Ukraine-NATO: A Rebuttal To Opponents

KIEV, Ukraine -- The antagonistic view towards NATO today is highest since Ukraine’s independence. Never have so many political parties offered so copious reasons against Ukraine’s participation in NATO.

NATO on patrol

June 22nd was never the occasion for World War II veterans to partake in anti-NATO rallies where NATO was compared to fascism.

And even though, Ukraine has never been as close to becoming a part of the Alliance as today, the voters’ negative views about NATO hinder Ukraine’s membership.

What explains the present situation?

A number of answers are possible – either NATO’s behavior during recent years was quite awful, either the voters do not know the facts and history, or an unknown factor “x” is present causing hostile views in the general population and the political parties vis-à-vis NATO.

So…what did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization do so badly?

Invaded Iraq? No, the Coalition of the Willing (also known as Multinational Force in Iraq) is the responsible party. In fact, influential members of the Alliance such as France and Germany spoke against military action in the Middle East. Furthermore, Paris had business relations with Saddam Hussein’s regime.

NATO is waging war in Afghanistan? Firstly, the fighting is against the Taliban, not Afghanistan. Secondly, the United Nations Security Council mandated NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, therefore the Alliance is simply an enforcer of the expressed and authorized will of the international community.

Plundering the Balkans, killing our Orthodox Serbian brothers? Hmm, back in 2004, Serbia’s parliament decided that the country would take on a strategic goal to join NATO.

And what about poor Slobodan Milosevic, who died while on trial in Hague? Well, how is he different from just as “mistreated” Herman Herring, who died at Nuremberg’s trials? Two national-socialists, there at Nuremberg – “Great Germany,” here in Hague – “Great Serbia,” there and here ethnic cleansing, simply put: genocide done by the government; in both cases, a desire to liquidate political freedoms in their own respective countries.

One would think that all Ukrainian anti-fascists would have clapped their hands in response to NATO’s fight against modern manifestations of fascism whether in the Balkans or in Afghanistan.

Other arguments are aimed clearly at misinformed public. Flawed arguments such as: NATO is oriented against the Slavic and orthodox people; it is a tool of Masons and American imperialism; NATO is antithetical and foreign to Ukraine’s political culture.

Yet, does not the Alliance have Slavic member-states of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Bulgaria? Croatia and Macedonia are likely to join in the near future.

Are not Orthodox Greece and Romania members of NATO?

A misinformed voter is liable to pose serious consequences to government policy.

In regards to conspiracy theories of domination, the Alliance makes decisions under a consensus principle. No member-state of NATO can be forced to act on issues unacceptable to home constituencies. This is in contrast to the defunct Warsaw Pact.

And, what about foreign political values on which NATO is based?

The goals of the North Atlantic Treaty are stated in its preamble. The Parties to the Treaty came together to “reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,” because they “desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.” The Parties are “determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.”

Does not this sound similar to the present Constitution of Ukraine? Or are the Constitution and its predecessors – Universals of the Central Rada and the Constitution of Ukrainian Peoples Republic – also examples of “foreign” for Ukrainians values?

Yet it seems that reason and political common sense are in some kind of retreat before a grander pressure.

For example, an entire front in support of Ukraine’s neutrality and non-alignment recently came into existence. Included are notables such as Borys Oliynyk, a poet-academic and Leonid Kravchuk, the first to be elected president of independent Ukraine in the early 1990s.

Surely, they must know that it is precisely the absence of reliable military-political allies which caused a defeat of Ukrainian People’s Republic at the time. Oliynyk and Kravchuk must remember how in 1956 Hungary tried to announce neutrality and leave Moscow’s orbit. Four days after Imre Nagy made the announcement, 6000 Soviet tanks suppressed Hungary’s freedom. And nobody in the world came to Hungary’s aid instead many expressed moral sympathies.

We can also invite historians to explain how neutral Switzerland survived during World War II. The main credit is due to Switzerland’s ability to swiftly transform from a peaceful population into a mobilized populace ready to engage a prospective enemy in defense of the homeland. This factor made Switzerland too costly to invade.

