“Your problems are our problems,” Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, declared when visiting Kyiv. This statement should not be taken literally, because what he actually meant was a narrow strictly defined range of problems. Western analysts have long noticed that the Ukrainian-NATO relationship is so far in sharp contrast to that between the alliance and Moscow. It is also obvious that Ukraine is still playing the role assigned it rather well: at least, it is not hostile to NATO, much to Moscow’s chagrin. This makes a number of Western experts assume that Ukraine is being used as a pawn in the Great Game between the West and Russia, an assumption that might not be all that far off the mark. For one thing, nuclear Russia is surely a far more important factor for the world than nuclear- free Ukraine, just as it is apparent that the West, particularly the United States and its European allies, will eventually come to terms with the Kremlin.
Another obvious truth is that Western society, once it has reached a certain goal, starts losing interest even in its immediate neighborhood.
“Your problems are our problems” is essentially true when applied, say, to Partnership for Peace. It is generally known that Ukraine’s participation in PfP programs within the framework of Ukrainian-NATO cooperation is largely financed by the North Atlantic alliance. And it means more than military projects. Yet it is hard to imagine NATO will loose much sleep over, for example, Ukrainian military reform. Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk says that NATO representatives criticized Kyiv for lack of progress in precisely this sphere. Of course, Ukraine is being offered certain Western experience, concepts, and approaches, but Ukraine will have to foot the bill anyway. Similarly, it is hard to imagine NATO helping Kyiv reason with Moscow that it will have to withdraw from Sevastopol sooner or later (provided, of course, Ukraine really intends to develop as a truly independent state). Interviewed by The Day several weeks ago (No. 3, February 1), Lord Robertson noted that NATO cannot insist that its member countries buy more aircraft from Ukraine and that this problem remains to be solved by Ukraine itself. It is also obvious that sooner or later Ukraine will have to define where it want to go further much more clearly than it has up to now. Kyiv will have to decide whose side Ukraine is on. It is highly unlikely that Ukraine, a large country that really is important to the system of European security and stability, can keep intact its current neutral and non- bloc status. And this is another problem not likely to be NATO’s problem.
Simultaneously, one of Ukraine’s problems will always be to properly understand NATO, its current status and policy, and whose interests it is actually serves (considering the Kosovo saga).
The way things are now, it is safe to assume that there is more common ground than differences between Ukraine and NATO, and that the stated deepening of cooperation really could result in a deep reform of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, for the military is one of the most basic attributes of any state.
