NATO Foreign Ministers have been meeting in Brussels this week. The ministers have discussed Afghanistan, piracy, Kosovo, and of course the thorny issue of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Also, the Mediterranean Dialogue partners got together.

As is the usual custom at these things, the ministers gathered for a family portrait. The foreign ministers had also gathered last March, and so, for fun, I thought I’d compare the photos. Do a little Kremlinology NATOology.

Here are the photos. You can click on them for larger, hi-res photos. You’ll notice that they’re taken in the same room. For some reason, the photographer didn’t seem to wave his rubber ducky and say “Yoohoo, eyes on me! Thank you! Smiles, everyone, smiles!”

NATO Foreign Ministers, March 2008

NATO Foreign Ministers, December 2008

In March, Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer enjoyed a girl sandwich, with all the ladies present on his right and left. (Note: When I simply refer to left and right, I mean your left and right as you look at the photos.) In the March photo, from Scheffer’s right, to his left are Greece Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, Hungary Foreign Minister Kinga Goncz, Secretary Rice and Iceland Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Gisladottir.

Secretary Rice still occupies a place of honor in December to Scheffer’s left. Bakoyannis and Goncz are now directly behind Scheffer, standing together. Girls gotta stick together.

Secretary Rice seems to have on the same shoes in both photos, and the same bracelet on her left wrist. If so, does anyone know if there is any significance to that bracelet?

Gisladottir’s photo on Iceland’s Foreign Minister page is glam! Greece Minister Dora Bakoyannis has an interesting story, which you can read here. In 1989, the November 17 terrorist group gunned down her husband, then a New Democracy party deputy as he was entering his office building.

The UK’s David Milband is next to Rice (December photo,) and on his left, as in March, is Turkey’s Minister Babacan. I’m not sure what goes into these “seating arrangements,” if people are placed here and there with protocol in mind. It is a bit of an honor to stand right alongside the US and the UK. Maybe it’s a small consolation prize to Turkey, as Turkey’s possible entrance into the EU is a bit of a car wreck these days.

The arrangement certainly seems to be planned, because if you look at their feet in both photos, there are little placards of some sort indicating the country.

(To Scheffer’s right then, in the December photo, I believe is Karel De Gucht of Belgium. Is he there because they are in Brussels?)

In December, to Babacan’s left is Cuyaubé of Spain. In March, Bakoyannis seems to be looking at Babacan, and he at her. Perhaps the thought bubble abover her head is “Where is the Turk? Keep him over there!”

In the December photo, second row, on the far left and moving in, are Per Stig Moller of  Denmark, Urmas Paet of Estonia, and Bernard Kouchner of France. They were in the same arrangement in March, also in the second row. (If you compare the two, Mr. Paet seems to have put on some weight.) If you ask me, Kouchner looks like ESPN’s Peter Gammons.

In the December photo, the three gentlemen behind Kouchner seem to be snickering at a “Kick Me” sign. I believe they are Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg, Maxime Verhagen of The Netherlands, and Jonas Store of Norway.

In the December photo, Czech Minister Prince Karel Schwarzenberg is in the first row, way on the far left. Poland’s Radoslaw Sikorski is in roughly the same place in both, back in the third row, fourth and fifth from the left. Those two countries are currently working through the rocky issue of putting a US missile defense system on their soil.

If you read Slate or the Washington Post, you know Sikorski’s wife. Also, Sikorksi isn’t off to the best of starts with Obama.

What other stories do you see in the photos?

On Monday, German Chancellor Merkel spoke in Berlin to a conference of military commanders. The text of her speech is here, auf Deutsch. (Here is video of a news story about the conference, also auf Deutsch. The NATO Secretary General also addressed the conference.)

She kicked two piles of dirt on the NATO alliance, only a few weeks before the big summit in Bucharest. First, with regards to Afghanistan. There are increasingly sharp feelings in the alliance about what NATO should be doing in Afghanistan, and the level of committments from member nations. Canada has made veiled threats about leaving Afghanistan if it does not receive more help. Earlier, remarks from Secretary Gates about the capabilities of NATO troops raised hackles.

At the recent meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary Rice addressed these tensions, in a characteristically diplomatic tone.

QUESTION: In what ways do you think that the new strategy for Afghanistan might help bridge divisions within the alliance? And do you think Europe and Germany, in particular, are doing enough in the south? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first, let me say that I would not talk about divisions in the alliance on Afghanistan. I think the alliance has a very clear, commonly shared view that the NATO mission, which NATO took by consensus, the decision to enter this mission in Afghanistan, is a core mission of NATO, it is an essential mission of NATO, it must be successful. That means helping the Afghans to defeat the Taliban and other terrorists. It means helping the Afghans to build a decent and more prosperous and more democratic society. It is – since NATO is a military alliance, that there is a requirement that we be able to meet the obligations in a military sense. And not all nations contribute in exactly the same way. We have been concerned, and both Secretary Gates and I have made clear that we have been concerned that there be a sense of burden-sharing in the alliance that shares all of the burdens of what is a difficult fight, again, in a country that has experienced 30 years of conflict and more than 20 years of civil war.

