Does NATO membership guarantee independence and security to Ukraine? Report by Georgy Kryuchkov

Read it in Russian

The pivot of the political struggle shaking the Ukrainian society at present is the choice of foreign policy as the key guarantee of the country’s independence and security. In fact, the questions are: should Ukraine join the EU and NATO? should it join the Common Economic Space? how should it built its relations with its great neighbor, the Russian Federation, and the other CIS countries? This could be seen especially clearly during the last “Roundtable” when Yushchenko showed astounding persistence in pushing the policy for “Ukraine’s joining NATO” into the National Unity Universal. However, the compromise formulated in “The Universal” has failed to reduce the acuteness of the problem.

The “orange” forces are drawing Ukraine into NATO despite the will of their people

No surprise: during the presidential election 2004 the “orange” forces were placed into power exactly for executing the will of their bosses from over the sea – i.e. to draw Ukraine into NATO in order to expand the NATO bastions eastward, right to the western boundaries of Russia, and to reinforce the US positions in its geo-political confrontation with that country. In this light, I would like to remind you that one of the first decrees Yushchenko passed after becoming President was to restore the Military Doctrine provision saying that the final goal of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration policy is the its accession into NATO. As you may know, President Kuchma decreed to remove this provision on July 15, 2004 after being humiliated at the NATO Summit in Prague. As regards Ukrainian-Russian relations, after the presidential election, they have fallen as low as they have never been throughout the years of Ukraine’s independence.

The surprise is that this policy is being imposed on the country despite the will of the overwhelming majority of its people – who are, constitutionally, the only source of the government. All public surveys have shown that no more than 15% of Ukrainians support the idea of NATO membership, with opponents prevailing over supporters in all Ukrainian regions, even, in Western Ukraine. The bigger the propaganda the smaller the support. Probably realizing that, neither presidential hopeful Yushchenko in his “10 Steps Towards the People” nor Our Ukraine and the Bloc of Yulia Timoshenko in their electoral programs made any single mention of Euro-Atlantic integration and NATO membership. Only the blocs of Kostenko-Plyushch and PORA-PRP had such a point in their electoral platforms; but they polled only 3.34% of the votes, while those parties and blocs who objected to Ukraine’s involvement in NATO got over 50% of the votes.

Minister Tarasyuk’s feigned optimism that by this year’s Riga Summit Ukraine will already be able to join the NATO Action Plan has failed to impress the western partners, even though they say that “the doors into NATO are still open” for the country. Recently, the newly appointed German Ambassador to Ukraine Reinhard Schaefers appeared with quite a characteristic statement that a country where most of people are against joining NATO cannot become a member of the Alliance. In the meantime, the former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott says that unless the NATO member states feel that Ukraine does want to join them, they will begin to charge it off. Why to think about Ukraine if it does not want it itself? The head of the Ukrainian mission to NATO, Gen. Morozov is alarmed: the political developments in Ukraine may put off the date of the country’s accession into NATO. The chief of the National Defense Academy of Ukraine, Gen. Radetsky says that more and more people in the West are beginning to say that Ukraine and Russia should preserve their good neighbor relations, which is possible only if Ukraine stays outside any blocs.

As regards the EU, Nicholas Watt says in the British Guardian (July 21, 2006) that even though “Ukraine has every right to expect a place in the EU… it will be lucky if it makes it in this generation, or the next… Ukraine appears ungovernable as the orange revolution collapses into a rather pathetic mess.” Also worthy of note is the last statements of the well-known advocate of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration, senior researcher of the Conflict Studies Research Center of the UK Defense Academy James Sherr. In his Aug 8 interview to Den daily (Ukraine), published under the expressive headline “Everything Will Depend on the West’s Resolution Not to Give Away (?) Ukraine,” Sherr says that NATO has never (!) sought to make Ukraine its member. The question has always been about effective cooperation and security… the road (to NATO) is open for the countries that share NATO values and meet its standards (this including public understanding and support). NATO will not close those doors but will always insist on the right of Ukraine and Ukrainians to make a conscious choice in the matter. Sherr says that EU membership will not be on agenda even if the “orange” coalition is restored or revived. The EU will consider integrating Ukraine into spheres of specific functional importance for the country: trade, investments and a friendlier visa regime.

This turn of events has upset NATO advocates in Ukraine, first of all, the foreign and defense ministers, who survived in the Yanukovich Government and are now actively pushing Ukraine into NATO by praising the “benefits” NATO membership can allegedly give to the country. On Dec 27 2005 President Yushchenko decreed to start a series of special programs on TV, radio and columns in the press. The Foreign Ministry is actively disseminating propaganda guidelines with a view to create a positive image of NATO in Ukraine. Starting from this year Ukrainian schools and universities will have special courses (subject) on this problem. At the same time, the authorities are keeping silence about the rising movement “For Non-Bloc, Neutral Ukraine.”

