Is NATO's trojan horse riding toward the 'Ukraine Spring'?

 While Ukrainian citizens who have been protesting against President Victor Yanukovych for his refusal to sign an economic agreement with the European Union may be motivated by genuine concern for  their future, the question is whether their plight is being exploited to usher in a military agreement  under  the guise of  economic reform. Statements by neoconservatives (see box) appear to confirm fears that the push toward the EU is just a step to integrate Ukraine into military alignment with NATO.

Dennis J Kucinich

---

UKRAINIAN citizens have rallied in the bitter cold at Independence Square in Kiev to demand a better economic future and to protest President Viktor Yanukovych's failure to sign an economic agreement with the European Union.

But while the draft of the EU 'Association Agreement' is being sold as an economic boon for Ukrainian citizens, in reality it appears to be NATO's Trojan horse: a massive expansion of NATO's military position in the region. What's more, the Agreement occurs under the cover of nebulous economic promises for a beset population hungering for better wages.

In a country where the average monthly minimum wage stands at about $150, it's not hard to understand why Ukrainians are in the streets. They do not want to be in Russia's orbit, nor do they want to be pawns of NATO.

But is the plight of Ukrainians being exploited to usher in a new military agreement under the guise of economic reform?

For NATO, the goal is expansion. The prize is access to a country that shares a 1,426-mile border with Russia. The geopolitical map would be dramatically reshaped by the Agreement, with Ukraine serving as the new front for Western missile defence at the doorstep of Russia. Should the US nuclear deal with Iran fall apart, Ukraine could be employed in larger regional disputes, too.

As an EU deal appears imminent, few people are asking questions about NATO's role in the deal, which was meant to facilitate jobs and trade. Economic conditions in Ukraine are dire: $15 billion in IMF loans suspended, danger of default and a zero growth forecast.

While NATO is not specifically mentioned in the draft of the 'Association Agreement', the proposal, which was posted online by the Ukrainian cabinet in August, pledges convergence of foreign and security policy.

Read: NATO expansion.

For instance, in the draft of the Agreement, foreign and security policy mandates: 'The Parties shall explore the potential of military and technological cooperation. Ukraine and the European Defence Agency (EDA) will establish close contacts to discuss military capability improvement, including technological issues.'

The draft of the Agreement's preamble links Ukraine to 'ever closer convergence of positions on bilateral, regional and international issues of mutual interest' including the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) - which underscores the military nature of the agreement.

Since 22 of 28 members of the EU have NATO membership, there is little doubt that Ukraine is being drawn into the broad military arrangement with EU nations.

If the EU Agreement is ratified, Ukraine will inevitably spend a higher percentage of its GDP for military purposes, steering critical resources from social programmes and job opportunities. In 2012, Ukraine's military budget already increased 30% - to $2 billion, representing a comparatively low 1.1% of GDP. NATO members agree to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence.

NATO members are also under pressure to contribute more and more of their GDP to military expenditures. 'It is time to move beyond the "2% rule",' says the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, in his farewell remarks in June 2013, described the sentiment: 'The gap between American and European contributions to the Alliance is widening to an unsustainable level. Something must be done. The trends need to be reversed.'

When military spending goes up, domestic spending goes down. The winners are unlikely to be the people of Ukraine, but instead the 'people' of Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and other defence interests. The Ukrainians didn't go to Independence Square to rally for NATO. Yet NATO's benefit is clear. Less clear is whether Ukrainians will receive key economic benefits they seek.

To wit, the preamble to the Agreement is hazy on the implementation of visa-free travel for citizens of Ukraine, a crucial incentive for struggling workers seeking better jobs. The draft of the Agreement is vague, calling for the visa issue to be introduced 'in due course'. It also asserts that EU nations could block the movement of self-employed Ukrainians to other job markets.

For Greece, Spain and others, EU membership hasn't turned out to be a shining economic saviour. The return of austerity policies reminds one of Naomi Klein's warning about the perils of disaster capitalism, in which instability opens the door for exploitation from outside forces.

For the protesters in Kiev, standing tall for democracy and economic opportunity, there's suddenly a new worry: Disaster Militarism. Ukrainians may be pro-EU, but are the EU and NATO pro-Ukrainian?          

Dennis J Kucinich is a former 16-year member of the US Congress and two-time US presidential candidate. Visit his website www.kucinichaction.com. This article is reproduced from The Huffington Post website (www.huffingtonpost.com).

What the neocons want from Ukraine Nathan Lewis Lawrence WITH the world turning its eyes toward Ukraine, numerous questions are being asked. What do protesters want? What is at stake for international politics? Neoconservative John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations for the Bush administration, has already put his two cents into the conversation. In the Los Angeles Times, Bolton argues that what is currently happening in Ukraine is proof that NATO should have been expanded in 2008 at the Bucharest summit: 'Thus the West collectively made a terrible mistake at the NATO summit in April 2008 by not placing Ukraine (and Georgia) on a clear path to NATO membership. Had we done so, the question of EU economic relations would doubtless have been more easily resolved. Ambiguity over Ukraine, leaving it in a no man's land between Russia and NATO, obviously didn't lead to Ukrainian stability, domestically or internationally. And the same vital question for Kiev's citizens abides: Is their future with the West or Moscow?' Is the push toward the EU just a step to integrate Ukraine into military alignment through NATO? There is undoubtedly an array of opinions among the protesters, but the question for someone like Bolton is not 'what do the protesters want?' but 'what do the powers-that-be want?' Historically, EU membership has been a step toward NATO membership, and it is also clear that the draft of the Association Agreement that the protesters seem to support includes military cooperation. Article X, section one, says: 'The Parties shall explore the potential of military and technological cooperation. Ukraine and the European Defence Agency (EDA) will establish close contacts to discuss military capability improvement, including technological issues.' The right-wing think-tank the Heritage Foundation has also released a policy statement on the situation in Ukraine. The author of the report, Dr Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy policy, writes that the United States should 'stand with the Ukrainian people' as part of a broader struggle against Moscow. Cohen recommends that the United States 'increase coordination of Ukraine policy with its European allies, including an offer of a comprehensive economic reform package, such as a technical assistance programme to repair the ailing economy, a significant increase in trade with Europe and the US, and the IMF loan'. Those concerned about seeing a protest movement turn into an excuse for an expansion of NATO military power ought to be vigilant against neoconservatives seeking to use the protests to justify their worldview in the wake of the failed military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Activists in the United States, if they are concerned about the outcome of the protests currently underway in Ukraine, ought to defuse these attempts by neoconservatives to write their own narrative into the story.                    u Nathan Lewis Lawrence is an African-American graduate student studying peace and conflict studies at the Department of International Relations at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey. He received his bachelor's degree in Security studies from Tiffin University in Tiffin, Ohio. He is currently writing his master's thesis on leftist and libertarian economic critiques of Sharpian non-violence. This article first appeared on the Waging Nonviolence website (wagingnonviolence.org) and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licence.

*Third World Resurgence No. 279/280, November/December 2013, pp 51-52