onsdag 25. juli 2018
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard STALKERZONE
“Ukraine has no prospects of entering into NATO. If it was in NATO, it could insist on a battalion being deployed on its territory.
But it will never enter into NATO. Why? Because people don’t live long enough. Ukraine won’t live long enough and the future of NATO doesn’t look too promising.
There are practically no States in NATO that would need the integration of Ukraine into the alliance. There was a certain moment when Bush Jr. really planned to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Back then this coincided with the American offensive strategy in the post-Soviet space.
But now it is possible to call the American strategy ‘isolationist’. Moreover, Trump insists on the existing members of NATO assuming the liabilities of financing the bloc and removing this financial burden from the US.
And what can Ukraine finance? Ukraine is a consumer of foreign help. If at least this help was used for improvement, then Trump might say ‘I will invest 20 billion in Ukraine, but we will create such a bastion there that Russia will spend 200 years trying to reckon with it, but will fail to do so’.
But the fact is that regardless of how much money is invested in Ukraine, it’s the same as personally sending it to the personal accounts of Poroshenko and other ‘noble’ people. There is no sense in this at all. Ukraine won’t give any additional security and international-political advantages to neither NATO nor any other members of NATO.
Ukraine is a burden. This was already seen by Poland and Hungary, which were nearly the best allies of Ukraine. Just imagine: talk starts about accepting Ukraine into NATO, and the Poles immediately say that Ukraine won’t be accepted into NATO with Bandera. Hungarians say that Ukraine won’t be accepted into NATO with its language law. The Germans will immediately ask to remove all pretensions to ‘Nord Stream-2’. The chances of Ukraine entering into NATO is zero.
An increase in expenses on weapons? The US practically doesn’t deliver any weapons to Ukraine. If it is about the sum of 100-200 million, then here it is even not about the cost of one tank. This isn’t money or deliveries.
In addition, the US in principle can’t deliver weapons to Ukraine because Ukraine is armed with old Soviet weapons, and with all its desire to replace them, it can’t replace them with American or European ones. If the Americans delivered jets to them free of charge, then lubricants need to be bought anyway, and Ukrainian warehouses are crammed full with old Soviet ones that aren’t interchangeable.
Ukraine has no money for all these purchases. There is an internal political fight in the US, some money is allocated and arrives somewhere. But it is necessary to understand the difference between ‘here is 10 kopeks, ride the carousel and buy ice cream’ and real financing.”