General-Colonel Mykola Petruk has an excellent service record. After graduating from the Higher General Army Command College of Baku in 1971, he completed his studies at the Frunze Military Academy in 1983. Ten years later he graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. From that time, he climbed almost every rung of the military career ladder in the Soviet army, starting as a motorized infantry platoon leader in the Subcarpathian Military District and ending as commander of a motorized infantry brigade in the Republic of Cuba. In independent Ukraine he was commander of a motorized division, then of an army corps, and finally Commander of Land Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In recognition of his service he was awarded the Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, 3rd Class.
In March 2006, Petruk was elected to the Verkhovna Rada (No. 9 in the BYuT slate) and was a member of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defense. On June 12, 2007, together with other MPs from the BYuT, he relinquished his seat in parliament; he is running again under the same slate number. This candidate MP considers the BYuT leader’s initiative concerning the abolition of conscription as of Jan. 1, 2008, as a perfectly realistic and necessary measure.
Why is it necessary to abandon conscription as soon as possible, and how can a speedy transition to a professional army be accomplished? Can the Ukrainian army secure our country’s territorial integrity single-handedly? General-Colonel Mykola PETRUK answers these and other questions in the following exclusive interview with The Day.
“WE MAY HAVE PASSED THE STAGE WHEN THE PROFESSIONAL ARMY ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY RESOLVED”
As reported earlier, Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc undertook to abolish conscription as of Jan. 1, 2008, and organize a professional army by 2009. Minister of Defense Anatolii Hrytsenko responded to this by declaring that a transition to contract service, beginning on Jan. 1, 2008, is an adventurist and totally unrealistic idea: “Calls for a transition to contract service starting on Jan. 1, 2008, would result in the collapse of the current army and the discrediting of the very idea of a professional army. No one will allow this. I not 100 percent convinced but 100,000 percent.” As a professional military man, do you think that such a quick transition to contract service is possible? Former Defense Minister Oleksandr Kuzmuk — currently Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine for National Security and Defense — also said that reductions to the armed forces and transition to contract service were being done too quickly.
Petruk: I would put it this way. We may have passed the stage when the professional army issue could have been completely resolved. This could have been done two or three years ago. I take every opportunity to say that this would involve financing to the tune of 2.5-3 percent of the GDP, or about 20 billion hryvnias. All this could have been done earlier if the government had started financing the army properly. Then there would not have been any problems. Let me tell you something else. Ask any officer and he will tell you that he would rather have trained men serving under contract during a training or combat mission.
“THESE ARE JUST POLITICAL TRICKS”
Hrytsenko says that there was nothing about army reform in your program before Sept. 1, especially slogans about switching to contract service.
Petruk: Everything was there. It’s just that he never reads our programs. If the minister read them, it would be normal. As it is, these are just political tricks.
What is your view of the statement made by Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Party of Regions, who signed a program to reform the armed forces in 2004, which envisaged a sharp reduction in manpower, and who now says that reforming the army is tantamount to destroying it?
Petruk: What can I say? If you consider the units of the combat complement that are needed in 2009-10, everything has been decided. Let me explain: a combat complement is made up of units that will carry out combat missions. These are motorized, tank, air force, and airmobile brigades or regiments. The Navy needs new vessels because we won’t be prepared with the old ones. There is only one problem: reductions in units that won’t be part of the Armed Forces; I mean warehouses, bases, armories, and so on. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have a combat complement and it won’t be reduced or increased.
What about Yanukovych’s statements concerning the need to revise and halt the ongoing program of military reform?
Petruk: I think that deploying divisions that are no longer in the Armed Forces is — well, I don’t want to use a bad word. However, I can assure you that this will never happen again. Where was our friend Yanukovych, why didn’t he do anything about this when he was prime minister under Kuchma, when it was being planned? Everything was being planned precisely at that time. He knows the number of combat units that were to be included in the Armed Forces and their strength until 2010. The combat complement is the foundation of the Armed Forces and everybody works to have it ready to carry out missions.
“EITHER EVERYONE IS DRAFTED OR NO ONE IS”
General Petruk, what do you think the Ukrainian army should be like by the end of the year according to your program?
Petruk: There mustn’t be a single conscript left by the end of 2008. Instead, we must have 36,000 men serving under contract — and well paid, of course. We said earlier that this means 600-700 dollars and up for a lieutenant, around 1,000. Then there will be no problems. We’ll have 36,000 men and we won’t need conscripts in 2008. I will tell you honestly: I am closer to the troops. I served in the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a division and corps commander. You see all those conscripts, when 18-year-olds come into the army, when there are no logistics, and they are not completing the training program, so by the time they are finished they are absolutely unprepared even to be reservists. So why spend money on them from the Armed Forces and the state budgets? It’s better not to draft them and save the money. Only one out of ten conscripts is actually drafted. It isn’t fair that one is drafted and nine aren’t. It’s either everyone is drafted or no one.
