A meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission took place in Brussels last week. For the first time, Ukrainian representatives joined the discussion of the NATO member states’ defense ministers about the situation in our country. In the official statement, which summarized the results of the meeting, Russia was traditionally urged to “return to compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities, and to engage immediately in a genuine dialog towards a political and diplomatic solution that respects international law and Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.” And on the other hand, NATO and Ukraine agreed “to implement immediate and long-term measures in order to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to provide for its own security.”
The Day asked Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA, Doctor of Political Sciences, conflict resolution expert, professor at the Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University, to comment upon the results of the NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting, which took place on April 1 in Brussels, and to talk about the general role of NATO in restraining Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
“One can say that NATO’s reaction to the events in Ukraine is becoming more and more adequate, undergoing a certain evolution. It is evolving from the absolute unacceptance of military assistance to Ukraine to the intensification of measures designed to both increase influence on Russia and provide help to Ukraine. Also, we see that NATO is becoming more serious about the reinterpretation of the level of threats that are coming from Russia not only in Ukraine’s address, but the NATO members themselves. And today we see the regrouping of the NATO forces eastwards, and the intensification of security measures on NATO’s eastern flank, especially in Poland and the Baltic states. We see one more American ship entering the Black Sea. NATO realizes the real threat which is looming over the NATO member states. It was for a reason that Rasmussen affirmed once again that NATO guarantees security to its members. Obviously, the NATO defense system for allies will be consolidated in this area. I suppose some NATO Response Force units might be deployed in Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, and the Baltic states. Obviously, a system of NATO forward deployment will be created in this situation, and relations with Russia will be reviewed.
“The meeting of NATO member states’ defense ministers showed that measures against Russia will be taken. Firstly, the cooperation with Russia will be suspended. Secondly, Russia will be perceived not as a partner, but as a possible enemy, as a threat. And whether NATO wants it or not, it will shift from strategic partnership with Russia to relations of regional control of Russia’s aggression and military intervention, aimed at the destruction of the state sovereignty of Ukraine. Moldova and the Baltic states will be the next in line, of course. Basically, Russia has set a task to annihilate the world order that was established after the end of the Cold War and revise the results of the Cold War to be able to restore its status of a world power and have the amount of influence on the global processes that would be at least equal to the one the Soviet Union had. This is a real threat which is coming from Russia towards NATO, the European Union, and the world order.”
What specific help can we expect from NATO?
“NATO has not developed a clear position on Ukraine yet. If a month ago we saw NATO refuse to carry out any kinds of military exercises with Ukraine, provide military and technical aid, or cooperate more closely, now the NATO headquarters realizes such position does not correspond to reality anymore. But NATO is not ready to grant us the prospect of membership. When German Foreign Minister Steinmeier says that NATO membership is impossible for Ukraine, he forgets that the same NATO members, including Germany’s Chancellor Merkel, gave a political obligation at the Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a NATO member if it is ready and wants to obtain membership.”
Does this mean that the incumbent government does not ask nicely enough (as one Ukrainian diplomat said while commenting on a statement by a high-ranked government official, who said in a private conversation that NATO will not provide the MAP)?
“We do not have an obvious, clear position on whether our government or the new presidential candidates have an intention to make Ukraine a NATO member. It is the only organization which can give firm guarantees of our security and preservation of our state sovereignty. A statement made by the commander-in-chief Turchynov did not bring any clarity either. At the National Guard exercise he said that the collective defense system was the most reliable way to ensure our security and we had to review our attitude towards the non-aligned status. After this, Foreign Minister Deshchytsia said at the press conference in Brussels that we were not going to raise the issue of the NATO membership prospect. According to him, this must be settled by the parliament after changing the legislation on the principles of domestic and foreign policy. Therefore, we can make a conclusion that the incumbent government does not intend to clearly bring up the issue of the NATO membership prospect. Moreover, we do not see it in the presidential candidates’ programs. When journalists asked Tymoshenko at a press conference whether she supported the obtaining of NATO or EU membership, she did not reply, saying only that we supported the European collective security and defense system. However, she did not specify which exactly system and structure she meant. But the European collective security and defense system does not even exist! This is the kind of word juggling which says nothing definite about the standpoint of the incumbent and future leadership towards joining NATO.
“Of course, this is caused by the fear that as soon as we announce our intention to join NATO, Russia will start large-scale aggression not to let this happen. Such aggression ensues from Russia’s apprehension that Ukraine might join the European Union in the future. That is, the aggression was caused not by the North Atlantic integration, but by the European one; moreover, it was caused by the mere intentions to integrate into Europe by signing the Association Agreement, even though it does not result in any prospects, obligations, and promises of EU membership.
“I think that everyone is now aware that the non-aligned status spurred Russia’s aggression. The Kremlin realized that if Ukraine is a non-aligned country, it has no guarantees. Moreover, it cannot join any system of collective defense, because it forfeited external military help in case of aggression. No individual country will voluntarily engage in a war with a nuclear state like Russia. Only the Alliance can assume such a responsibility. And we ourselves have blocked the path to the military and political organization by choosing the non-aligned status. And the third is the fear that separatism might consolidate, first of all in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, where NATO remains an imperialist boogieman scaring people worse than corruption and crime, which has been thriving lately in these regions and in the country in general.
“If we had a nationally consolidated elite, then undoubtedly the first thing to be done would be to submit an application for NATO membership. Moreover, the NATO enlargement plan, which was adopted in 1999, foresaw three ways of expansion.
“The first option stipulated an evolutionary path, when countries get close to the economic standards of the Euro-Atlantic community and become EU members, and then they cover the security aspects with NATO’s umbrella by becoming members of this organization.
“The second option is a path of expanding stability. In this case, integration into the European community is carried out through NATO, when the Alliance guarantees security and strengthening to young democracies. After the post-communist countries rise to the political and security standards within this organization, they join the EU. This is how the accession of all post-socialist countries took place, even when they did not meet the economic standards of the EU membership. This applied to Bulgaria and Romania.
“The third option is the path of strategic reacting. In case a candidate state faces military aggression, the decision is made by NATO members immediately without such procedures as intensified dialog, action plan on NATO membership, and application submission. But not a single country was admitted in such a way.
“Ukraine is in a situation now when NATO must implement strategic reacting in the presence of an obvious threat of a large-scale intervention, which has already started. So far, this intervention is of local nature and affects Crimea only. But troops are concentrated along the whole eastern border of Ukraine, the infrastructure is being strengthened, force units for breaking through the defense and large-scale attack are being formed. This is the situation when NATO could implement this option of strategic reacting. But if Ukraine does not have a clearly defined position, NATO does not have one either.”