The authorities are doing their best to prevent the conduct of an all-Ukrainian referendum on Ukraine’s accession into NATO and participation in the Common Economic Space. The recent publications in 2000 daily (June 30 2006) (the protocol of the conference held by the first deputy secretary of the Ukrainian president Vasyunik on June 25 2006, the address of the secretary of the Ukrainian president Oleh Rybachuk to President Yushchenko and the address of Yushchenko to the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission Davydovich) show that the presidential entourage is seriously worried that should they hold a referendum now the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians would vote against NATO.

The authorities are pushing the President into extraordinary measures “of an all-national scale” with the only view to prevent the conduct of the referendum in the near future. Particularly, they are planning “to instruct local councils to carry out an all-national (!) authentication of the voters’ signatures collected by action groups” (something local councils are not empowered to do) and “the prosecutor offices and law enforcement agencies to make a legal assessment of the legislative violations revealed”; “to resume the criminal actions against the central electoral commission members who violated the electoral code during the presidential election in 2004 and to suspend them from their duties for the period of investigation”; “to call an extraordinary meeting of the ‘orange’ coalition for considering this issue,” etc.

Deputy Secretary Vasyunik has been instructed “to have a phone talk (?!) with CEC Chairman Davydovych, Public Prosecutor Medvedko and Interior Minister Lutsenko about the results of the conference.” What is it if not an open pressure on the CEC, on the bodies whose duty is to ensure legality in the country, to protect the constitutional order, the rights and freedoms of citizens? – a pressure exerted by second-rank functionaries from the presidential office!

The authors of the documents are strikingly ignorant and cynically scornful of the Constitution. The vice chairman of the CEC Melnik was also at the conference and was the first to incite to gross illegalities. He thereby broke his oath of the CEC member.

I would like to add that the action groups have collected over 4 million signatures in support of the referendum. The CEC (who has a legal duty to inspect their authenticity) carried out such an inspection in due time – within a month — but has failed, so far – months later — to submit to the President the materials necessary for appointing the referendum. How should we understand this position of the guarantor of the Constitution and human rights and freedoms? In fact, this is a gross violation of the constitutional right of millions of people.

I would also like to remind you that Yushchenko personally said during the “roundtable” meeting on Aug 3 that the decision on Ukraine’s accession into NATO will be made only after an all-Ukrainian referendum. True, in the meantime, the Foreign Ministry was disseminating propaganda guidelines “proving” that it is not obligatory to hold a referendum on such an issue. Considering the intensity of the efforts of the foreign, defense ministries and other departments to pave the way for Ukraine into NATO, we have all grounds to assume that they are going to present their people with the fait accompli. And afterwards, even if held, the referendum will make no difference. In fact, we can expect the same result if the authorities enforce point 27 of “The Universal of National Unity” saying that the decision on Ukraine’s accession into NATO should be made “on the basis of the results of a referendum which should be held after fulfillment of all necessary procedures.” Meanwhile, the reappointed Foreign Minister Tarasyuk has already said that the referendum will be held no earlier than 2008.

For example, the FM’s guidelines say that the mutually beneficial cooperation with NATO should be carried out “in compliance with the Law ‘On the Principles of National Security of Ukraine’ (as worded at the time of ‘The Universal’ signing).” Unfortunately, neither “The Universal” nor the “Roundtable” have given due attention to the provisions of the above law that link “Ukraine’s full participation in European and regional systems of collective security and accession into the EU and NATO” with “the preservation of good neighbor relations and strategic partnership with the Russian Federation, the CIS members and other countries”." And this is not a coincidence.

The real price of the “benefits” of NATO membership for Ukraine

The next guideline of the Foreign Ministry (July 18 2006) provides “arguments” for Ukraine’s accession into NATO. It consists of 16 points. Most of them, just like the apologetic articles in various newspapers (by the chief of the National Defense Academy Radetsky “Justified Policy” in Uryadovoi Kurier, July 25 2006; by Doctor of Political Sciences Perepelitsa “Once Again About Strategic Interests” – in Den July 25 2006; by Fialko “Ukraine-NATO: You Remember How It All Began. About Important Things Without Emotions” – Zerkalo Nedeli Aug 5 2006), are just copies of what the previous documents and publications have said. However, there are nuances and even some “revelations” that are worthy of attention.