You are probably aware that conscription has not been fully abolished in Germany. They’re in no hurry to do this in Poland either. Both countries believe that conscription maintains a link between the army and the people, and now we are rejecting this.
Petruk: You must understand that German soldiers are not fighting in Afghanistan. The law forbids them from carrying out any missions abroad. Leading the Fifth Brigade into Iraq, I knew that I wouldn’t have agreed to be assigned any missions in Iraq with 18-year-old boys. There would have been too many losses. As it was, my men were at least 25 years old. Such servicemen have a strong moral core, they aren’t easily scared. They are mature men capable of fulfilling the tasks assigned to them. So there won’t be any problems. But yesterday’s schoolboys, and untrained to boot...I don’t want even to mention what could happen in this case.
“POLITICAL LEADERSHIP MUST FULLY OCCUPY ITSELF WITH REFORMING THE ARMY”
You haven’t specified the strength of the Ukrainian army by the end of 2008 if your program is implemented.
Petruk: Today its strength is some 220,000 men and officers, but this number includes bases and armories. If the reduction of these bases and armories is normally financed, if our friend Yanukovych had some department within the Cabinet of Ministers that would help the Armed Forces, instead of piling the whole issue on the defense minister, AF command, and General Staff, this process would be much quicker, of course. As it is, they are responsible for everything, and so they simply can’t keep pace with everything. Military reform has become the problem of the defense minister and the general staff. This is a big mistake. The political leadership must fully occupy itself with reforming the army. That’s why I say that all of this could have been accomplished three years ago, but they put the defense minister and the general staff in charge and expect the army reform to be carried out on time. If the current pace of this reform is maintained, it may be dragged out until 2011.
I seem to remember that there used to be a State Commission on the Reform of the Armed Forces.
Petruk: It’s not working. When I was Commander of the Land Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, I never saw a single member of this commission. They never asked me, the commander, if I had any problems, how they could help me solve them, what I needed that they could provide so that I could carry out this program. We have three commanders of the armed services. Except for the defense minister and chief of the general staff, no one from that state commission ever visited me and asked questions.
“WE HAVE TO BE IN SOME BLOC”
Suppose we look at the situation from a broader angle, particularly the role of the army in the context of ensuring Ukraine’s security. Can our army secure our territorial integrity?
Petruk: Not with the kind of combat complement and units that we have, no.
What should be done?
Petruk: We have to be in some kind of bloc. This is my personal view. However, the BYuT’s stand is that the Ukrainian people must decide on Ukraine’s membership in some bloc.
NATO MEMBERSHIP “MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PEOPLE”
In other words, you disagree with the foreign minister, Arsenii Yatseniuk, who said that the decision on entering a bloc must be made by politicians?
Petruk: This is wrong. I believe this must be determined by the people.
Polls show that a mere 20 percent of the Ukrainian population support Ukraine’s NATO membership, so when will this issue be on the agenda?
Petruk: We are reforming the army to make it more or less combat ready. People will see this army. Ultimately, time heals all wounds. I think that everything will be fine in 10 to 15 years. People will consider the pros and cons and will eventually make a decision precisely along these lines. We shouldn’t rush the NATO membership issue.
THE WEST’S TOLERANCE, THE MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN (MAP), AND YANUKOVYCH’S MISTAKE
Do you think Ukraine should hurry to raise the level of cooperation with NATO and join the Membership Action Plan (MAP)?
Petruk: We have cooperation with NATO and it is evolving. However, Russia is cooperating much better than we are. Their work is better organized, and this cooperation is taking place on the highest level compared to Ukraine, although everyone is shouting that we’re cooperating on a large scale with the Alliance and are organizing joint maneuvers. Russia stages ten times more joint maneuvers with NATO forces. Whenever one of our warships casts anchor somewhere, we start having problems.
General Petruk, you must remember the 2003 NATO summit in Istanbul when Ukraine had a real opportunity to join the MAP and President Leonid Kuchma was ready to do this, but the West refused to admit us. Do you think the West made a mistake?
Petruk: I think the West should have adopted a more tolerant attitude to Ukraine a long time ago, but this is my opinion.
Do you think that the prime minister made a mistake last September when he rejected the idea of Ukraine joining the MAP? There were expectations at the time that NATO was prepared to raise the level of cooperation with Ukraine, but Yanukovych declared that Ukraine wasn’t prepared to take this step.
Petruk: Yes, I think the prime minister made a mistake.
“DOMESTIC POLICY MUST BE AIMED AT EXPLAINING NATO TO THE PEOPLE”
Let’s go back to the subject of collective security. On the one hand, Ukraine borders on NATO countries; on the other, on the Collective Security Treaty in which Russia is playing the leading role. How can Ukraine maintain its balance in this grip and ensure its own security?