Germany, like others, is contributing to the effort, and that is greatly appreciated. What we have to be able to do is to make certain that we can fulfill all of the requirements. We can’t just fulfill the requirements having to do with reconstruction and development. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to do with governance and rule of law. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to deal with the hearts and minds of the population. We also have to win against these insurgents — help the Afghans to win. We have to train the Afghan army. We have to mentor and provide help to them. And it is SACEUR’s view that he needs more help in that regard, and there’s been a significant effort to do that.

Let me say one word also about the Canadians in this regard, who have made it clear that they desire a partner in the south. And we believe that the alliance has an obligation to deliver on that because this is a NATO mission. This is not a Canadian mission or a Danish mission or an American mission or — it’s a NATO mission, and we have to respond as an alliance.

She was saying, sweetly, that it would be nice if Germany contributed more troops. Combat troops, preferrably. Merkel threw cold water on all that.

Chancellor Angela Merkel called on NATO members to improve coordination of military and civil elements in crisis areas such as Afghanistan. She stressed that Germany would not lift restrictions on troops in the country.

The trans-Atlantic alliance is a pillar of Germany’s foreign and security policy, but it has to move away from purely military thinking, she told a meeting of German armed forces commanders in Berlin on Monday, March 10.

The chancellor also affirmed Germany’s opposition to extending its military role in Afghanistan to the volatile south, a move requested by the United States and other NATO members.

She said her country’s NATO-led troops were needed in the relatively peaceful north, where they were engaged mainly in civilian reconstruction projects.

She took a shot at US leadership,

Erstens. Eine vorsorgende und wertegebundende Politik muss international möglichst breit abgestimmt sein. Wir müssen vor allen Dingen das Gespräch mit unseren Verbündeten und Partnern in Europa und in der transatlantischen Gemeinschaft suchen. Rein nationalstaatliche Lösungen helfen uns nur in den allerseltensten Fällen weiter. Selbst für eine Macht wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ist heute klar: Niemand kann allein ohne Verbündete, auch ohne politischen Rückhalt, Probleme lösen. Das heißt, jeder auf der Welt braucht Partner, weil wir eben auch ein universelles, ein umfassendes Verständnis von Sicherheit haben.

Meaning, and mentioning the US by name, nobody can solve problems alone, without allies. Let’s have none of that cowboy diplomacy.

Second, Merkel took a saw and hacked off the limb upon which the membership hopes of Georgia and Ukraine were sitting. She said,

Wir werden uns auch über die Frage der Heranführung von Georgien und der Ukraine zu unterhalten haben. Hierzu möchte ich heute nur zwei sehr allgemeine Bemerkungen machen. Meine erste Bemerkung lautet: Ich bin der Meinung, ein Land sollte nur Mitglied der Nato sein, wenn nicht nur eine augenblickliche politische Führung diese Mitgliedschaft befürwortet, sondern wenn es auch eine qualitativ bedeutsame Unterstützung der Nato-Mitgliedschaft in der Bevölkerung gibt. Wir dürfen keine Risiken – sozusagen je nach Wahlverhalten in bestimmten Ländern, in denen sich noch zentrale politische Orientierungen herausbilden – eingehen.

Translation, from Vladimir Socor at the Jamestown Foundation,

In her speech, which dealt primarily with Afghanistan’s challenges, Merkel also cautioned against opening the door to Ukraine and Georgia. ‘Countries that are involved in regional or internal conflicts can not become members [of the alliance],” she stipulated, in a chilling “No” to Georgia.

Moreover, “qualitatively significant” internal public support would be required for countries’ accession to NATO. It is not enough for countries’ membership aspirations to be only supported by the incumbent leaderships, Merkel noted. Nor could the alliance risk admitting countries on the basis of their voter preferences, she contended (DPA, March 10).

What is this all about? Is it about energy? Russia is adamantly opposed to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Russia does not want NATO that close to her borders. So why would Germany carry water for Russia?

Consider that Germany, the third largest consumer of natural gas in the world, gets over 40% of its gas from Russia. That is bound to increase with the building of the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

What’s ironic is that when Merkel’s predecessor, Schroeder, left office, he took a leadership role in Nord Stream AG, the consortium building the pipeline. Nord Stream AG is 51% owned by Gazprom, the Russian gas company. In effect, Schroeder went to work for Russia. Merkel criticized him for this at the time.

Two days before her speech in Berlin, Merkel went to Moscow to meet with Medvedev and Putin, the incoming and outgoing Russian Presidents. Note that Medvedev is still Chairman of the Board of Gazprom. Yulia Latynina writes,

At a news conference on Saturday following his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s foreign policy under President-elect Dmitry Medvedev would remain unchanged. “I do not think that our partners will have it any easier with him,” Putin declared.

Merkel’s speech was a balancing act, if not a step in Russia’s direction. Faced with a more aggressive Russia, a Russia with a hand on the spigot of Germany’s gas supplies, Merkel doesn’t seem eager to poke the bear with any sharp sticks.

Update: For more, see The Washington Realist, and Siberian Light.