The guideline points out that “NATO membership does not mean automatic involvement of Ukrainian soldiers in all NATO operations – each member country has the right to decide on its own how much to contribute to the military activities of the Alliance” (point 14) and that “NATO does not demand deployment of its bases in Ukraine in exchange for its membership.” (point 15). This may seem obvious, but there is a question: on what ground could NATO ever demand deploying its bases in the territory of an aspirant country whose constitution clearly bans deployment of foreign military bases in its territory? This is the legal aspect of the problem.

However, the point is: what use for NATO to demand anything if it will get the whole arsenal and personnel of Ukraine – tanks, artillery, missile systems – whenever the country joins its military system. Even more, the so-called “Mutual Understanding Memorandum on Ukraine’s Support of NATO Operations,” concluded by Ukraine’s Cabinet and NATO Headquarters and ratified by the Supreme Rada under strong pressure, says that Ukraine should provide quick access to its territory “at the time of peace, during operations for resolving crises, emergencies and conflicts and during NATO-commanded exercises” for all NATO components – “personnel, animals, material and food support, with any civil components thereof,” “for all ships, planes, means of transportation, depots, equipment, ammunition as well as all air, land and sea vehicles, with forces ensuring their deployment and support.”

And all those forces will obey to NATO rather than Ukraine. Does the Alliance need any American or other bases after that? Meanwhile, some high-ranking officials in the Defense Ministry have repeatedly suggested deploying US military bases in Ukraine, and the alarming point is that the DM has given no reaction to such anti-constitutional statements.

Concerning the involvement of our soldiers in NATO military campaigns, our authorities act like the character of a well-known Soviet movie did: after some “educational work,” he agreed to unload bricks, to work at a meat processing factory, to do any work if they just tell him: “You have to, Fedya…” The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry is ready to send our soldiers anywhere, even to places they don’t have to or even to the trouble spots other NATO states refuse to send their soldiers to (for example, to Iraq).

The top points of the guideline say that NATO membership “will make Ukraine a full-value European state in the eyes of the international community” (point 4), “will bring it closer to EU membership (the way it happened with the last wave of NATO members)” (point 2). “Ukraine will get closer to the European standards in all social spheres” (point 1) and “will be able to influence the security policy making in the whole Euro-Atlantic space as all NATO decisions are made through consensus” (point 3).

Here, almost each thesis is sly and half-true. Whether Ukraine will become a “European state” (they must mean a state meeting general European standards) or not depends not on its NATO membership but on its ability to overcome the lingering system crisis, to raise economy and living standard and to form truly democratic society and government. To do this is Ukraine’s own business and this exactly — rather than humble entreaties for EU and NATO membership – is what the European powers want from Ukraine.

Besides, the example of Turkey has shown that NATO membership is in no way a pass to the EU. The well-known Economist Intelligence Unit (an “intelligence unit” of the British Economist) notes that Ukraine is not a potential candidate for EU membership until 2020 and European experts can not say if it will be after that time. And we can hardly expect Ukraine – a US satellite obediently doing whatever Washington tells it to – to be able “to influence the security policy making in the whole Euro-Atlantic space”…

The guideline points out that NATO membership “will give Ukraine specific guarantees of state sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders in line with the Washington Treaty” (point 5), that “no other international organization can give more guarantees of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity than NATO can as it is the most efficient and active political-military (!) organization who can really protect its members” (point 6), that NATO membership “will help Ukraine to more quickly and effectively reform its armed forces and to significantly raise their fighting capacity” (point 8).

NATO is actually a mighty military-political bloc – exactly a military-political bloc and not a political-military organization. As regards its peacekeeping efficiency, let’s not forget about NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia and the consequent collapse of that country, about the tragedy of Serbs in Kosovo, about the failed attempts to normalize the situation in Afghanistan… Now, let’s see if NATO membership can actually raise Ukraine’s security and fighting capacity.

What has happened and is happening in Ukraine’s defense system after the proclamation of independence? First of all, we have lost the world’s third biggest nuclear potential and have got no real security guarantees instead. Under the close and demanding control of US “inspectors,” we have destroyed our launchers, strategic aviation complexes, super modern planes – Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22 MZ — and have dealt a heavy blow on the Ukraine-based segments of the former Soviet defense-industrial complex. As a result of NATO-standard “reforms” our army has got into a situation President Yushchenko qualified on July 27 as: “In a few years we will have no single missile complex” and “Ukraine is an unprotected territory unable to react to challenges (underlined by me – G.K.).” Unfortunately, he is right. But there is one thing the President kept silence about: despite the deplorable state of our army, NATO generals keep praising and applauding our reforms. So, probably, our ruin is good for them?

There is one more thing we should give a thought to: Ukraine has been NATO partner for 10 years, including 7 years of strategic partnership. And it was exactly during this period that its defense capacities were methodically destroyed. I agree with those saying that NATO needs Ukraine as a vast territory in the center of the European continent, where NATO could easily boss it; as a Russia’s south-eastern “under-belly”; as an unfailing supplier of soldiers to trouble spots worldwide (to wherever other NATO states refuse to send their men); and, due to its strong transport aircraft, as a good carrier for NATO personnel and hardware.

