Regardless of the credibility you would attach to the various opinion polls currently in circulation dealing with the subject of Ukraine and NATO, they all seem to agree that only a minority of Ukrainians are in favour of joining the military alliance. This is to be expected, given that the default position of most Ukrainians remains one of neutrality and sitting endlessly on the fence.
At this stage it is unclear when any referendum on the subject will be held, and it is clearly too early to speculate on the results on any nationwide vote. However, it is already obvious that this issue will be used by the Kremlin and its millions of Ukrainian sympathisers to attack the Western integrationist direction of the new administration. Recent history suggests that this confrontational stance could end by spectacularly backfiring.
Flashpoint at a geopolitical crossroads
For the past three years the subject of relations with NATO has become one of the flash points of the great Ukrainian reformation. It is also one of the least understood of all the geopolitical issues confronting the country, and has been the subject of endless histrionics and disinformation ever since the Orange storm clouds first appeared on the horizon in 2004.
It is worth remembering that this was not always the case. Ever since independence in 1991, successive Ukrainian governments engaged in a dialogue of cooperation with NATO that was rooted in long-term partnership if not necessarily geared towards eventual full membership. For years during the Kuchma regime Ukrainian soldiers participated in joint exercises with NATO with no popular protests resulting. The change in attitudes witnessed in recent years has as much to do with the policies of resurgent nationalism adopted by the Putin regime as with the ongoing political battles that characterise today’s Ukraine.
To Russophile Ukrainians NATO membership represents the ultimate betrayal. This is, of course, their own personal Great Satan, and would represent the culmination of seventeen years of defeats and surrenders. It is the subject on which the mask drops and the gloves come off. There before us is the Soviet ideological enemy of the West for all to see.
NATO membership is a theme which cuts to the core of Ukraine’s relations with Russia and attitudes to the Soviet past, and, if past experience is anything to go by, when pushed to make a straight choice the majority of Ukrainians will support strengthening ties with the West. The threats and lectures currently emanating from Moscow will only strengthen this trend.
Ignoring the lessons of 2004
You could be forgiven for assuming that Russia had gleaned an important lesson from the humiliations of 2004, when President Putin’s unprecedented public interference in the Ukrainian election process proved one of the sparks which ignited the Orange Revolution. In the run-up to the 2004 vote the carefully crafted façade of brotherly bilateral ties was shattered by the Kremlin’s colonial swaggering, while attempts by imported Moscow spin doctors to portray the elections as a battle against evil Western imperialists fell decidedly flat.
Given the tone and wording of official Russian statements in the past week over Ukraine’s NATO relations, there is little sign that these valuable lessons have been taken on board by the Kremlin.
Ultimately, many of not most ordinary Ukrainians probably do not see why they should align their country with the world’s largest military alliance. They do not recognise the need for membership in the way that so many believed in the necessity of fighting for free elections in 2004. However, the aggressive stance adopted by Russia may well serve to create the impression of a threat that needs to be countered and serve to tip the balance in NATO’s favour. If this proves to be the case, it would be the latest in a long line of unwitting contributions President Putin has made towards galvanising popular support in Ukraine for the country’s Euro-Atlantic ambitions.
