But Russian officials termed the presence the Monterey, which is part of the NATO missile shield opposed by Russia, as a serious “aggravation” and asked what the point was of the US deploying such a ship as part of an exercise nominally about maritime security.

Russian officials have long maintained that the missile shield is directly aimed at them. NATO insists it is aimed at Iran, despite most of the shield falling well outside of the range of any theoretical Iranian missile attack. The case has been made stronger by the efforts to deploy such forces extremely close to Russia, particularly the efforts to put the forces in far eastern Poland along the Russian frontier.

The Monterey’s deployment along the Russian front also comes at a time when NATO-Russian talks about the shield have reached an impasse, further fueling the Russian belief that the use of that particular ship is a deliberate slight.

But far more important than the meeting was a decree issued by Yanukovych today, in which he announced the dissolution of a government commission whose sole purpose was to secure Ukrainian membership in NATO.

NATO membership was long sought by President Yushchenko, who was voted out of office in a January election, and was vigorously opposed by Russia, who was loathe to see a traditional ally, and one with such a long, important border, join the rival alliance.

Yanukovich and his government won the election primarily with support from the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Ukraine, and his government is looking to further cement their abandonment of the NATO ambition with a law that will officially bar it from joining them in the future.

The move may forestall the confrontation over the Crimean port of Sevastopol, the seat of Russia’s Black Sea fleet for centuries and still rented by the Russian navy. If Ukraine was to join NATO, the former government made no secret of its intentions to oust the Russian from Sevastopol and potentially hand the port over to the alliance as a new NATO base in the region.

The move would be a major shift in foreign policy, as new President Viktor Yanukovych looks to put his stamp on the nation’s policies after years of pro-Western moves by predecessor Viktor Yushchenko.

Yanukovych, a long-time critic of the pro-West policies, won the election this year on the back of strong support in the Russian speaking east. NATO membership for Ukraine has long been opposed by Russia, who has warned that the move would end the traditionally close ties between the two nations.

But while the new law is seemingly aimed at repairing the rift with Russia, Yanukovych insists that the law is not intended as a slight to the West, but rather will “enshrine Ukraine’s nonaligned status in law.”

In the meantime the deputy head of the opposition faction in Ukraine’s parliament slammed the move, warning that taking Ukraine off the NATO track was “incompatible with the aims to modernize Ukraine’s economy and society.” NATO never formally offered Ukraine membership, though the US repeatedly expressed support for the idea.

Many will remember Yanukovich as the initial victor in the fraud marred 2004 vote, sparking what has come to be known as the “Orange Revolution,” a protest movement which forced a revote and set the stage for the country’s pro-West trend in recent years.

Though Yanukovych is seen as more pro-Russian than his rival, and scored much higher among voters in the Russian-speaking east of the nation. He criticized incumbent President Viktor Yushchenko for alienating Ukraine’s traditional allies and has cautioned against joining NATO hastily. Tymoshenko has also promised to repair ties with Russia, after years of bellicosity from Yushchenko.

Despite Yanukovych netting around 38 percent of the vote to Tymoshenko’s 25 percent, the prime minister declared victory in this round of voting, insisting that Yanukovych would never be able to come up with the additional 12 percent of voters needed to win the runoff. Yushchenko reportedly scored less than six percent
in the vote.

In the letter Medvedev cautioned that Yushchenko’s “anti-Russia” stance had seriously damaged relations between the two nations, and expressed hope that January’s elections will see the installation of new leadership in the nation which will mean the return to close ties between the two.

Yushchenko took power in the Ukraine following a disputed series of votes in 2004 and the “Orange Revolution” a series of protests against the pro-Russian government at the time. Since then he has sought to strengthen ties with the West and hopes to oust Russia from a naval base in the Crimea as a step toward joining NATO.

The Ukrainian president has yet to respond to the open letter, though a reaction is promised. Other members of the ruling coalition have accused Medvedev of trying to sway the election. Opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych’s party termed the decision to withhold the ambassador “lamentable but consistent,” and Yanukovych, who was Yushchenko’s opponent in the pre-revolution vote, has promised to resume friendly ties with Russia if he manages to regain power in January.

The visit comes at a time when Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s popularity has reached what almost has to be a low point, with some opinion polls showing his support at as little as 2%. The President took power during the 2004 Orange Revolution, but his government has made few of the promised changes and lost the support that swept him to office.

Russia vigorously opposes Ukraine’s prospective membership in the rival NATO alliance, fearing that it would cost it the key Sevastopol naval base and place NATO forces along their common border. The Ukrainian economy is largely dependent on an open border with Russia, which officials say would not survive NATO membership.

