Many Western European governments, which had been cool from the outset to a unilateral U.S. project they regarded as gratuitiously provocative towards Russia, greeted the American decision with relief.

In a major speech in Brussels on Sept. 18, an obviously pleased NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared that “it is possible for NATO and Russia to make a new beginning and to enjoy a far more productive relationship in the future.” Outlining his vision of harmonized global defense architecture, the former Danish premier said that “NATO wants Russia to be a real stakeholder in European and international security … a partner in resolving the great issues of our time.”

A “new beginning” and partnership is both possible and desirable. The Ronald Reagan-Mikhail Gorbachev vision of a pan-European entente suddenly has a new lease on life. It appears certain that Russia will respond to the American decision by scrapping plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic enclave which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. It is to be hoped that Moscow will also take a second look at its nuclear cooperation with Iran. In addition, Moscow can further upgrade its already essential role in keeping the U.S. mission in Afghanistan viable.

While Washington should not expect great rewards for correcting a mistake – and the missile shield has always been a deeply flawed concept – Moscow would be well-advised to work with the U.S. when and where possible so as to maintain the cooperative momentum.

If this happens, the obvious next move for the Obama Administration would be to call off further NATO eastward expansion into Ukraine and Georgia, neither one of which possesses the qualifications for membership in any case.

There is a better option for Kyiv and Tbilisi than NATO accession: a declaration of neutrality. Such a move would promote peace, stability, and the reduction of tensions throughout Europe. It would also be a powerful expression of full sovereignty on Ukraine’s part.

U.S. policy on this issue has already undergone a significant shift—from enthusiastic advocacy of NATO expansion under former U.S. President George W. Bush to qualified support for Ukraine’s “Euro-Atlantic integration” on condition that Kyiv meets membership criteria. The shift reflects the more nuanced approach of Obama’s team, motivated by its evolving strategic priorities. A major new report by the American Institute in Ukraine points out: The quiet acceptance by a growing segment of Western decision-makers on both sides of the Atlantic that there will be no NATO expansion along the Black Sea coast any time soon is a welcome development. Encouraging an impoverished, practically defenseless nation – such as Ukraine – to join a military alliance against the superpower next door, thereby stretching a nuclear tripwire between them, had never been a sound strategy.

Obama’s challenge is to strike a balance between the desire not to be seen as appeasing Russia and the need to improve U.S.-Russian relations. He can square this circle and achieve a diplomatic coup by obtaining positive responses from Moscow now, while preparing his next move. That move should be to take NATO expansion definitively off the table.

This would be a low-cost decision, with pluses heavily outweighing minuses. Western Europe—especially Paris, Berlin and Rome—would support such a move even more enthusiastically than it has greeted the scrapping of the missile shield.

It would disabuse discredited Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili of any dreams of revenge, underwritten by the West, for last year’s failed aggression. It would help Ukraine redefine it strategic priorities in the aftermath of Yushchenko’s imminent departure after the Jan. 17 presidential election.

Above all, it would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance that includes Russia, Europe (European Union and non-European Union, including Ukraine) and North America, as all three face similar threats in the decades ahead.

Anthony T. Salvia, who worked in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and also for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, is executive director of the Kyiv-based American Institute in Ukraine. He can be reached at salvia@aminuk.org. The organization’s website is www.aminuk.org. The privately funded U.S. non-profit organization focuses on American-Ukrainian relations, especially Ukraine’s possible accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.

Since 1999 prospective Nato members have had to follow a roadmap known as the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to qualify for membership. At a Nato summit in Bucharest in April President George Bush pressed for Ukraine and Georgia to be awarded the MAP, but he was defeated by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany who argued that such a step would increase friction with Russia.

The summit agreed a contradictory compromise, denying the two countries the MAP while stating they would eventually become Nato members. The summit instructed today’s meeting to review those decisions. With British and east European support, the Americans argued last night that the deadlock could be broken by pushing ahead on the membership path outside the MAP.
Germany, Spain, Italy and others disagreed, contending that there could be no Nato membership process without it.

“The whole discussion around the MAP has become so politicised that it has lost its sense. It has turned into something of enormous political symbolism,” said a senior US official. “We should just try to put it aside.”

The British have sought to bridge the divide by proposing that the MAP procedure remains valid, but that Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership bids be processed through two separate commissions between Nato and the applicants.

The main European countries reject this. On balance they view Georgia as the bigger villain in the August war with Russia, regard Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili as untrustworthy, believe that political instability in Ukraine makes it unsuitable for Nato, and are anxious to avoid further confrontation with Moscow.

“There is no consensus,” said a senior Ukrainian official. “The MAP will not be given to Ukraine. The issue has been removed from the agenda.”
Rather than enhancing Nato security, both post-Soviet countries represent a security risk for the alliance, argues the west European camp.

Diplomats and analysts say that the transatlantic split is such that today’s session will produce a formula that effectively replicates the conflicting signals sent in Bucharest. They add that the Bucharest decision was a mistake that contributed to the Caucasus crisis in August.

The issue of Nato membership for the two countries is intimately linked with western policy towards Russia, currently incoherent and contradictory.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France earlier this month backed Russian calls for a major summit next year to try to redefine Europe’s “security architecture.” An international foreign ministers’ meeting in Helsinki later this week could see Germany, France, Russia, and Finland supporting the summit, which is also opposed by the US and Britain.

“We have good European security institutions,” said the senior US official. “The institutions that exist are sound. I am not convinced we need a new architecture.”

A senior European diplomat said the Russian proposals could be considered but that the Americans had to be involved in any discussion about European security.

“The first thing the Russians need to do is explain what they have in mind.”