NATO lives to grow. Military might matters no longer. Eastern European countries that joined NATO in 1999 and 2004 are powerless to protect even themselves. They are security consumers. Old and new NATO members are steadily reducing their armed forces, so it has ever smaller means to defend an ever larger area. Things will become still worse with the extremely weak Albanian and Macedonian armies.

It is logical to assume that NATO continues to extend its borders for political ends alone -- to spread the European zone of liberty and democracy. NATO lost its original purpose in 1991. As any bureaucratic structure that loses its raison d'etre will do, the bloc shifted its priorities to self-preservation.

From this point on, eastward expansion became the priority for the Brussels bureaucrats running the alliance -- not for any security considerations, but because it provides them with a big job, for a long time. European security is no longer a priority, especially as nothing threatens it now. The new NATO members do not gain anything but the psychological satisfaction of belonging to the club of civilized nations and a soothing sense of security, even though they are safe as they are.

In fact, there is only one threat to Europe today and for the foreseeable future: drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Here, NATO's military incompetence is at its most striking. The alliance's contingent in Afghanistan is powerless against drug growers and smugglers.

We can only regret that Russia does not fully recognize these trends and clings instead to its Cold War phobias. NATO expansion not only lacks any apparent point but also boosts those phobias by fueling suspicions of an aggressive anti-Russian conspiracy. Be that as it may, even if the Balkan Three join NATO, Moscow will hardly raise objections, considering their apparent military weakness and geographic remoteness from the Russian border.

Moscow would take a much tougher stance if Georgia or, even worse, Ukraine joined the alliance. It would regard the move not merely as an invasion of Russia's long-established, if largely illusory, sphere of influence, but as downright aggression -- never mind the fact that expansion is not accompanied by an increase in military might.

If Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe will totally lose its point and finally be buried, leaving Russia free to build up its forces west of the Urals. It might also put the final nail in the coffin of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

As for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia will at the least pursue a policy of anything-but-recognition, if not simply recognize their independence. In this sense, the West did Russia a good turn by recognizing Kosovo. Western leaders proceed from double standards when they say that Kosovo is unique and does not establish a precedent. Common sense and international law alike ascribe the Abkhazians and South Ossetians the same right of self-determination as the Kosovars. So if Georgia joins NATO, it will put an end to its own territorial integrity, though Tbilisi appears to hope, on the contrary, that it will strengthen this integrity instead.

It is hard to say what Ukraine might gain from joining NATO besides a sense of belonging to the "civilized community." In fact, present-day Ukraine is an artificial heir to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, with borders appointed at the arbitrary will and volition of Soviet rulers. The West appears to be blind to this. Ever since it gained independence, Ukraine has been divided mentally, politically and geographically. This divide deepens with each move on which the country's west and southeast have opposite views. Georgia may lose small autonomies on its outskirts if it joins NATO. Ukraine may jeopardize its very existence.

Further NATO expansion will not promote but torpedo European security -- not that the bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington appear to care.

(Alexander Khramchikhin, Ph.D., heads the analytical department of the Moscow-based Institute for Political and Military Analysis. A version of this article was first published by RIA Novosti, but the opinions expressed in it are the author's alone.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com