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.