Although it was slow to develop, there is now a growing consensus in the West that the maintenance of Ukraine's independence and Russia's full acceptance of Ukraine's independent status are of great importance for regional security and Russia's development as a democratic state. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Michael Mandelbaum supports this point of view:
So long as it [Ukraine] remains independent it is a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. More important, an independent Ukraine is the best guarantee that Russia will remain a peaceful nation-state. Conflict between the two would have adverse repercussions to the west. And if Moscow absorbed Ukraine or attempted to do so, Russia would again become a multinational empire harboring a large, resentful subject nation, with poor prospects for the construction of a stable democratic system.142
There is also a consensus that Russia's present leadership is committed to strongly promoting the economic and military integration of the post-Soviet space, especially that encompassed by the Commonwealth of Independent States. There is considerable disagreement in Moscow over the means by which this integration should be pursued and the desired end result of the process.143 It is, however, being driven by an increasingly assertive and nationalist agenda in Moscow, an agenda which aims at Russian hegemony within the CIS.
The challenge facing the NATO countries and Ukraine's East European neighbours is to support Ukraine's independence without giving undue encouragement to nationalist forces in Moscow. This is a difficult challenge, because Moscow greatly resents all foreign efforts to influence developments in what it considers to be its immediate "back yard." In fact, according to one influential theme in Russian nationalist thought, Ukraine's independence has always been linked to foreign "intrigues" aimed at undermining the unity of the East Slavic lands and is therefore a bogus phenomenon.
If one accepts the above-mentioned consensus concerning Ukraine's central role in ensuring regional security, this adds an important perspective to the current debates on the possible expansion of NATO. Ukraine is rarely mentioned in these debates, and it is usually assigned to the end of the line of potential NATO members. However, it is Ukraine rather than the most favored candidates for NATO membership (the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia) that is most vulnerable to potentially aggressive Russian behavior, the most important rationale for quickly broadening NATO.
A rapid expansion of NATO to include the Visegrad countries would partly satisfy their long-term security concerns, but it would leave Ukraine in a partial security vacuum, between NATO and a potentially aggressive Russia. One potential reaction in Ukraine, which defines itself as a neutral state, would be to engage in a military buildup and possibly abandon the policy of ridding the country of all nuclear weapons on its territory. This could most easily be achieved under an authoritarian regime that would probably abandon the current program of political and socioeconomic reforms being introduced in Ukraine.
A more likely result of NATO expansion would be increasingly vigorous and insistent attempts on the part of Russia to integrate Ukraine fully into the heavily Russian-dominated CIS collective security system. Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma and other senior Ukrainian officials have openly voiced their concerns regarding the latter scenario as well as their unhappiness with the image of Ukraine as a "buffer" zone. They have argued that a quick decision to move NATO's eastern borders to Ukraine's western borders would not help to ensure regional or European stability.144
Given these constraints, in the present circumstances the most desirable option, for both Ukraine and the West, appears to be a slow expansion of NATO accompanied by its gradual transformation into, or replacement by, a new European collective security organization. A new body of this kind would carry little of the political baggage now associated with NATO. It would also be easier for Russia to join this body eventually if it wished to do so, and play a constructive role.
Russia is still a weak state. Although its behavior in the so-called "near abroad" has often been cynical and manipulative, especially with respect to the independent states of the Caucasus region, this behavior has not, to date, directly threatened Western security. Although one can easily understand and sympathize with the security concerns of the Visegrad countries, which are seeking firm protection against the revival of Russian imperial behavior, at present there is no pressing need for NATO expansion.
The situation in Russia remains confused and unpredictable. Certainly, in view of Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance with respect to the CIS countries, there are good reasons to doubt its commitment to maintaining the current post-Cold War status quo. For some time to come the United States and other NATO countries must be prepared to mount a vigorous response, in the form of an anti-Russian coalition, to a possible resumption of an imperial Russian foreign policy. The transformation of NATO into a new European collective security organization must be gradual and must not impair its ability to mount such a response.
Given Ukraine's importance as a linchpin of regional security and the special difficulty Russia's political elites have faced in accepting Ukraine's independence, it is also important that the West not encourage Russia's attempts to promote political-military integration within the CIS, especially where Ukraine is concerned, by accepting NATO/CIS equivalency. On the contrary, Ukraine should be encouraged to maintain its neutral, nonbloc status and to participate in the widest possible range of regional and international confidence-building measures. This would provide Ukraine with much-needed expertise in dealing with international security arrangements and eventually allow it to play a role in helping to shape these arrangements.