NATO’s adds Ukraine and Georgia to its Eastern flank
Rick Rozoff
Late last week Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba traveled to Bucharest, Romania to join a meeting of what he called NATO’s Eastern flank: Poland, Romania and Turkey.
The Ukrainian foreign minister posted this on his Facebook page: “Greetings from Bucharest. Today, for the first time, Ukraine is taking part in the negotiations of the Romania, Poland, and Turkey triangle – NATO’s Eastern flank.”
The trilateral format was created at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Chicago in 2012.
This year Georgia as well as Ukraine participated. In Kuleba’s words: “Today, for the first time, they invited guests – Ukraine and Georgia – to join their format. And this isn’t just an invitation. It’s a political signal and concrete action to support Ukraine in a difficult moment.”
As reported in the Ukrainian press, the foreign ministers of the five states, all but Poland on the Black Sea, “discussed in detail the issues of regional security in the context of Russia’s aggressive actions, the prospects for NATO enlargement, and the support of Allied partners.”
The five nations – Turkey (85 million people), Ukraine (44 million), Poland (38 million), Romania (19 million) and Georgia (4 million) – have a total population of 190,000,000. If the other members of NATO’s eastern border are included – members Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and Enhanced Opportunities Partner Finland – the total is 209,000,000; far larger than Russia’s 144,000,000.
Ukraine and Turkey also recently held a meeting in Ankara of the Strategic Ukrainian-Turkish Council, with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey jointly pledging support for Ukraine seizing the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, Crimea being returned to the country also after having reunited with Russia in 2014, and Ukraine joining NATO and the European Union.
The Bucharest meeting attendees discussed plans for the first summit of the Crimean Platform in August. According to Ukraine’s first deputy foreign minister, Emine Dzheppar, “the strategic goal of the Crimean Platform is the de-occupation of Crimea….”
Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu confirmed his nation will dispatch a military unit to participate in a military parade in the Ukrainian capital, and he and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba stated the two countries are prepared to form a strategic partnership.
The main subjects of deliberation of the five foreign ministers were strengthening NATO presence in the region, Ukraine’s and Georgia’s prospects of joining NATO and the European Union and the aforementioned Crimean Platform.
Ukraine’s Kuleba, who was evidently the guest of honor at the meeting, added: “NATO’s key partners Ukraine and Georgia make a significant contribution to strengthening the Alliance’s eastern flank and maintaining stability in the Black Sea region. I am convinced that our unity is the most effective factor in deterring Russia and its deeply destructive actions in the region.”
In particular he called for increased cooperation between the navies of Ukraine and Georgia and those of the three NATO members in the Black Sea: Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
While meeting with Georgian Foreign Minister Georgia David Zalkaliani, his Ukrainian counterpart also asserted, “The membership of Ukraine and Georgia in the European Union and NATO is only a matter of time.”
The five foreign ministers condemned Russia over Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea, the Kerch Strait, Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in regard to the latter two, “the borderisation in Georgia”). And they demanded that Crimea, and as a result the western bank of the Kerch Strait, be taken from Russia and given to Ukraine; that Russia betray its largely Russian-speaking allies in Donetsk and Lugansk, at least half a million of whom have Russian citizenship, to Ukraine; and that South Ossetia, which was invaded by Georgia in 2008, and Abkhazia, which narrowly avoided the same fate, be ceded to Georgia. Russia has military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which it recognizes as independent nations, and maintains its Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. As there appears no peaceful way of effecting the transitions listed above, what the five NATO members and partners have done is to chart a course for war; several wars.
The Black Sea appears to be the main battleground in NATO’s plans to confront Russia and redraw the political maps on its western and southern borders.
“The Black Sea appears to be the main battleground in NATO’s plans to confront Russia and redraw the political maps on its western and southern borders.”
The elephant in the room in this scenario is Turkey. It is neither in Turkey’s interest to upset Russia by aligning with Ukraine and Georgia nor will it jeopardize it’s own ambitions within it’s territorial waters in light of the new natural gas reserves beneath the Black Sea.
One could surmise that while Turkey, being a member of NATO, is treading on a tight rope while the US & the EU are hellbent on crashing Turkey’s economy(S-400 is the Achille’s heel for every country that desires to purchase them)
While one could argue that Turkey cannot be trusted, bear in mind that Turkey bowed the knee to placate Russia when it downed the Russian fighter jet back in 2015 and then resumed their bilateral relations in the following years. The big question is why would Turkey do this if it was aligned in toto with the US and the EU? They have all but given up hope of ever being granted EU membership and they never will be.
However, they still have to appease their NATO allies and this recent Ukrainian-Turkish dialogue could be mere lip service on part of Turkey.
It is quite a delicate balancing act on one hand the EU/NATO and Russia on the other, while keeping its own interests in mind.
I think the Turks would be better off to not interfere too much in the Ukrainian-Russian tussle. But it is not that easy is it?