One should not ignore the warnings of experts about the threats of NATO membership. For example, the chief of the National Defense Academy of Ukraine Radetsky says that “NATO membership means bigger threat of inter-state terrorism,” while military expert Bogdanovich notes that “even if Ukraine refrains from joining NATO, the Alliance still poses a threat to the country’s national security.” Particularly, he points to the US’ plans to deploy in Poland a missile defense base that will protect Europe from ballistic missiles from the Middle East. “Naturally, such missiles will fly over Ukraine and will be shot down over our territory,” says Bogdanovich and notes that there is also a human factor such as shooting wide. Unfortunately, all this is hushed up by the NATO advocates from the Ukrainian FM.

The authors of the guideline are trying hard to convince that “NATO membership is good from the financial point of view” (point 11), that “in NATO Ukraine will get higher security with no increase in defense spending” (point 7), that “collective security is cheaper than security on one’s own — when a country having limited financial and economic capacities should build a comprehensive defense system” (point 9). In short, “they abroad will help us…” As regards the fees the country will have to pay to the NATYO budget, they will “be repaid with interest (!) in the form of NATO investments in infrastructure modernization in member-states” (point 11). Blessed be he who believes…

For example, quite recently, in one of the first guidelines, FM officials said that “NATO membership will allow Ukraine to reduce its general military spending.” It turns out they were wrong. They have found it out … Well, at least, they did. But, in fact, the problem of defense financing is not the way they put it. Only people who are quite unaware of the state of their own army or who are just trying to mislead other people just to get their support for NATO integration can say that “there will be no increase in defense spending” and even hope for decrease.

We have already noted that defense spending in Ukraine has never exceeded 1.5%-1.6% of GDP, while NATO requires it to be no less than 2%. Speaking at the “Roundtable” on July 27, President Yushchenko said that, in order to effectively organize its defense, Ukraine needs no less than $500mln per unit (he meant missile complexes). It should be noted that, some 1.5 years ago, 60% of Ukraine’s hardware had been in use for as many as 15 years already – with 55% of military planes and anti-aircraft systems, 97% of battle ships, 53% of automatized control systems and 45% of radio-electronic equipment needing repairs and 80% of medium-range guided missile systems no longer fit for action — and that things have got worse since then. So, we can easily conclude that Ukraine’s military-technical potential is degrading so quickly and extensively that the country is facing a real threat of inability to defend itself. As regards the social security of our servicemen, it is incomparably worse than in Russia, not mentioning NATO member-states.

What reduction in military expenses are they talking about under such conditions? The acting secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Gorbulin is 100% right when he says that starting from 2007 Ukraine should raise its defense spending to 10-12bln hryvnas (against 6.6bln hryvnas in 2005 and 8.9bln hryvnas in 2006). “The main thing is to have a firm political will not to yield to the temptation to ‘hide under the common NATO umbrella’ so as to free ourselves from the responsibility and burden of re-equipment.”

Unfortunately, none of the governments acting in independent Ukraine so far (except for the Yanukovich government) gave due attention to the problem of defense financing and development. It seems that naïve hopes that “some kind uncle” (NATO or anybody else) will defend Ukraine prevailed over good sense. The situation was improved during the adoption (more precisely, amendment) of this year’s national budget; but, in fact, the Yekhanurov government failed to allocate for defense as much as the budget prescribed, which jeopardized the fulfillment of some programs, first of all, the projects to provide servicemen with housing.

And, if adopted, the draft defense budget proposed by the same government for 2007 would have thrown the Ukrainian army 5-6 years back, Defense Minister Grytsenko said. He was indignant and he was right. The point was that such an approach was in line with the general policy of the Ukrainian authorities who hoped that the country’s security would be ensured by NATO. Naïve and dangerous hopes. Fortunately, the Supreme Rada proved wise enough to propose allocating 2% of GDP for defense in 2007.

In the point about the financing of defense, the authors of the guideline mention the topic of neutrality. They say that neutrality “costs a pretty penny to any country” (point 10). They say that “neutral Sweden openly admits that, if it was NATO member, it would save much money on defense.” However, they don’t say why that country is not in a hurry to give up the neutrality that has given its people peace and prosperity. Indeed, the defense expenses of Sweden are incomparably bigger than those of some NATO member states, not mentioning Ukraine, but this is hardly because it is not a NATO member.

