By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
cross posted with https://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-a-trap-in-the-name-of-peace-a-mechanism-for-the-transformation-of-the-nontransformable/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20190208/1022621728.html
On February 8th 1994, 25 years ago, Ukraine joined the “Partnership for Peace” (PFP) NATO program.
It happened practically immediately after the establishment of the program in January, 1994. It is characteristic that also then, in 1994, a similar plan of interaction between the EU and the post-socialist space was put forward by the French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur of that time. This was the first project that received the informal name “Balladur plan”. In 2007 he also voiced the idea of unification into one structure of the US and the EU, which also received the name “Balladur plan” in daily use. But unlike the project of 1994, nobody ever tried to realise the idea of 2007.
In 1994, within the framework of the “Balladur plan” numerous events (round tables) were held, and in their course a number of Eastern European countries was defined, which in the future, during the waves of expansion in 2004 and 2007, became a part of the EU. 10 years were spent for their preliminary adaptation to European structures. However, even now, 10-15 years after their accession, it is difficult to call these countries fully-fledged members of the EU. The stability of their budgets and financial systems directly depends not only on the financial aid of the EU as such, but also on the preservation of its volumes. Without permanent annual multi-billion injections from the EU, these states as economic systems are unviable.
The “Partnership for Peace” program was some kind of NATO analog of the “Balladur plan”. Removing the concerns of those post-socialist states that will never become NATO members, as well as the preparation for NATO membership of those who it was decided to accept, were its main tasks. At the same time, like in the case with accession to the EU, the achievement of the criteria that grants the right to become a NATO member was decided randomly, and the opinion of Washington played a decisive role in it.
Thus, for example, Romania – which was considerably inferior to Ukraine until 2014 in terms of economic and in military-political weight, in terms of the question of the development of democracy, and even in terms of the amount of corruption – nevertheless became a NATO member in 2004 and an EU member in 2007. In 2009 Albania – in the boondocks of Europe – was accepted into NATO (now it one of the first in the queue for EU membership). Washington tried only once, in 2008, at the Bucharest NATO summit, to push forward the Membership Plan of Action for Ukraine and Georgia (which would make them official candidates for membership in NATO), but this American initiative was blocked by France and Germany, who didn’t want to spoil relations with Russia. But the question of the reception of Kiev in the EU was in general never on the agenda.
At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the Ukrainian authorities did everything that depended on them to achieve at least the status of a candidate for NATO membership. In 2002 the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan – the highest form of cooperation within the framework of the “Partnership for Peace” (PFP) – was adopted. In April 2004 the Verkhovna Rada adopted the law on free access to the territory of Ukraine for NATO forces, and in June 2004 president Kuchma approved the military doctrine that determined the entry of Ukraine in NATO as the ultimate goal.
This, by the way, will be useful to grasp for those who consider that the danger of NATO bases appearing in Ukraine arose only in 2014 and only because Russia didn’t send tanks to fight against Banderists. By the way, the introduction at the initiative of Poroshenko of the amendments to the Constitution canceling the non-bloc status of Ukraine and determining NATO accession as the ultimate goal is also secondary. 15 years prior Kuchma, quietly, without excess noise and without paying attention to the Constitution, solved the same problem with his decree (which approved the military doctrine). In general, by the middle of 2004, half a year before Maidan, and seven months prior to Yushchenko coming to power, Ukraine was quite ready for NATO accession. Since then Kiev has been in the starting blocks during all this time, but it isn’t invited anywhere.
PFP for NATO played the same role that the “Balladur plan”, and then the “Eastern Partnership”, played for the EU. In fact, they were complementary programs. In 1994 the West still hadn’t made a final decision on what to do with the post-socialist space. Meanwhile, the former countries of socialist camp and the former federal republics were actively rushing into western structures, thinking that joining them would give them the opportunity to solve both their social-economic and military-political problems.
Originally the PFP program was supposed to bring down the heat of Eastern European emotions, busying the countries that were rushing into NATO with mastering a certain mechanism that allowed to “prepare” them over decades for “compliance to criteria” of membership. The criteria are extremely indistinct. PFP members are required to observe the UN charter and international law, to refuse to threaten with the use of force, to meet democratic standards of the West, to carry out military reforms, and to provide civil control over the armed forces. In general, “for everything good and against everything bad”. At the same time, the worthiest one – i.e., the US – had to decide who is most worthy for membership.
