NATO Expansion

With the recent election of Dmitri Medvedev as the new President of the Russian Federation, talks have begun to circle around the United States' continued efforts to push for entrance into NATO for the countries of Ukraine and Georgia, two former Soviet republics and neighbors to Russia. This has grown to be a sensitive issue - especially as relations between the U.S. and Russia have grown more tense due to the U.S. interest in placing strategic missile defenses in the Ukraine. Talks surrounding the missile defense systems have led to increased tension as the Kremlin sees this as U.S. hegemony into their respective sphere of influence while the Americans proclaim this as a defensive measure aimed more towards Iran, rather than Russia.

The serious question at hand rests more on American interests in the former Soviet region and the growing hostilities between the two former rivals of the Cold War. As Russia continues to recover from the fall of the Soviet Union (after many setbacks of the 1990's - including massive blows to the economy in 1998), the problem of geo-political power-relations has been a sensitive issue between some members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This development, in particular, involves the nations of Ukraine and Georgia - both of which underwent dramatic changes towards more liberal, pro-Western administration in the recent years. The situation grew increasingly tense between the Russians and Georgians over the last two years with a number of questions surrounding Russian involvement in separatist movements in the break-away regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the issue of missile defense systems next-door weren't enough, the U.S. initiative on NATO's acceptance of both Ukraine and Georgia has strained relations even further.

What interests do the United States have in continuing the growth and membership of a military alliance that has essentially outlived its purposes? Historically speaking, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in response to the threat of expansion of Soviet intervention in European affairs (in theory). In reality, NATO served more as an international means of administering the interests of the United States in their efforts of containment of the spread of socialism. What then is the motivating factor behind NATO's existence today, after 17 years since the fall of the Soviet Union?

Though NATO's historical significance is certainly understandable considering the interests behind imperialism to secure its own objectives through the possible use of military force - it's important not to misinterpret the underlying aggression behind NATO's very existence. There is little to no real defensive measures that justify the existence of NATO in the territories of Ukraine or Georgia. The only logical deduction (from a political perspective) is that the United States is engaging the Russians indirectly in an attempt at grabbing more international influence - this time at the expense of their notable opponents, the Russians.

And the response from the Kremlin? Well, as you can only imagine it has been as defensive as ever - giving Putin's administration an opportunity to act more directly on its sentiments against American expansion into the region. Sure enough, the Russians will predictably use every measure in their diplomatic arsenal to block both Ukrainian and Georgian entrance into NATO - and who could blame them? The lack of evidence indicating a need for NATO presence so close to Russia as America continues to expand its intercontinental sphere of influence. Though Russia should not be seen as the helpless victim in all this; they are merely taking advantage of situations in order to preserve their own interests just as any other state could be expected to do. Thus, the situation has developed quite interestingly with a number of actors acting in concert to maximize their own interests on the global scale.

First, we have the Americans who have used military means of expanding their interests across the globe with the use of military force in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now with their sights (potentially) on Iran. Secondly, their interest in pursuing CIS nation membership into NATO raises serious doubts about their interest in sovereignty and self-determination.

The Russians on the other hand have been forced to accept a defensive attitude amongst all this as they try to reclaim their traditional sphere of influence amongst their fellow CIS member nations, losing more and more to pro-Western liberal governments throughout many of the former republics. However, Russian hegemony into their neighbors has not come without its consequences as well; such as the separatist movements in Georgia or Russian-Belarusian relations in 2007.

Finally, we have the smaller states up for grabs between the United States and Russia. These states have either thrown their weight with Russia or the U.S., depending upon their respective administrations' goals and policies. Those with liberal, pro-Western governments (like Georgia and Ukraine) have continued to pursue their interests along the lines of NATO membership and alliances with the United States. Others, like Belarus' President Lukaschenko, have aligned with Russia.

Ultimately this boils down to a grab for power amongst the Russians and Americans; however, how it will play out should be interesting. Despite many differences there continues to remain a very similar bend in the mindsets of the administrations of both Washington and Moscow, and a striking abstract similarity in the objectives the two have for their respective international roles.