In the wake of the Georgian conflict in August 2008 a heated debate about the necessity of further NATO enlargement has emerged. The prospects for Georgia and Ukraine of their candidacy being moved to the next stage is fading. In this essay I will outline the developments to date, present the arguments against and in favour of enlargement and argue that ultimately, despite its high-blown rhetoric, NATO is unlikely to grant Georgia and Ukraine membership in the near future.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Developments to date
3. Arguments for NATO enlargement
4. Arguments against NATO enlargement
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay assesses the potential for further NATO enlargement regarding Ukraine and Georgia in the aftermath of the 2008 Georgian conflict, arguing that despite political promises, actual membership is unlikely in the near future due to internal divisions within the Alliance and strategic concerns regarding Russia.
- Historical evolution of institutional relationships between NATO, Ukraine, and Georgia.
- Strategic and security arguments supporting the expansion of the Alliance.
- Geopolitical and domestic obstacles, particularly concerning Russian opposition and internal readiness.
- The impact of regional conflicts and political instability on the candidacy process.
- Analysis of the current consensus and future outlook within the NATO framework.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Arguments for NATO enlargement
Advocates of further NATO enlargement claim that the Alliance needs to send a clear message that it is not intimidated by Russia. Conservative US politicians in particular believe that Moscow’s aggressive foreign policies of the last years must be responded to with a firm hand. As the Georgian conflict has shown, Russia seems more than willing to interfere with the national sovereignty of its neighbours. An upgrade of their institutionalised relations with NATO might offer Georgia and Ukraine some kind of deterrence against Russian military coercion. Condoleezza Rice, former US secretary of state, stated that “a strategic partnership with Ukraine will enhance regional security” (Kellerhals Jr., 2008). This argument is supported by the current Ukraine administration. In a letter to the NATO Secretary General from January 2008 it is argued that Ukraine “stands for strengthening regional security” and is “willing to counteract common threats to security under equal conditions” (Yushchenko, 2008). Clearly, this message is aimed at its menacing Eastern neighbour, although the letter goes on to claim that the Euro-Atlantic integration policy is “not directed against third countries”.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the core debate surrounding NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia following the 2008 Georgian conflict and presents the author's central thesis.
2. Developments to date: Provides a historical overview of the institutional cooperation between NATO and both countries, detailing key initiatives like the Partnership for Peace and the Membership Action Plan.
3. Arguments for NATO enlargement: Discusses the rationale for expansion, focusing on security deterrence against Russia and the promotion of democratic stability in the region.
4. Arguments against NATO enlargement: Examines the geopolitical risks, specifically Russian opposition, concerns over internal instability, and the lack of consensus among current NATO member states.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the analysis, asserting that due to shifting priorities and regional divisions, immediate NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia remains improbable.
Keywords
NATO, Enlargement, Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, Security, Membership Action Plan, Geopolitics, Euro-Atlantic Integration, Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Diplomacy, Democratization, Alliance, Stability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper assesses the feasibility and political context of further NATO enlargement to include Ukraine and Georgia in the wake of the 2008 Georgian conflict.
What is the central research question?
The research explores whether Ukraine and Georgia are likely to gain NATO membership in the near future, considering both the arguments for expansion and the significant political obstacles involved.
Which key thematic fields are covered?
The study covers historical diplomatic relations, military cooperation frameworks, the strategic influence of Russia, and the internal political conditions of the candidate countries.
What methodology does the author use?
The author employs a descriptive and analytical review of international relations, institutional history, and policy statements to evaluate the prospects of NATO enlargement.
What are the main arguments presented in the body chapters?
The body chapters contrast the desire of some Western leaders to project power and support democracy against the concerns of other members regarding regional stability, Russian geopolitical interests, and the readiness of the candidate countries.
Which keywords best describe the work?
Key terms include NATO, enlargement, Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, security policy, and regional stability.
How did the 2008 conflict in Georgia impact NATO's expansion plans?
The conflict highlighted the security risks associated with membership for these nations and contributed to a more cautious approach, effectively stalling the progress of the Membership Action Plan (MAP).
Why are France and Germany highlighted as significant actors?
France and Germany were instrumental in blocking the immediate move to the MAP stage at the Bucharest summit, reflecting internal European divisions regarding the political and security implications of expansion.
What role does internal domestic support play in the NATO aspirations of these nations?
The paper notes that domestic support for NATO in Ukraine is divided and often treated as an elite-driven project, which complicates the case for rapid integration.
- Arbeit zitieren
- M.A. Niklas Manhart (Autor:in), 2009, Going East: An assessment of NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/189686