Petruk: We have to find ways to cooperate and get closer to the North Atlantic Alliance. Even if this takes 10 or 15 years, we must keep this in mind and gradually get there. Under no circumstances must we allow these cracks to widen, we have to mend them. This is our only prospect.
What do you think of the statement made by a Party of Regions official, who said that NATO must promote itself in Ukraine? Ukraine has a program for public information about the Alliance. On Sept. 14, 2006, our prime minister declared in Brussels that it is necessary to build a positive image for NATO in our country.
Petruk: We must develop a program in our country. People must be told what NATO is all about. I am not against NATO people visiting us, discussing this issue, and informing the public. However, this problem must be solved within our country. First of all, it is necessary for our political leadership to realize what they want instead of flailing about, right and left, and it is not clear what has to be done. Some people do one thing, others do something else, and others come up with something else. We have to determine our course. Our domestic policy must be aimed at explaining NATO to the people. Whereas the Party of Region regards NATO as a military-political bloc, I would say that it is a political-military one.
I had a taste of this when I was leading the brigade into Iraq and was helped by NATO countries — there were many of them there. If my brigade and I had been alone, we wouldn’t have carried out our mission. In my sector I was assisted by the British and they arranged things so that I didn’t lose a single man. When I entered the Italian sector, the Italians helped me. The Americans provided constant air support, so I reached the deployment site without sustaining any losses. If I had gone alone with my mechanized brigade, I don’t know what would have happened during the six days it took us to get to Al Kut. This is why those who did not take part in combat actions and were not in those areas do not understand this. If they had been sent there, even for one week, they would understand what it’s like to operate jointly with forces from other countries that actually help you; then they would talk differently.
PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS AND HONING COMBAT SKILLS IN HOT SPOTS
Since we’ve broached the subject of the Ukrainian army’s peacekeeping activities, do you think that our military units should take part in peacekeeping operations — for example, in Afghanistan?
Petruk: No, I don’t. We have no business there so far; we must make every effort here, inside, to have our combat complement of units ready to carry out missions, but not the way we form a unit by detaching men from all over the Armed Forces. We must have regiments, brigades, and battalions that can be sent in a full complement with its commander to complete a mission, but not the way it is done in our country, where they forma national team out of the Armed Forces.
Generally speaking, is taking part in peacekeeping missions useful for Ukrainian servicemen?
Petruk: I am convinced it is. They must hone their skills not only in peaceful conditions but also in hot spots, where they have to operate under enemy fire. However, you have to see where this can be done and where to send our troops. If it is clear that a situation is very complicated and difficult, our men shouldn’t be sent there to hone their skills.
When we were sending our contingent to Iraq, we really expected that this would allow Ukraine to obtain contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Petruk: I’m a military man, and I don’t know what arrangements were made on the governmental level. I was carrying out a mission. I led my brigade, completed my mission, and I’m proud that I didn’t lose a single man while I was there.
What if Iraq asks Ukraine to send another contingent?
Petruk: The situation there is entirely different. The Americans are gradually withdrawing, so I don’t think there will be another mission for Ukrainians there.
“THREE MONTHS AFTER I WON A SEAT IN THE FIFTH VERKHOVNA RADA I BECAME DISILLUSIONED”
If you don’t object, let’s talk about politics. General, what is it like being a politician, or rather, working as one?
Petruk (laughing): Three months after I won a seat in the fifth Verkhovna Rada I became disillusioned; I wished I were somewhere else, but you can’t go back on your decision. You can think things over, but once you embark on a path, you have to go to the end.
Will you be going to the end in the new Verkhovna Rada?
Petruk: I think so. I’ll keep working. I have already worked as a member of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and Defense. I will keep on struggling to help the Armed Forces, prepare bills that are useful for the AF, and do everything so that the Ukrainian army will be properly trained and ready to carry out the tasks it is facing.
“PEOPLE IN THE OPPOSITION ALSO WORK”
Will your work be affected if your party finds itself in the opposition?
Petruk: People in the opposition also work. If the bill on the opposition is passed, we’ll be able to resolve a number of issues.
I heard former Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski’s speech “The Election Drama in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia” at the US Atlantic Council. He said it is very difficult, almost impossible, for him to describe the BYuT party as left— or right-wing, or social democratic. He went on to say that the BYuT isn’t very creative in terms of ideology, politics, or program, so far as Ukraine is concerned. Would you care to comment on this and also explain the BYuT’s ideology to our readers?
Petruk: You have to read our program to see what is there. Then those who talk about it, particularly politicians abroad, will have an altogether different impression. You simply have to read the BYuT program carefully.
Could you describe your party’s ideology in your own words: is it left— or right-wing, right— or left-centrist?
Petruk: We’re following our own direction. We are not joining anyone. I’d say we tend to be left-centrist.
