Diverging Paths? Ukraine and Georgia at NATO Vilnius Summit

Ukraine’s impending progress?

The Washington Post reported on June 15 that “the Biden administration is said to be “comfortable” with a plan that would remove barriers to Kyiv’s eventual membership in the Alliance.”

What is MAP?

The MAP requires a candidate nation (or an “aspirant” in NATO language) to make military and democratic reforms, with NATO’s advice and assistance, before a decision on membership can be made. The NATO Charter does not mention MAP as a formal part of the accession process, although it has been considered the irreversible “home stretch” toward membership since the late 1990s. Still, Finland, the Alliance’s newest member, and Sweden, the likely runner-up, were not required to have MAP to accede.

What’s going on?

The idea of expediting Ukraine’s NATO accession and/or providing security guarantees ahead of full membership seems to be gaining ground.

What about Georgia?

Georgia and Ukraine received the so-called Bucharest commitment for eventual membership at the same time, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008. The Allies then stopped short of granting the MAP to two countries, due to strong objections by Germany and France.

What now?

Throughout the past decade, Georgia moved close to being aligned with NATO and has more integration instruments than any other aspirant country.

The MAP became a mere political symbol; however, without it, Ukraine and Georgia were stuck in an accession limbo. Russia’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine has changed that. Previously cautious European states saw clearly that Russia’s neighbors were vulnerable without credible protection from the aggressor.

Slowdown in enthusiasm

There are the noticeable signs of a slowdown of Georgia’s NATO integration momentum:

Removing Georgia from the same “enlargement basket” as Ukraine could signal Georgia’s vulnerability to the Kremlin and increase security risks.

This post is also available in: ქართული Русский

Exit mobile version