The (Ex) Washington Realist

I've been told that part of the U.S. lobbying effort to ensure that all of the countries of the Western Balkans and Ukraine and Georgia receive MAPs at the upcoming Bucharest summit is to try and convince other NATO members with doubts that all that is being issued in Bucharest are invitations, not commitments--and to try and request all NATO states not to use their veto power to block invitations. The argument is that if there are still unresolved issues, then governments that have objections can block the process from moving forward. The other argument being proffered is that it is better for NATO to make invitations and to let candidate countries "fail" on their own merits or choose to reject the invitation. Here, the logic, especially in the context of Ukraine, is that popular opposition to NATO is likely to decrease once there is a tangible invitation to join the alliance on the table--but if that doesn't happen, better to have Kyiv reject NATO than have NATO not make an invitation at all.