Serhiy Hrabskyi: Either Liars Or Useful Idiots Speak Against Belarus In NATO
- 5.11.2024, 16:05
Neutral status is not possible.
Why should a free Belarus become a member of NATO? The Charter97.org website talked about this with Reserve Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, participant of peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Iraq Serhiy Hrabskyi.
Serhiy Hrabskyi was awarded the NATO medal for personal merit and professionalism shown in the performance of tasks in Iraq:
— In our situation, it is impossible to be neutral countries. All states that retain their identity and national self-identification are NATO members. In our world, when there is a bloody agitating empire in the east, no other choice is possible. No choice. There is no other force that could protect us. Independent Belarus has no chance to preserve its self-identification and independence, national identity outside NATO.
— Okay, let's go through the other options. They call it the Baltic-Black Sea Union, which allegedly can be an alternative to NATO.
— Let's bend our fingers. Which of these countries are part of NATO?
— Except for Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova — all of them.
— That's the answer. Countries in which instability persists did not join NATO at one time. If we take the initial position, then the situations in Lithuania and Moldova have almost no differences. I am talking about the development of civil society, industrial potential, and so on. Today, even hypothetically, no one is considering an attack on the Baltic countries. And Moldova, after 30 years, is on the verge of a historic choice.
Ukraine, which has realized from its own experience that it needs to be in NATO, is defending its freedom and independence in a bloody struggle. Any attempt to declare a neutral status when you are on the border between the “axis of evil” and democratic countries means that the country will be agonizing between “heaven and hell”, not being there or there. Without any perspective.
Returning to the situation in Moldova. We see the country desperately trying to take steps to define its identity and move forward. Can Russia propose a way forward? Of course not. There is no “thing-in-itself”. In our cruel world, you are either on the side of good, the civilized world or become part of the “axis of evil”.
India, where more than one billion people live, can be neutral. However, even it maneuvers between its “dominion”, Great Britain (after all, there are more Indians in London than in some states of this country), and the benefits it receives from Russia. India is balancing because it can afford to due to its geographical location, population, economic development and armed forces.
Let's get to the numbers. Just in October, Russia lost more than 40,000 people in Ukraine. The Belarusian army, numbering 25,000 troops, will exist for two weeks if the political leadership of the country decides to declare that "Russia is not a ruler for us". Physically impossible.
If we are talking about the "Belarusian Autonomous Republic", "Belarusian region" as part of the Moscow Empire, you can declare your "neutrality". If we are talking about a free Belarus that speaks its own language, develops its national interests, neutrality is impossible.
If someone in the Belarusian opposition speaks of a "neutral status" and opposes NATO, then he either deliberately lies or is a useful idiot.
— At the beginning of the war in Ukraine, an "alternative to NATO" was indicated. Baltic States, Poland, Scandinavia, the UK. Have these plans sunk into oblivion?
— I disagree. The format of interaction is changing. Our most reliable allies are the Baltic States, Scandinavia, Great Britain, Poland and Romania. The idea is relevant. It is not that the UK wants to create a new empire, where it will be a dominion, and Norway, Poland, the Baltic countries and Ukraine will be colonies. There is an awareness of common tasks and interests.
Even Moldova finds itself in a situation where it has no choice. Russia is trying to divert it from the civilized path, but there are other forces that oppose this. You understand that Ukraine needs 3-5 days to destroy the current regime in Transnistria.
— Today, Poland is actively promoting the idea of Ukraine in NATO. Can Kyiv become an advocate for a free Belarus in NATO?
— Of course, but the price of our advocacy will be very high, if we speak openly. After all, we are paying a huge price today to join the Alliance. To be honest, NATO is not easy. The military component is only 25%. I very calmly perceive the statements that Ukraine will become a member of NATO in two or three years. Let's not forget that there are political, economic and judicial components. Only the combination of these four components, if they meet NATO standards, can indicate that a country will become a member of the Alliance. It's a long way. Ukraine is the largest country in Europe in terms of area, with a huge population. If NATO can "digest" corrupt Montenegro, at one time Slovakia, then this will not be the case with Ukraine and Belarus. There are certain indicators. Even Sweden, which was certainly suitable by all standards, had to wait for Turkey's decision. This is a difficult path, but without it, our countries will disappear from the map.