Dear supporters of neutrality: is Ukraine’s mobilization capability similar to that of Switzerland’s prior to WWII where on a quick notice an imminent invasion can be repulsed by raising the cost of a military invasion?

When veterans of WWII on June 22nd, where is the logic in calling NATO and the Americans - fascists? Were not all member-states of the Alliance, the U.S. including – also allies of the USSR in the fight against Hitler!

According to Marshall Zhukov, without allied help the Soviet Union was doomed to defeat! If modern historians lack credibility then what do you say against “Marshall Victory?”

What about the communists and supporters of Vitrenko who so vehemently opposed “American aggression,” and now proclaim “solidarity with Iraqi people!”

Yet when national-socialist Saddam Hussein, shot communists by the thousands, where was their solidarity? Vitrenko should be happy that the enemy of communism is being tried!

And when Hussein used poison gas on Kurdish villages, the reds did not hold rallies in protest. But they hold them now.

Communists express solidarity in the fight of Iraqi people; at the same time, most victims of terrorist attacks are average, working class Iraqis – the same people for whom the “reds” should be rooting for.

A pertinent question: what is held in common by modern Islamic totalitarianism and communists? Fortunately, “fascistic” NATO stands in the way of Islamism.

The matter is even more confusing with the socialists. These oppose NATO even though many member-states of the Alliance have socialist ministers and government officials. Our socialists want to live up to the ideals of Socialist International, having isolated them-selves from the International. They want to build Europe in Ukraine, but without Europe! Nonsense.

…In 1939 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, the Soviet newspapers began to print from time to time speeches by Hitler, Goebbels, Gering and other Nazis. The most interesting part of this affair is the reaction from all corners of Soviet society, a reaction recorded by the never sleeping NKVD: apparently, upon reading Nazi speeches, Soviet society had a hard time to distinguish between what a Nazi said and what said – a Communist.

So it was that on 22 of June 1941, one of the primary reasons for Red Army’s confusion was disbelief, because a significant part of officer corps and higher ups could not believe that “friendship, signed with blood,” suddenly broke; this hesitation to accept reality certainly contributed to the following weeks of massacre inflicted by Hitler’s encroaching armies.

It was not a coincidence that Nazi inventions were later copied in the Soviet Union. If you disagree then answer the following questions:

*Who was the first to expand on a massive scale construction of cooperative living property for the working class?

*Who started summer labor semesters for students in the middle of the 1930s?

*From whom, did the Soviet soldiers learn to formally enter party meeting rooms, to stand at the entrances and in this way create the proper atmosphere?

*Who made it a practice to fight for peace in the world while hiding their own military plans?

*Who financially supported, instructed and supplied with arms the “anti-colonial fight against world imperialism” at the time when Communist International was helplessly trying to raise Africa’s proletariat. And the list goes on.

Both totalitarian regimes fed upon one another, and at the end of WWII the Soviet red-flagged regime swallowed the Nazi territory and its technology. In due time, Bolshevik’s disrespect for democracy transformed into a support for “Slavic democratic traditions,” otherwise known as autocracy, dictatorship, and despotism.

Interestingly, the increase of antagonistic feeling towards NATO in Ukraine is positively correlated with the same development in Russia. And so, whereas no one can properly explain his or her dislike for NATO and Western democracy, neither can anyone hide this illogical feeling. “Go away fascists,” they scream.

Of course, Kremlin’s influence does not alone explain anti-NATO hysteria. The main reason is absence of general de-communisation or for that matter de-nazification, which would dispel the myths of propaganda.

Without explaining to an average voter the true nature of the Alliance, Ukraine policy will continue to reflect this illogical attitude. As for the voter, he or she will lean toward “the strong hand” and subconsciously fear not the “totalitarian brothers,” but rather the democratic members of NATO. Slavic or not.

Source: Ukryinska Pravda

Comments