Indecent Remarks to Minister of Defense – a Fermented Resistance to the Prespa Agreement
NATO membership was based on the Prespa Agreement. Criticism of this Agreement, on the other hand, is the basis on which the opposition wants to gain part of public opinion, without mentioning NATO. With the current developments around Ukraine, all the fragments of the resistance to the Prespa Agreement are coming together, so in the public communication we witness statements such as “we thought that NATO would defend us, and now we will defend NATO”, and in accordance with the distorted logic this implies that there are gains without own investment in them
Author: Ljubomir Kostovski
Caring media readers, including those not in the mainstream, have probably noticed by now that critics of the Prespa Agreement have seldom put this document in the context of one of the benefits of this act: joining NATO as an undeniable huge step forward towards the country’s security. Naturally, this was expected to accelerate our path to the EU, but there are many external reasons why this did not happen, and none for any form of malice observed among journalists and editors, the leaders of the so-called tribunes or interviews in which that rhetorical crutch is stated – “we sacrificed a lot and got nothing”.
In order not to go out of the context of the topic, let us clarify that behind this “definition” lies the matrix of criticism of the largest opposition party towards the political opponent in the style of “we gave much- we did not win”, always hiding the name of NATO! This is due to the naked fact that the mention of the military-security organization spoiled the impression.
Practically – we as a small and unprotected country, with a temporary name that at least means confirmation of identity, with the entry into NATO completely protected our identity and removed the danger within its borders, which is the basis for complete destruction of the theses of those who “defend the name”.
At some point, which seemed the best to some analytical center, perhaps not because of some daily slippage, NATO’s name stands out in the daily vocabulary in the part of public opinion, which is still not sure whether it is for or against our membership in the Alliance. This is done through criticism or more precisely – ridicule of the newly appointed Minister of Defense, due to the following circumstances:
- the involvement of the opposition political leadership in criticism is avoided, and the action is left to already known media with their recognizable street vocabulary;
- the emphasis is on a distorted goal: the collective security of the country is not criticized in the bosom of NATO, but it is placed against one superpower – Russia. This underscores our smallness, which in turn avoids the direct mention of NATO as a pillar of defense, and paints a picture of our insecurity in cartoon formats such as “Slavjanka against Putin”!
- to devalue an independent state like Ukraine (the definition of an independent state includes the choice of external partners), and to open a wide space for the existence of the image of “mother Russia that will unite all Slavs”.
This well-thought-out tactic, good of course as a form of an easy conquest of public opinion, which is already formatted for criticism of this government, previously as an opposition, but now as part of the rights and obligations of membership in collectives such as The Alliance, but also the EU, in which not only rights (money from various funds, for example) but also responsibilities also arise;
And Minister Slavjanka Petrovska with her statement, subject to the above-mentioned ridicule, only said what is true. “We fully support Ukraine’s territorial integrity,” she told Telma TV, adding that “as a NATO member, we support and advocate for the open door policy and the right of every country, including Ukraine, to self-determination.” He added that through the channels of communication with NATO, we are aware of the diplomatic attempts to resolve the dispute and that those efforts, in the negotiations, are welcomed and supported by us.
Basically, this part of one of her statements (again for Telma) causes special attention:
The engagement of our Army, as well as the armies of all other NATO member states, is defined at the force generation conferences that are specifically held on this topic under the coordination of the Supreme Command of the NATO Allied Forces in Minsk. At these conferences, each Member State makes available forces, units or equipment according to its own capabilities. At this moment, our army as part of those structures has an obligation and is already preparing analyzes for the possibilities for our potential participation, i.e. engagement. The decision for eventual participation requires a Government decision. Such a decision has not been made yet, said Petrovska.
Suddenly, through the already mentioned criticisms or more precisely – evil, cynical statements, a variant is placed which as a construct reads – “we thought that NATO would defend us, and now we will defend NATO”. This reflection exposes the opponents of the Prespa Agreement and the country’s entry into NATO, as well as their inability or unwillingness to understand that membership in a multilateral international organization brings with it rights and obligations. Not to mention the fact that it is much better for us to defend someone than to find ourselves in a situation to be attacked so that NATO defends us.