Another important point was that within the framework of PFP a country cooperated with NATO on an individual basis. Thus, the West prevented the creation of lobbyist groups, such as the Visegrád Four, which already existed back then (and which was originally considered by the countries that created it as a mechanism for joint accession to the EU and NATO).
In general, thanks to PFP the West received time to decide on a strategy concerning the countries of the former socialist camp. At the same time, their wishes weren’t rejected straight off. Moreover, a mechanism was created, and with its help it was possible to accept any country into NATO at any time and to reject any country under a specious excuse. This same thing also concerns the mechanisms that were created in order to regulate the process of the EU’s expansion.
Within the framework of PFP obligations were taken only by partner countries, while NATO agreed only to the emergency carrying out of consultations if a partner country feels that its territorial integrity is under threat. It is necessary to say that these consultations haven’t helped anybody to date; they created the mechanism of NATO (and de facto the US) interference in any inter-state conflict whereby at least one partner country is involved.
Today’s attempts to actualise the topic of accession to NATO undertaken by Kiev (in particular, the introduction of the corresponding amendments to the Constitution), which have a pronounced propaganda character and have no practical value, are indeed caused by the understanding of that fact that within the framework of PFP Ukraine is perhaps indeed a partner of NATO, but NATO isn’t a partner of Ukraine. Kiev can’t speak with Brussels as equals, it also can’t leave the PFP program, since it would be regarded as the largest foreign policy failure of the current authorities. At the same time, within the framework of PFP Ukraine can only follow the instructions of NATO (in reality, the US) while receiving nothing in exchange.
In general, PFP, which was originally presented as a mechanism for the adaptation of potential candidates to NATO requirements, quickly turned into a trap that keeps those countries that the bloc doesn’t intend to bring into its structure in the orbit of NATO in the quality of “junior partners”.
Once the USA has occupied your country, or you have been frog-marched into the Western Murder Incorporated that is NATO, you can never be rid of them, or leave their criminal gang. Not ever. Even at the cost of becoming a nuclear target, courtesy of the neo-conservatives tearing up the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty, with START certain to go, too, even then the Quisling compradores of the NATO stooges durst not utter a syllable of reluctance or independence of thought or action.
Its interesting that this EU expansion had the apparent follow-on effect of knocking the United Kingdom out of Europe as if they were billiard balls colliding.
Listening to PM May, the one thing that she and the Brexit Brigade are insisting on is the end of “Freedom of Movement”. This apparently is the red line that prevents any closer future association between the UK and the EU because the EU insists on this principle of Freedom of Movement as a core part of its principles. In objecting to Freedom of Movement, in basing much of the Leave campaign upon it, in making ending it an absolute red line, the English bigots are not objecting to Syrian refugees, nor immigrants from Africa. This is about the internal movement within the EU which means that Polish, Romanian and other Eastern Europeans that have been settling in Britain.
The UK is about to shoot itself in the foot economically because the English are sick and tired of living with Polish Plumbers and other Eastern Europeans who can now freely travel to the United Kingdom because they were rushed into the EU to spite Russia.
Despite the Maybot’s monotonously repeated rhetoric about Brexit and ‘Freedom of Movement,’ she has always been a staunch ‘Remainer’ and all these endlessly protracted negotiations with Brussels are more about attempts to keep her Tory Party in one piece (and thus herself in power) after Farage did a spectacular job of dividing it by simply appealing to the ‘little Englanders’ who make up a large part of the rank and file. The effect on the country as a whole is a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all.
Brexit has yet to happen, and despite the rhetoric, is still a far from ‘done deal.’ Cameron’s assumption, in calling the referendum as an election promise, was that it would be a no-brainer for Remain. He was spectacularly wrong, which is why he swiftly resigned. The referendum result for Brexit was largely a protest vote, against austerity and its related policies and what it has done to devastate this country beyond the big cities, at least as much as a vote to leave the EU.
Mr Ischenko does a very good job on analysing the NATO and EU trap, so carefully engineered to snare and disarm entire nations before ensuring their descent into division and chaos. Even a cool-headed agreement to enter the trap is not required. If enough encouragement and propaganda is spread about then a nation itself will perform the necessary contortions and produce the lies and self-harm as it lobbies and clamours to join the ‘big boys’ gang.