The guideline says that “NATO membership will make Ukraine more attractive in the eyes of foreign investors, which means additional financial inflows in the economy, new jobs, high economic growth, higher wages, bigger budgetary revenues, additional money for pensions and social projects” (point 12.) A real manna from heaven… The guideline points out that “the example of the last NATO members shows that NATO membership opens up new opportunities for the defense-industrial complex – outlet to new NATO and EU arms sales markets, access to new technologies for join production, opportunity to modernize own armament and to diversify own military arsenal, etc.” (point 13).

The logical question is: are the authors of this guideline really so naïve as to believe in what they have written? Why don’t they say what actually happened to the defense industries of Poland or the Czech Republic after their accession into NATO? Their armies were “put on the needle” and became heavily dependent on foreign aid: the US is generously granting loans so they can buy American military planes, tanks, armored vehicles, spare parts. And most of their local defense companies have “died…”

Our defense industry will face the same destiny given the cut-throat competition in the sphere, and many defense company managers are already sounding the alarm. I would like to refer to the authoritative opinion of the general manager of the Motor-Sich OJSC, MP, Hero of Ukraine Vyacheslav Boguslayev, who says that Europe does not need our labor, our technologies, our brains. Everything is already occupied there… “Will they in Europe accept our engines? No single one, because they already have a clear schedule for 20 years ahead.”

Airbus Industries has clearly said: Italy will produce 11% of planes, Denmark 6%, France 28%, Germany 18%. Do they have quotas for Ukraine? That’s how they in Europe work. Now they say to everybody who has joined them – Hungary, Baltic states and others: you have to get quotas for your foreign market, i.e., even if we join the EU, they will tell us: you should halve your aircraft supplies to China because this will be the segment of Airbus or Aerospecial. They say: wait a minute, are you a member? We have given you half percent in Europe, haven’t we? Now give us 50% of your foreign market. That’s how it works. They have common rules and common charter. That’s why I would like those preoccupied with the idea of Euro-integration to give me an articulate and honest answer to my only question: what will this accession give us? Specifically: in industry, in agriculture, etc.?" One can’t but accept the fair words of the most experienced defense manager in Ukraine and give an ear to his urge to protect our traditional markets and to actively expand into new ones in the Middle East, Central and South-Eastern Asia…

NATO membership will hardly give anything good to Ukraine’s defense companies like Motor-Sich, Zaporizhya Machine Building Bureau “Progress” and others, as, in most cases, NATO standards are incompatible with Ukrainian and CIS ones. If Ukraine joins NATO, these high-tech teams will inevitably decline.

Hence, it turns out that, in order to usher Ukraine into NATO, those determining and conducting Ukraine’s foreign policy for many years have been consciously ruining many of the world renowned Ukrainian companies and design bureaus — if not the whole defense-industrial complex. The former first deputy director of the presidential Institute of Strategic Studies, one of the most ardent advocates of Ukraine’s membership in NATO Perepelitsa openly says: “Sooner or later, the Ukrainian authorities will come to a conclusion that there is no sense in developing the defense industry if Ukraine is going to become a NATO member.”

To ruin our defense industry would be a crime against the Ukrainian people.

The first deputy minister of industrial policy Urussky says: “Only growing domestic order can preserve the defense-industrial complex.” Today, the share of the Defense Ministry’s order is 5%-7% of the total military production in the country. The domestic defense market must urgently be raised to, at least, 30%-35%. But this is impossible given the present financing. And who in Europe or the selfsame NATO will be so kind as to agree to provide us with billions of US dollars (or EUR) so we can modernize our army and preserve our defense industry?

Important as the above question might seem, the pith of the guideline – and this, in my opinion, makes it especially valuable – is the points that tell with cynical frankness why exactly Ukraine is being drawn into NATO. Point 16 answers this question: “NATO membership will mean no more Russian influence.” In this light, one can easily understand the point saying that if Ukraine joins NATO “it will not have to build its defense ‘in all azimuths’” (point 9). It will be built only in the eastern and northern directions — speaking without diplomacy, against Russia and Belarus. President Yushchenko confirmed this, when speaking at the “Roundtable” and substantiating the necessity of “Ukraine’s joining the NATO defense system”: “Don’t forget that we live in a country where no single meter of state frontier is demarcated (in the west, i.e. on the border with NATO, it was demarcated in the Soviet times – G.K.)… In a country where there are foreign bases (Russian Black Sea Fleet – G.K.), where the sea border is not delimited in either the east or the west. We have the Zmeiny island and Tuzla.”

One can hardly object to Yushchenko’s arguments, but they don’t conform to his own declarations about “eternal strategic partnership” with Russia. One can easily imagine Russia’s reaction to such “revelations,” which, in fact, dot all i’s and expose the plans to tear Ukraine away from Russia and to further spoil already spoiled relations between the two brotherly nations, plans to widen the gap between them.