There’s nothing much to discuss about Poland or Georgia. They’ve already made up their minds long ago. The Russian will play the waiting game and bleed Ukraine with regard to it’s economy and force them to come to terms. A full scale war between Ukraine and Russia over Donetsk and Lugansk amid the pandemic or even otherwise is in neither party’s interest. These are indeed troubled times for the entire world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There have been several articles on this site recently I’d invite to to look at. They document that Turkey is ***the*** NATO powerhouse in the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean and now Central and even South Asia, having been put in charge of training missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and given command of the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force. Russia has capitulated to Ankara time and again – in Syria, Libya and most recently in Nagorno-Karabakh. Ask yourself for a moment how any other nation – the U.S., Turkey itself – would have reacted if Russia had shot down a warplane and then had its crew and a rescue crew member savagely murdered by Russian proxies, had their ambassador gunned down in broad daylight, had a military helicopter shot down by a Russian proxy and its crew killed, etc., etc. How did Russia react? It sold the S-400 anti-aircraft batteries to the perpetrator that it won’t even sell to Syria and Iran.
LikeLike
“How did Russia react? It sold the S-400 anti-aircraft batteries to the perpetrator that it won’t even sell to Syria and Iran.”
Therein lies my contention. Why would Russia do this? The Russians are not weak minded by any stretch of imagination. I feel there’s more to it than meets the eye. Turkey cannot afford to disassociate and dislodge itself easily from the NATO alliance. I’ve always held that the downing of the Russian aircraft was coercion by NATO top brass and Turkey had no say in the matter. The coldblooded murder of the Russian ambassador in itself could have amounted to a massive flare in tensions between the two countries. But Russia did not retaliate they way it should have. My contention, given the sentiment in the Turkish press, is that they are tired of carrying the Western yoke on their shoulders for almost a century now.
Another big question is that why would the Russians tip off the ruling party in Turkey just as the alleged coup was to take place, just two years after the Russian warplane incident? There has to be a very compelling reason for the Russians to do this. The Russians knew that if the coup were allowed to take place, the Turkish army (supported indirectly by the US) would’ve immediately turned the tables, aligned itself with the US completely and turned Turkey into a vassal state for the US/EU. Russians need Turkey as much as Turkey does Russia.
Old rivalries have to be dispelled if they do not want to see repeat of Iraq or Libya and Turkey knows this full well. Given the unstoppable economic rise of China, Turkey knows only too well not to cross with either the Russians or to hinder China’s ambitions.
At the end of the day every country in the world actively seeks to expand its own interests and protect its sovereignty including Russia and Turkey. This must be taken into account.
As regards Nagorno-Karabakh Russia did not ‘capitulate’ as you put it in such refreshing manner, but got the better of US & France the co-chairs of the Minsk Group:
“In the Caucasus, the former status quo was a frozen conflict. Nagorno-Karabakh was under Armenian occupation and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group appeared to be the only potential player to resolve the issue. That group was co-chaired by the United States, France and Russia.
In other words, they were to play a definitive role in Nagorno-Karabakh, whereas eight other nations, including Turkey, assumed a secondary role. For 28 years, the Minsk Group made absolutely no progress. The dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia remained a frozen escalation. The only other notable country was Iran, which supported Armenia and was not part of the Minsk Group.
Azerbaijan’s military victory in that mountainous region kicked all parties, except Turkey and Russia, from the negotiating table. The emerging order includes Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. There are differences of opinion, however, about the establishment of that new order.” source: https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/does-turkey-support-armenias-pashinian
What’s missing in the Armenian-Azerbaijan tussle picture is the West’s support for Pashinian.
“Following days of protests, Armenia’s government had changed hands. Evoking the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution of 1989, Pashinian declared a “Velvet Revolution.” As the leader of the revolution which forced Sargsyan and his government to resign, Pashinian failed to gain enough votes from the Parliament to become the prime minister himself on May 1, 2018, but was elected in the second vote on May 8.
While he described himself as a post-ideological politician throughout his career, Western sources depicted him as a centrist, progressive and liberal democrat.
In European papers, he was widely portrayed as charismatic and a revolutionary. Some even went further and idolized him as a “fiery political orator” or a “crusader fighting against corruption and oligarchical influence.” He was mostly delineated as a “national hero” by Western journalists. However, some of them noted that his image was just built on populism.
Pashinian’s orientation
While the West was busy selecting him as the “politician of the year,” Moscow was watching the merriment quietly. It had already seen Pashinian as a politician with a pro-Western orientation. In 2013, he voted against Armenia’s membership to the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) arguing that it was against Armenia’s sovereignty and national security.
In 2016, he voted against the Russian-Armenian agreement on a Unified Regional Air Defense System in the Caucasus, claiming that Armenia should develop its own air defense system. “Russia cannot be considered a real guarantor of Armenia’s security. This kind of agreement with Russia will create only the illusion of a strengthening of security,” he said.”