The Brexit referendum happened – and the result was certainly exactly what the elite expected – because the UK cannot afford paying for these billions of Euros every year to subsidise Eastern European countries (the UK would prefer to just use force to keep these poorer States quiet…). However, the neoliberal policies of the EU – mainly those adopted after 2007 – are totally acceptable for the UK elite. This is why they are so reluctant about the Brexit, now – they must make a deal where everything else is maintained but those billions of Euros paid to the EU every year to subsidize those deplorable Eastern European countries… Can’t Brussels understand this? It doesn’t seem that they want to… As to Germany, why can’t rich Germany pay for all of it? They don’t want to, either! Some analysts are considering the possibility of Germany leaving the EU, as well, likely because Germany will not accept the role of economically sustaining unviable EU States…
”the UK would prefer to just use force to keep these poorer Eastern European States quiet” Really! And how exactly would the UK ‘use force’ to keep Eastern Europe quiet? And BTW you do know I take it that the UK elite is split between remainers and leavers. It is not a unified bloc as you seem to imagine.
Haha, the quoted passage below is a masterpiece with its beautiful lid on all the richly deserved contempt and amusement which a less restrained author gladly would have passed on in fortissimo:
”The criteria are extremely indistinct. PFP members are required to observe the UN charter and international law, to refuse to threaten with the use of force, to meet democratic standards of the West, to carry out military reforms, and to provide civil control over the armed forces. In general, ’for everything good and against everything bad’. At the same time, the worthiest one – i.e., the US – had to decide who is most worthy for membership.”
Against this background, the famous mental health state of Kiev’s Verkhovna Rada suddenly appears less pathetic. People trying to do exactly right but still not getting the intended rewards are not to be made fun of, mind you.
The Balladur plan ? The “plan” cannot be called “Balladur”, since he certainly never thought of it. The only thing European about the EU is the name. The EU is a copy of the US Federation, where both have central banks under the control of private bankers. The EU is also a civilian component of NATO, as both aspire to move towards the East, namely Russia. They managed to incorporate a few East European countries, after which they stopped. People are now questioning the need for mere existence of both the EU and NATO. Who gains from them ? The ordinary people, or the elites, led by the bankers and corporations ? Since we all know the answer, I don’t see the EU and NATO lasting too long.
…..The EU is a copy of the US Federation, where both have central banks under the control of private bankers……
Sorry BF
the EU is not a copy of the US federalisim …… Incidently central banks are everywhere (public or private) and in many ofross a those nations there is no copy of US Federalisim either. A little to simplistic with that assertion.
The EU is an experiment and a political project which has no visible end in sight or goal …..It is Highly complex and not well understood even by its own citizens and their elect. It is many other things too but not ever mirroring the US Federal system. It is a unique structure ….. REF: Wallace and Wallace, A Lijphart, M Holland et al.
Ross, I agree. Few years back, in the days when I thought that EU was a good idea, I watched some French dude discussing EU at length where he let it slip that EU is nothing but recreation of Napoleon’s dream to create “European Empire”. Interestingly enough, EU head “office” is located in Brussels, which is the capital of one of the very few remaining European Kingdoms.
ross a
“The EU is an experiment” ? It’s nothing of the sort. It’s a prison run by the EU Central Bank through it’s clerks in Brussels. In 1989, when the Germany was being reunited, both Britain and the US tried to prevent this, for obvious reasons. They failed, after which they stipulated that they would recognize the reunification on condition Germany entered the EU and adopted the euro. When the terms were made known, a heap of German university professors openly protested, as they understood what the game was all about, namely placing Germany in a supervised position, where she would have to abandon the German mark. The Government of the day accepted the terms, having no other choice.
And yes, the EU is a copy of the US Federation. Yes, countries do have both private and government banks. However, the one that matters in the EU is the EU Central bank, controlled by private bankers, and the one that matters in the US is the fraudulently called US Federal Reserve, again under the control of private bankers. Look at the performance of the EU and NATO. Both started marching towards the East. Who backed that coup d’etat against Yanukovich in 2014 ? The EU and NATO. Both are one and the same.
I cited sources …. world experts in this field. I would suggest you study their work before suggesting the above. You view the EU as media would discuss it or journalists do discuss it or social media cite it are incorrect.