It would be enough to say that, in such a case, the sides may reduce and, in the future, even stop cooperating in the defense, which may bring our military industry to a standstill – something our defense managers are really afraid of. I would like to once again refer to Boguslayev’s opinion. Motor-Sich takes part in Russian programs on helicopters, pilotless planes, An-70 transport aircraft, Yak-130 combat trainers… All this is military programs with lots of “know-how” and other secrets not “for others’ eyes.” That’s why the Russian partners will continue to cooperate with us even if we are embraced by NATO… There is no alternative to integration (with the Russian economy – G.K.). Those who refuse to realize it will be knocked out of the market. While we will be trying to make a world-standard product in a closed economy, the world will be moving ahead and leaving us even farther behind. Boguslayev points to the wide cooperation (including inter-state) in the Western defense industry: “… they have come to something the USSR always had – deep specialization of enterprises.”

Meanwhile, in our country, after cutting it into scraps and breaking it into pieces, our “brilliant” politicians began shaping a cave economy – like they in Mao China did by casting iron in every yard. And again, newly formed states are trying to form closed economies. This is an absolute nonsense, which will result in non-competitive production… The threat of stoppage of close economic links with the Russian Federation (as many as 390 Russian enterprises supply Motor-Sich with components and consume its production. No other local enterprise has so tight relations with Russia…) is quite real for the machine building giant – the only in Ukraine – whose annual turnover is more than 1bln hryvnas. It’s hard to believe that our state builders are so much stupefied with phobia for Russia and mania for NATO that they are actually ready to destroy their own defense-industrial complex just to please their transatlantic masters. But, unfortunately, they are.

No doubt NATO is a mighty military-political structure and it can help Ukraine to resist new challenges and threats: international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drugs-trafficking, piracy… However, before joining the Alliance, our country should carefully consider the present geo-political situation, its own state and, obligatorily, the will of its people. We should tell people the truth – the whole truth about the advantages and the risks of NATO membership – so they can make a conscious choice on such a vital issue. And we should hold a referendum and should hold it not only before the accession into NATO but also before (and not after) the fulfillment of the preliminary procedures.

“…One can hardly imagine any better destiny for that country”

The right choice of foreign policy comes from comprehensive analysis of the geo-political situation, real and potential challenges to security and ways to prevent them and from the need to serve and protect the national interests.

The modern world is drastically changing, and this requires balanced approaches towards national security. The developments following the West’s victory in the WWIII — “the cold war” — and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Commonwealth of Socialistic States: the restoration of capitalism in those countries, the transformation of the bi-polar world into uni-polar one with one super power, the United States, have not made the world safer.

All-time widespread terrorism, bloody conflicts and wars worldwide, especially in the Middle East, involvement of great powers therein and the US’ unrestrained aspiration to establish “made-in-America democracy” in other countries are fraught with global destabilization, calamitous clash of civilizations, war between the Western (Euro-Atlantic) and the Eastern (defying the US-type democracy) worlds.

Under such conditions, Washington is trying to fit the national processes of economic internationalization in its globalization policy, to assert its total superiority in the world. This is receiving growing resistance from other countries, even from allies. New centers of attraction are emerging in the world (the EU, Russia, China, South-Eastern Asia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, India, Latin America) as an opposition to American hegemony.

The content of the processes depends on the fierce struggle of the leading world powers for access to energy sources, first of all, oil and natural gas, strategic communications (oil- and gas-pipelines, sea- and airports, etc.) and for modern high technologies

The situation is so tensed that many analysts and politicians term it – after US political expert Eliot Cohen – as “the WWIV” – a war that broke out after the Sept 11 2001 terrorist acts in New York and Washington.

Due to its geo-strategic situation and economic, human and military potential, Ukraine has got, if not in the epicenter than, at least, in the focus of global confrontation between Russia, who considers Ukraine as a sphere of its strategic interests, and the United States of America, who considers Ukraine as “the key issue of its national security.” What is going on near our borders directly concerns our security. The question is about the movement of US military bases to Bulgaria and Romania, the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland, which is certainly a reaction to Russia’s coming out of the chaos of the Yeltsin rule onto the world arena as one of the key players.

One can’t but consider the growing tensions between Russia and the US. Recently, the US State Department imposed sanctions on the Russian state companies Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi on the ground that they had allegedly violated the US “Iran Nonproliferation Act” – a document passed as long as six years ago to ban cooperation with Iran on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (In late 2005 Russia made a contract with Iran to sell it anti-aircraft systems, patrol boats, to repair and modernize air equipment, etc.). Even though the contract said nothing about weapons of mass destruction, the US reacted in such a way that Russian media took it as “de facto declaration of economic war on Russia.”