NATO Foreign Ministers met in Brussels Thursday to discuss possible membership for Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, as well as Ukraine and Georgia. Also, this meeting was to set the stage and prepare the agenda for the large NATO summit in Bucharest (official site) coming up in April. (Here is a short video (.wmv) about yesterday’s event provided by NATO.)

However, the bear looming over this proceeding is, of course, Russia. The three Balkan states are enough of a handful, given the hue and cry over Kosovo declaring independence, and Russia’s ties to Serbia. But, that pales in comparison to Russia’s clenched teeth opposition to Ukraine and Georgia becoming a part of NATO. Those two countries are right on Russia’s front porch, and Russia does not want NATO creeping that close to its border. Accordingly, the NATO ministers tiptoed lightly around the matter.

Divisions surfaced in NATO yesterday over the future membership of Ukraine and Georgia, with some nations reluctant to anger Russia by admitting the two former Soviet republics.

Some allies want to offer Ukraine and Georgia a “Membership Action Plan,” the formal path to preparing for membership. But several European ministers expressed concerns about angering Russia.

“I will not hide that I’m skeptical, but we’ll discuss that calmly today,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said before yesterday’s meeting of foreign ministers from 26 NATO nations.

Even Secretary Rice spoke softly and carried no stick,

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed caution Wednesday on the hopes of Georgia and Ukraine moving closer towards membership of NATO, ahead of alliance talks on their aspiration.

Speaking to reporters travelling with her to Brussels, Rice underlined that NATO “is a consensus organisation”, and that its 26 member nations must decide unanimously when it comes to admitting new partners.

Earlier this very week, Russia cut gas supplies to Ukraine by 50%, ostensibly over a debt dispute. If you think it was mere coincidence this happened a couple days before this NATO meeting, I have some land in the Pripet Marshes I’d like to sell you. This is how Russia gets Europe’s attention, by cutting off their energy supplies, as Russia did to Ukraine in 2006. (And much of Europe’s gas transits through Ukraine.)

Gas supplies did resume on Wednesday. RFERL explains, though, why Prime Minister Tymoshenko is wary of the deal struck to get past the dispute:

But the last-minute deal, clinched after telephone negotiations between the two countries’ leaders, appears to be little more than a temporary bandage. Moscow and Kyiv have yet to iron out the deep-running differences underlying their gas disputes.

A key sore point is the involvement of middleman companies in the gas trade between the two countries — RosUkrEnergo, half-owned by Gazprom; and UkrGazEnergo, owned by RosUkrEnergo and Ukraine’s state gas company, Nafothaz.

Ukraine’s prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, has been campaigning for the elimination of what she says is an opaque mechanism to embezzle vast fortunes at the expense of Ukrainian consumers.

Moscow has consistently demurred, a stance widely seen as dictated by a small group of elites profiting directly from the scheme. Roman Kupchinsky, an RFE/RL energy analyst, says Moscow could also be using the intermediaries as a bargaining chip with Ukraine.

“The intermediaries are not in Russia’s interest either, as a country. Russia loses taxes because of intermediaries, it gives away money for no good reason to intermediaries, and it doesn’t really fulfill any role,” Kupchinsky says, adding that there must be a reason why Russia insists on the intermediaries.

The Ukraine Cabinet Ministers website has this, as well,

At the same time, the Head of Government noted that she had signed directives on negotiations which NJSC “Naftohaz Ukrajiny” to hold with “Gazprom”.

According to the Prime Minister, the directives will be aimed at that NJSC “Naftohaz Ukrajiny” conclude a direct contract with “Gazprom-export” public corporation – a company which at 100 percent belongs to “Gazprom” and possesses contracts on Central Asiatic gas supplies from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

“Our task is to make NJSC “Naftohaz Ukrajiny” receive this gas,” the Head of Government stressed. 

Thursday, in what unfortunately does not look like a coincidence, Ukraine’s parliament passed a resolution calling for a referendum on NATO membership.

President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Parliament Speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk sent a letter to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in January, expressing their hope that Ukraine could join the NATO membership action plan at a NATO summit scheduled for early April in Bucharest, Romania.

Since then, the opposition, which is calling on Ukrainian leaders to reverse the decision to request further NATO integration, has been blocking parliamentary work.

As Russia has grown more belligerent in its wielding of its energy supplies, European nations have looked around for alternative supplies. The Nabucco project is one such effort. Russia is countering with the South Stream project. In this article, Vladimir Socor outlines ten possible consequences if Russia succeeds in trumping the Nabucco project, including:

1) monopolize markets in central and southeastern Europe, including EU member countries, while significantly expanding Gazprom’s market share in West European countries;

2) lock the Russian state monopoly in, and potential competitor suppliers out, for decades to come, in parts of EU territory;

3) enable Gazprom to take over critical infrastructure in Europe as part of supply deals;

Russia will continue to lean on Ukraine and Georgia as long as they entertain notions of NATO membership. Russia holds powerful cards in the form of gas supplies, and Europe is reluctant to anger Russia. To that end, if you think it’s a coincidence that Putin’s hand-picked successor, Medvedev, is also the Chairman of the Board of Gazprom, well, then, I might have a few extra acres in those marshes to sell you.