I rarely speak up but I do get tired of reading shallow assertions which glide over much complexities of the EU. Yes there are in ones face problems ….. but there are many who are constantly pushing back to bring elements of fairness back to this huge project. International finance is one big issue facing most …. miss managed by a few.
You talk about an end product mostly without comprehension of its inner complexities and how it began. Any project can be hyjacked in its path of development as the EU is at the moment. But there are forces pushing back too within to regain the lost middle ground.
The EU is nothing like you suggest ….. a fed of US … a copy ….. It is definitely not. Read Monet
Read the few other academics that I cited ….. There are many who can better inform you of what it was and where it came from and where it is going.
The EU is more than an ECB ….. and NATO. They are but one pillar and an external association. And the EU too made up of national governments separately can pursue activites/Foreign policy external to EU Treaties.
Yes many mistakes are made in this area and made globally by most nations…. But those who misuse their power will and are being challenged even here within the EU and its supranational institutions…
Power is an infectious disorder thus citizens …. need to wake up and participate to push back against power.
Not just at staged election time.
Do read the cited authors.
The EU is definitely not a clone or a mirror of US Fed structures. It is uniquely different on all fronts.
Incidently throwing in the Federal Reserve (a cartel of private banks) and NATO are not part of the EU supra national institutions. By including these structures you have made your argument shallow and too broad like journalists do.
The EU has serious flaws today – yes – (democratic deficit for one ) but these can be corrected and constantly are being debated at levels that people on the street know little about – because most fail to participate and like your self do not understand. .
ross a
I read analysts, and have been doing so for years. I don’t need to read EU propagandists, who will present me with theory devoid of reality. Look at the EU today. A private empire of private bankers, who dictate domestic and foreign policy to their member states. Is that why they joined the EU ?
This is interesting, an interview with a German politician who has misgivings about the way the EU has developed since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. His concerns are also that unaccountable political decisions are made by unelected technocrats without consultation of the people that those decisions most affect.
‘Nicole Hoechst, a MP representing AfD Rhineland-Palatinate in the Bundestag, has spoken in an interview with Sputnik’ :
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201902091072262460-eu-centralised-state/
”At the same time, within the framework of PFP Ukraine can only follow the instructions of NATO (in reality, the US) while receiving nothing in exchange.”
Nothing in exchange? I could be wrong of course, but don’t the Ukros appreciate Russophobia in English? Should boost their European pride massively, methinks.
Maduro kicks off Venezuela’s ‘most important military drills in history’ (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)
https://www.rt.com/news/451155-maduro-venezuela-historic-military-drills/
Rick Sanchez loses it: Don’t Venezuelans get a vote?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Ii94g91Lc
Italy vetoes EU recognition of Guaido as Venezuela’s interim leader – M5S source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0yg9mKLWPg
Very interesting article. While America certainly has its share of skeletons in the closet, the ones who always seem to evade any responsibility, in my opinion are the British, and the Germans, and the French, who have repeatedly manipulated American leaders to carry our their egregious agendas, ranging in everything from involvement The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, who the Rockefellers are also to blame for, in two world wars, after which The Bildeberg Group connivingly convinced American leaders that we were despised in Europe, and in order to gain Europe’s public approval, we ought to enact policies of The Bildeberg Group, sign onto Bretton Woods, overthrow Mossadegh, which Truman refused to do, but Ike accepted, etcetera. Even in Syria, the British and the French have been quietly but actively orchestrating evil policy, and the stupid American leaders, brag about their campaign of blood curdling tyranny!
Since when is Europe not socialist anyways? Particularly in Scandanavia? I guess that socialism is called austerity, when you are a member of The House of Lords!
Bretton Woods Act is what was instituted to stabilize the dollar. When the Banksters lobbied to with draw the Act, it made currency a commodity via exchange rates and the whole thing went nutz. It seems that LaRouche’ idea is to re-install the Bretton Woods Act (or some variation thereof) to again stabilize the currencies.
Very funny!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference
Whutz so funny?
https://harley.larouchepac.com/a_crash_is_looming_but_a_new_bretton_woods_is_within_reach
‘I won’t be remembered as a traitor’: Maduro to RT (EXCLUSIVE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiUef5_V3mw – published: 2019-02-05