This reflects Washington’s serious concern for Russia’s massive breakthrough into the world arms markets, first of all, in developing countries (with whom the military-technical cooperation of the US is 70%, of Russia — 90%), and especially actively with Venezuela and some other US anti-American or unfriendly-to-America countries.

Recently, the US has been showing increasing criticism of Moscow’s policy, and, now, it seems to have decided to punish it. This, according to some experts, means “the end of the epoch of declared strategic partnership between Russia and the US” and even “the start of new nuclear arms race,” especially as 2009 is the expiry date of the key disarmament document – the START Treaty I.

I would like to note that all this is happening after the seemingly warm meeting of the Russian and US presidents during the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg. By the way, it was then that the US said it would not agree to Russia’s accession into WTO for the time being – mostly because there is no political decision on the matter. It seems US-Russian relations “are not just stagnating but are obviously degrading.”

Under such conditions, our politicians and statesmen, including ardent NATO advocates, are beginning to seriously consider what policy Ukraine should adopt and if one-sided orientation towards NATO is good for the country’s national interests.

In this light, I would like to invite your attention to the July 29 article in Zerkalo Nedeli daily “The Ukrainian Front of ‘WWIV’” by the acting secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine, academic Gorbulin. Noting that “Ukraine is facing the threat of external rule,” Gorbulin is concerned that the foreign policy in Ukraine is carried out by a generation of young inexperienced politicians who make decisions on the basis of “their own convictions” rather than through objective analysis of the geo-political situation. “Our foreign policy has become hostage to political tricks in the parliament. Practical estimates and calculations of NATO benefits have been replaced by political slogans by both opponents and ‘ardent advocates of NATO,’ and it is unclear who of them have caused more harm to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration,” says Gorbulin.

The content of the article does not give ground for us to say that Gorbulin has given up the idea of NATO membership, but it certainly does him credit that, being a key official in the structures responsible for Ukraine’s foreign policy, he dared to publicly share his doubts and thoughts that “Ukraine has proved unprepared for the challenges of the new stage of European integration, i.e. for stopping enlargement eastward and imposing the tough requirements of the EU neighborhood policy,” that the public disappointment with European integration and the skeptical statements of European officials about Ukraine’s EU prospects have had a negative impact on the political stability and national security of the country. In fact, the haste of some officials and the excessive politicization of the problem of Ukraine’s urgent accession into NATO — by 2008 – have had a reverse effect and have significantly reduced the country’s chances to join the Alliance.

Without giving names, Gorbulin slates the “inadequate and even problematic” position of some Ukrainian officials on Ukraine’s relations with Russian. He says that the urgent task of the new Ukrainian government is to work out new foreign political approaches with a view to normalize and make more constructive the Ukrainian-Russian political dialogue. “In developing the practical policy of our relations with the EU and NATO, we should not ignore the position of Russia,” says Gorbulin and he is quite right.

In this light, we should give special attention to the increasingly popular idea of preserving the de facto non-bloc and de jure neutral status of Ukraine – the status officially proclaimed by the Declaration on Ukraine’s State Sovereignty of July 16 1990.

Unfortunately, in the official and “respectable” Ukrainian press this approach is either hushed up or dismissed out of hand “as having no real guarantees of implementation.” (By the way, Gorbulin does not mention it in his article).

They also hush up the fact that the idea of Ukraine’s non-bloc, neutral status has emerged mostly because the OSCE has failed to form an all-European collective security system and Europe is facing the danger of a new split, a new dividing line – and Ukraine is exactly on it. Under such conditions, Ukraine’s accession into any military-political blocs would make it unsafe in case of their conflicts.

Of course, the question is about a status to be officially recognized, guaranteed and legalized by the UN, OSCE and other international organizations as well as great powers.

I would like to specially note that Ukraine’s neutrality in no way means its self-isolation, “going into own shell.” The example of Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and other neutral states shows that, being outside any military blocs, they actively cooperate with other countries, are parts of inter-state unions of non-military nature (including the EU). For our country, this would be a unique chance to develop economy, to raise living standard, to reinforce the democratic foundations of the state and public life. I think that those saying that neutrality would turn Ukraine into “Switzerland of XXI” talk sense.

Non-bloc status does not mean that Ukraine “would have no guarantees of national security,” that it “would voluntarily limit its choice of ways to protect own sovereignty” and that it “would not be able to ask for collective help in case of aggression.” Those saying this really believe that somebody (in fact, they mean Russia with its “imperial ambitions”) may encroach on neutral Ukraine; while those saying that neutrality “would preserve the Russian military presence in Ukraine,” “would leave Ukraine in the sphere of Russian geo-political dominance,” and “would block the most real road into united political Europe” are just engaged in empty talk and speculations. Their aim is to mislead our people and to implant in their minds the necessity of NATO membership.

