country in the Alliance. A long time leader of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic with the assistance of its patrons in Washington and Brussels first pushed through a «referendum» on secession of Montenegro from Serbia (in 2006), and then, last year, organized the parliamentary elections so that the Assembly passed the «right» candidates, recently voted for the accession of Montenegro to NATO.
The fact that mass demonstrations Montenegrins demanded the holding of a nationwide referendum on the issue, no one cared. Rather, I care, but only in the sense that the vast majority of the Montenegrins, Russophile, and because the outcome of the referendum would be predictably negative. Therefore, Djukanovic has held his country in NATO is not a direct and honest way — through a popular referendum, and in the margins, that is, through his obedient Parliament.
«The accession of Montenegro to NATO may seem like a closing ceremony of the procedures for the development of the Alliance, but it is a significant mistake,» edifying says the Heritage Foundation.
Now turn to neighbouring Montenegro Balkan countries — Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia. All three countries are official candidates for NATO membership.
Georgia considering the first
Georgia officially invited to NATO at the Alliance’s summit in 2008. However, the country still has not received the so-called «action Plan for future members» (Membership Action Plan — MAP), which includes a list of activities required of the applicant for membership. Against granting Georgia the status of «country action plan» Germany and France are. Berlin and Paris, according to The Washington Post, suggested that «it would provoke Russia, which has warned about the consequences if Georgia (or Ukraine) will join the Alliance. Germany and France also believe that Georgia cannot be defended because, in their opinion, NATO will not fight against Russia.»
Thus, the specific recipients of «pre-emptive» article at the Heritage Foundation on the Georgian topic are Germany and France.
The Heritage Foundation reminds stubbornly disagree how well behaved Georgia. «Even though Georgia is not granted MAP, the article says of the Fund — the country’s relations with NATO is far superior to the traditional «Plan of action for future members.»
Macedonia in the queue
The next worthy candidate for the Heritage Foundation sees Macedonia, which, unlike Georgia, not only got a MAP, but implemented it by 2008. It was expected that in the same year, Macedonia is already officially invited to join NATO at the Alliance’s summit in Bucharest. However, this was opposed by Greece in connection with the unresolved question of the name of candidate country. Let me remind you that Greece is demanding that Macedonia’s refusal of its official name. Athens is considered that the name «Macedonia» historically belongs to Greece: with this title a long time there is a region in the North of the country.
In other words, following the signal Washington is sending Greece. She is also required to resolve the dispute with Macedonia and not to block its admission to NATO.
Speaking about Macedonia, the Heritage Foundation did not fail to throw a stone in the direction of Russia. «The decade long NATO membership has negative consequences for the internal policy of Macedonia, creating a space for such malicious political players, like Russia, who exploit the inability of NATO to fulfil their promises of Macedonia» — instructs American Foundation.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Heritage Foundation sees as a third country, which must necessarily join NATO. Big expressed their desire to join NATO in 2008. Two years later she was given the notorious «Plan of action for future members.»
Heritage Foundation writes that BiH «has made some progress in the reform of their defense and even deployed its military contingent in Afghanistan, but the country is still far from being able to join the Alliance.»
But if in this problem? Are Montenegro and Macedonia, such as the republics of former Yugoslavia, as the big, things with the defense are much better than big? Not at all. There is another problem, which the Heritage Foundation calls the «additional,» although it is, in fact, the main.
«There is an additional problem in the internal politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which makes membership of this country into NATO problematic. It actually concerns the ethnically Serb region of Republika Srpska — one of two constituent ethnic parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was formed after the civil war in the 1990s,» writes the Heritage Foundation. The Americans did not explain what the problem is with the Serbs.
But the problem is that Serbs, wherever they live, in Serbia or the Republika Srpska within BiH, is strongly against NATO. The Serbs were the main victims of the NATO bombing, and they appointed the collective West the perpetrators of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. A request to NATO on behalf of BiH filed the other part of the country — the Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Accordingly, the signal is again sent Washington to the Serbs or, rather, Republika Srpska. What exactly can you expect the Serbs, we can only guess. I don’t know.
Without Ukraine, anywhere
And finally, the Washington strategists have done Ukrainian theme, bringing the briefing to outright propaganda: «In light of Russian aggression, the Ukrainian people showed on the Maidan and the elections, that he sees his future in Alliance with the West, and not under the domination of Russia.»
The Washington strategists are trying to draw Ukraine closer to NATO, but also to keep her at a distance. Based on the above, and you read between the lines, Ukraine would already have admitted to NATO. This is the Golden dream of all Russophobes — to break the blood relationship of Russia and Ukraine.
But they are afraid of Russia. And because push causes a minor note, in other cases not to accept Ukraine now. And therefore we read such passages: «it is Necessary to create for Ukraine is really a reasonable expectation. NATO must continue to build closer relations with Ukraine, but it is important to understand that Ukraine still has a long way to go before its membership in NATO will be a serious opportunity.» And tree climbed, and not pricked.
Inspired by the meeting at the White house with trump, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin said that Ukraine «will gradually be included into the Eastern flank of NATO.» It was brave, but shallow.
States, despite the release of CO, such as described above from the Heritage Foundation, hardly intend in reality to deploy right now a large-scale NATO expansion into post-Soviet space.
Rather, they will continue to wait for the time when Russia will weaken so much that will not be able to oppose the entry of Ukraine into NATO.
But there is an opinion that will not wait.