The Day: Ukrainian-NATO relations have been somewhat dampened by the Ukrainian military supplies to Macedonia. In addition, Western and Ukrainian media have alleged the Ukrainian leadership’s involvement with arms sales to Iraq. How would you comment on this?
Y. M.: What you’ve just mentioned are different things. I’d rather not comment on arms sales to Iraq at this stage. There is no official response from Washington. Yet the whole thing looks like an anti-Ukrainian campaign. There have been several reports on arms supplies to the Taliban, to Croatia, and now Iraq. None has been officially confirmed. Macedonia is a different matter. We made contracts with the legitimate government and president before the Macedonian crisis. Then NATO decided to stop arms supplies to Macedonia. It’s true, Ukraine made its decision after some delay and NATO responded negatively. But we were under contract, money had been paid, so we agreed with Skopje and Brussels that the shipments would be watched by NATO when delivered. And yes, the problem did cause misunderstanding between Ukraine and NATO, but I think that some lessons have been learned.
The Day: Ukraine has announced that it plans to become an associate member of the European Union before 2004 and subsequently achieve full membership. Has the political leadership considered NATO membership?
Y. M.: The question has not been approached from the real pragmatic standpoint. To do so we need a number of prerequisites. The first is consensus within the country. Second, we are faced with extremely sophisticated decision- making procedures, an agreement between the presidential and parliamentary upper echelons. At the same time, the phrase about Ukraine not intending to consider NATO membership in the immediate future has been left out of our foreign political doctrine. The current situation in Ukrainian society and parliament is in favor of Euro- Atlantic integration. The Communists are less influential in Verkhovna Rada and 700,000- 800,000 boys and girls come of age every year. Multiply this by 10 years. In other words, political sentiments are rejuvenated, and an increasing number of people support Euro-Atlantic or European integration.
The Day: How did September 11 affect the priorities in Ukrainian-NATO relations?
Y. M.: There is no great loss without some small gain. After the terrorist attack on America the world adopted a new attitude toward threats and problems of security. It made countries, among them Ukraine, consider quite seriously shifting accents in the foreign political domain. Actually, that’s how the formula of Euro- Atlantic integration came up again; it had existed in Ukraine for quite some time but then Kyiv discarded it. Now we’re back where we started. Ukraine had to give cooperation with NATO a fresh impetus. A conference took place in Berlin recently, involving NATO leaders and a representative Ukrainian delegation. Our NATO colleagues say it was probably one of the best conferences between the alliance and this country in terms of cooperation and understanding.
The NATO headquarters in Brussels receive our questions with understanding. For example, we want to know about the alliance’s evolution, because our hypothetical membership has a lot to do with NATO’s transformation. The situation would be simpler if it becomes a general European security system, reducing the military component and enhancing the political one. The more so if Russia shows more active cooperation with NATO. In other words, when there is a rather flexible mechanism in terms of status and membership after admitting new members. In that case the public mind will no longer be allergic to NATO. However, we have to face it: there is no overwhelming social unity in Ukraine in favor of cooperation with NATO.
The Day: You have mentioned Moscow-Brussels cooperation. Do you think Ukraine would quickly follow suit if Russia joined NATO?
Y. M.: I wouldn’t approach the matter from that angle, for it would mean making Ukraine somehow dependent on Russia. The two countries have quite distinct tasks conceptually. Russia is a Eurasian state and it has to solve a lot of problems before considering full NATO membership. Yet we can see that the Russian and NATO leaders are seeking new and dynamic vehicles of cooperation quite effectively.
Our situation is different. On the one hand, we must reckon with response from a considerable part of the population, especially in the eastern regions where people are still politically inclined toward Russia. On the other hand, we must only consider this factor and by no means use it in making our decisions. As for Moscow-Brussels cooperation, I’d say we shouldn’t worry about Russia being the first to join NATO de facto (probably not de jure). By the way, I said so in an interview early last September. Some thought I was kidding, but it turned out to be quite serious. We mustn’t delay waiting until Russia integrates with Europe ahead of us. I’m sorry to say that this is a possibility to be considered.
The Day: Are there any real causes for worry?
Y. M.: Yes, there are. Russian- NATO cooperation shows greater dynamism than ours. The alliance listens to what President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov propose. The summit in Prague is to be preceded by one in Rome. They are looking for ways to let Russia cooperate so it can take part in the NATO decision-making process, even if within certain limitations. That’s something we can’t credit ourselves with.
The Day: Talking of hypothetical membership, does Ukraine have an idea about how much it will cost?
Y. M.: No one can say at the moment. It all depends on what NATO is all about after rejuvenation. What we do know is how much the military reform costs in Ukraine. We will spend money on it not because we want some NATO people’s appreciation, but so our armed forces take less budget money, so they are smaller numerically but more dynamic and effective. Take the peacekeeping missions where Ukraine is a most active participant. If our battalion is on such a mission with NATO units, it means uniform standards securing effective cooperation. But when everything is divided – as we, regrettably, have it today – a lot of problems come up. Even now it’s obvious that peacekeeping units will have to go on not only such missions. In postwar chaos it is peacekeepers that can get the people organized and help establish some sort of government; they are also the ones to perform humanitarian operations. In other words, they’ll have to carry out new tasks.
Why do we hear talk about NATO standards? NATO artillery gun calibers are good not because they are NATO-made. Practical experience shows that they are the best. This means we don’t have to invent the wheel all over. It has long been invented and it suits everyone just fine. Even if we adopt these standards it won’t mean adjusting to NATO standards so we can fit in the same boat; it will mean simply joining European standards and we will thus be able to considerably improve our security and defenses.