By the way, sensible politicians in the West give understanding to the idea of neutral Ukraine. To prove my words, I would like to refer to Financial Times (London) who says that the last events have saved Ukraine, Europe and even the US from the threat of early NATO enlargement eastward. This would be followed by Russia’s reaction and resistance of most Ukrainians, especially, Russian-speaking ones in the east and south. Besides, NATO membership without EU membership, confirming Ukraine as part of the West, would hardly give any profit to the country.

Formerly, the Western countries thought that legitimate and truly democratic were only those Ukrainian politicians who led the country away from Russia, irrespective of the will of their voters. The split of the Ukrainian population is the result of their one-sided policy. The West an Russia should come to terms, should stop kindling tensions between groups if they really want to avoid violence and instability in the region. Russia should not interfere in the democratic process in Ukraine, while the West should refrain from involving the country into anti-Russian alliances. Neither sides should seek exclusive economic influence. If we show good sense, we will get free, independent, neutral Ukraine, open to international investments and economically linked with both Russia and the West. Historically, this would be the best destiny Ukraine has ever had (underlined by me – G.K.)

Considering the results of public surveys, 57% of Western Ukrainians and 58% of Eastern and Southern Ukrainians say that Ukraine must show friendly neutrality towards NATO and the CIS military bloc and must cooperate with them. So, we can say that the proclamation of active neutrality for the sake of economic upturn, prosperity, true democracy and the prospect of “Switzerland of XXI” might well become the national idea gluing our split society.

In conclusion I have two remarks.

First. During the “Roundtable” meeting, when singing “The Universal of National Unity,” President Yushchenko also said that Ukraine must not carry out one-sided foreign policy. He pointed out that the declaration that we are moving towards Europe does not mean giving up the eastern market, where we also have huge interests. “We can’t say ‘either…or’ and must not engage in artificial politicking. We must be there where we have interests. In the east we border on a market where we have 22% of our export, in the west on a market where we sell almost 40% of our products. So, we must work with both the Common Economic Space and the EU. The main thing is that our CES integration policy should not block our work with the EU.” Hardly anybody with good sense and concern for our country will object to such an approach.

And second. When implementing the foreign policy and, particularly, the policy of European integration, one cannot but consider the complicated processes taking place in those structures. It’s not a secret that the EU and NATO have internal differences on some key problems. A number of the countries of the “Old Europe” are showing increasingly open desire to turn the EU into one of the leading centers of the world politics. Particularly, they are planning to create European (without the US) armed forces. At the same time, some European states, mostly new members of the EU and NATO (the Baltic states, Eastern and Central Europe – I call them “Young Europeans”) are oriented towards the US, and Washington uses this fact in its European and world policies.

They in Washington would like Ukraine to also be among those countries – first of all, as member of NATO — as this would strengthen their position in the Alliance. No coincidence that the newly appointed US ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor said right off that one of his major tasks is that Ukraine accede into NATO before Bush retires. The US authorities are openly speaking about it, and the pro-American position of Yushchenko’s men (foreign and defense ministries) serves their plans. The question is if this position serves the national interests of our countries and the plans of the European countries for whom the care of “the elder brother” is becoming more and more irksome and who would very much like to throw off this burden. I think that the above-mentioned article of Financial Times answers this question.

In conclusion, I would like to say that, recently, after the formation of the Yanukovich-led coalition government, President Yushchenko and his ministers have made many statements that “Ukraine will not change its foreign policy, first of all, will not refuse from integration with Europe and NATO.”

There will, certainly, be no refusal from European integration, but some points in “The Universal of National Unity” and the things the President and other officials say now do not go well with what they said quite recently (particularly, now they say that it is necessary to finish the work for involving Ukraine in the Common Economic Space; the decision on Ukraine’s accession into NATO should be made exclusively after the conduct of an all-Ukrainian referendum; Ukraine should develop its relations with other states in all directions). At least, we can hope for new nuances in the foreign policy – more balanced, more realistic approach to relations with the Russian Federation, with the CIS countries, with the EU and NATO, no more dull hatred for Russia and servility to the West.

That’s what the country’s national interests require. That’s what millions of voters for the anti-crisis coalition expect. They will not accept anything else.

Clearly, it is not desirable to make sharp movements in such a delicate sphere as foreign policy, but it is still necessary to remove the faults and illogicalities. The question is if those whose dabbling in politics has already caused so much harm to the interests of our country and its friendly relations with strategic partners will be able to do it. In this light, I would like to remember the wise words of Vladimir Scherbitsky: “New situation, new conditions set new tasks which require new approaches and oftentimes new executers.”