Source: https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/how-vladimir-putin-punished-nikol-pashinian
LikeLike
Russia played a “definitive role” all right. A definitive role in the murder of over 4,000 residents of Nagorno-Karabakh and the displacement of some 45,000. In a total population of only 145,000. Russia was obligated to assist its CSTO ally Armenia in the ***44-day*** war in its own neighborhood. Not even after a Russian military helicopter was shot down and its crew killed did Russia do so. Pashinyan was a Soros stooge. So let’s leave thousands of ethnic Armenian widows and orphans to teach him a lesson. I hope you don’t subscribe that thoroughly to Realpolitik.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov today:
https://tass.com/politics/1284845
“Turkey and Turkey’s commitment to its independent course of development, which is quite firm, are generally the subject for heightened attention and, perhaps, concern at NATO. And, of course, this is a subject of US concern and the way the United States is trying to raise its voice at Ankara over the story with the S-400s [Russia’s air defense systems] and Ankara’s other actions obviously indicate that Washington does not like how [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is confidently leading Turkey forward and that they would prefer a more compliant Turkey,” Peskov explained.
LikeLike
This is from Congressional testimony from top commander of NATO and U.S. European Command earlier this month:
Despite political tensions and disagreements, Turkey remains a strategic U.S. Ally, critical to
NATO and U.S. interests in Europe, Eurasia, North Africa, and the Middle East.
Turkey retains a pivotal role in countering Russia.
https://www.eucom.mil/document/41183/key-points-useucom-sasc-hasc-statement-210415pdf
LikeLike
Always strategic waterways …. same with Yemen
LikeLike
Right. Some 11 years ago one of the Standing NATO Maritime Groups was en route to cross the Strait of Malacca that connects the Indian to the Pacific Ocean – after having circumnavigated the African continent – before being pulled back for another mission at the last moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Population isn’t a criterion in itself, but the Ottomans are basically a Trojan Horse for NATO to use against Russia. Putin’s appeasement of Erdoğan – and his saving Erdo’s bacon in 2016 – did zero to warm Ottoman goodwill. One can be sure that S400 technology will be shared with NATO the moment the first battery is in place in Istanbul.
LikeLike
Bravo on all scores.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Turkish S400 is export version, Russia can ‘turn it off’ at any point, plus it cannot target any Russian aircraft by design. Even if the US got hands on the the S400 they wouldn’t do anything with it, I doubt they would even be able to reverse engineer or understand it they are so far behind in terms of missile/rocket design. Russia has its reasons for putting up with Erdogan and in the long term they will have a plan for disposing of him (or enabling some of his many enemies to do so. ) Erdogan is loyal to no one, but the Russians know what he is doing and why and I don’t doubt that he is compromised. Better the devil you know, right now that suits Russia.
Russia doesn’t have to fight ten enemies it only has to beat one and that is the US, when you cut the head off the snake do you think the turks will continue to fight, or the French or Germans – NATO? No. They are the cowards hiding behind the US, once the the US is militarily humiliated the rest will disappear like smoke. Russia has escalation dominance in Eurasia and in terms of conventional combat the US cannot win, idiots like the Georgians and the failed state that is now Ukraine are meaningless.
LikeLike
I appreciate your name. Lermontov would approve….Turkey is a danger in its own right and is successfully thumbing its nose at the Arab League, the African Union, the laughable Russian-led CSTO – indeed the world. It has humiliated Russia in the South Caucasus and long-time Soviet-Russian ally Libya. Or, rather, I should say Russia has humiliated itself through its uncritical subservience to Erdogan: it allowed a warplane to be shot down, crew member murdered, rescue helicopter crew member murdered, ambassador gunned down, daily threats from Ankara about Tatars in Crimea, etc. – and Putin loves Erdogan more each day. ***Who’s*** compromised, my friend?
LikeLike
From Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov today:
https://tass.com/politics/1284845
“Turkey and Turkey’s commitment to its independent course of development, which is quite firm, are generally the subject for heightened attention and, perhaps, concern at NATO. And, of course, this is a subject of US concern and the way the United States is trying to raise its voice at Ankara over the story with the S-400s [Russia’s air defense systems] and Ankara’s other actions obviously indicate that Washington does not like how [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is confidently leading Turkey forward and that they would prefer a more compliant Turkey,” Peskov explained.
LikeLike
From Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov today:
https://tass.com/politics/1284845
“Turkey and Turkey’s commitment to its independent course of development, which is quite firm, are generally the subject for heightened attention and, perhaps, concern at NATO. And, of course, this is a subject of US concern and the way the United States is trying to raise its voice at Ankara over the story with the S-400s [Russia’s air defense systems] and Ankara’s other actions obviously indicate that Washington does not like how [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is confidently leading Turkey forward and that they would prefer a more compliant Turkey,” Peskov explained.
LikeLiked by 1 person