Biden’s next stop is the Republic of Georgia, another would-be NATO member along Russia’s border. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has been pressuring the US for more weapons to rebuild the military that was largely destroyed during their failed August 2008 invasion of South Ossetia. Saakashvili says that failure to provide him weapons would “encourage” a Russian invasion.

The move, proposed by the British government, aims to keep the two nations at least on track for potential future membership but will avoid further damaging diplomatic relations with Russia and will likewise avoid guaranteeing specific terms of membership to either of the troubled nations.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had pressured the alliance to come to a compromise on offering a firm roadmap for membership, cautioning that failure to do so might “embolden” Russia. Saakashvili also suggested that Russia’s retaliation in the August War was in part the result of NATO failing to agree on a roadmap in late April. The United States was initially rumored to be pressuring NATO to speed up the membership process, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later insisted that the US position was that the two nations were not ready for membership.

Georgia’s path to membership had already been stalled by questions about the nation’s democratic credentials, and will likely be further put into question by several reports about its behavior in the August offensive against South Ossetia. Ukraine’s ability to join the alliance is hampered by, among other things, the inability of President Viktor Yushchenko to keep a coalition government together for more than a few months.

The CFE is a treaty first put in place in the waning days of the Soviet Union, and sets limits on how much conventional military equipment in allowed in Europe. Russia suspended the deal in summer of last year over a planned US missile base in Poland. The threat to pull completely out of the deal is not merely sour grapes on Russia’s part, it would seem: with more and more of Eastern Europe falling under NATO’s sway, the terms of the deal curb Russia’s internal deployment of military equipment west of the Ural mountains while leaving new NATO members (with long borders with Russia) free to dramatically enlarge their military forces.

Ukraine’s failed coalition government has sought to bring the nation into NATO, with an eye on expelling Russian forces from a naval base in Sevastopol and replacing them with a NATO presence. The move would likely have severe economic consequences to Ukraine, however, as its long and virtually open border with Russia has led to very close economic ties, ties the Russian government has suggested wouldn’t survive NATO membership.

Georgia, still reeling from a brief August war with Russia, has also sought NATO membership, which would compel most of the western world to declare war on Russia in the event another conflict broke out. But questions about the Georgian government’s anti-opposition crackdowns as well as emerging reports about Georgia’s disregard for the safety of civilians during the war have stalled the Caucasus nation’s prospects for membership.

The move would also have serious ramifications within the Crimea, which enjoys a large measure of independence already and might be seen to move in the direction of separation in light of its large Russian population and the Ukrainian government’s stated desire to expel the Russian Navy from a base rented in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

And even though the vote is non-binding it does add to the credibility of the independence of the enclaves, which formally separated themselves from Georgia after the brief Georgia-Russia war in August. Russia is the only power in the region to recognize the move, and the United States has promised to use its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the enclaves are forever seen as Georgian provinces in the eyes of the world.

The status of the enclaves is a major bone of contention in Russia’s increasingly tense relationship with the West. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has vowed to return the regions to Georgian control. This seems increasingly unlikely however, as today Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed formal treaties with both enclaves promising to defend them from any future attack.

NATO has supported Georgia’s position on the lost territories, and publicly denounced a EU-brokered peace deal which would allow Russia to keep troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a hedge against future Georgian attacks. They also are moving cautiously toward offering Georgia membership, though questions about President Saakashvili’s penchant for anti-opposition crackdowns has delayed any formal offer to join. Russia has criticized NATO for its “Cold War-era reflexes“.

Though the factions have had a strained relationship since the narrow coalition was formed in November, the latest split was fueled by last month’s brief war between Russia and Georgia. President Yushchenko loudly condemned the Russian response, and threatened to bar its navy from the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Prime Minister Tymoshenko, by contrast, dispatched humanitarian aid but remained largely silent on the war itself. Yushchenko then attempted to have Tymoshenko prosecuted for “high treason” for her muted response, claiming she had made a secret deal with the Russians.

Ukraine is becoming increasingly important strategically as tensions between Russia and the West rise. They are presently renting the port at Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, though Yushchenko has expressed a desire to replace the Russian presence with a NATO one. The European Union is also seen courting Ukraine as a potential member.

On a visit to the nation earlier this month, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States supports Ukraine’s membership in the NATO alliance. The move has been opposed by Russia, who doesn’t relish having to move its fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk after 225 years.

If NATO does end up admitting Ukraine, Russian Ambassador Yuri Fedotov said his nation would consider this a hostile act, and would reexamine the status of its long and virtually open border. Russia is by far the most important trading partner for the nation, and the loss could be economically devastating. The decision is an enormous one, and it could soon be up to Ukraine’s voters to decide yet again where its future lies: with Russia as it historically has, or with the eager West.