The US and Ukrainian military have at last come to grips with the project discussed during US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Kyiv last June, when it was announced for the first time that the US was ready to assist Ukraine in assessing its defense capability. Before that, the Pentagon had been doing this kind of analytical research jointly with the Baltic states, Bulgaria, and Georgia, which had expressed their goal of NATO membership. By contrast, Ukraine declares no Euro-Atlantic aspirations, only confining itself to the European vector in foreign policy. Yet, Ukraine tries to be among the leaders in military contacts with the US and NATO. Or perhaps some others are trying to keep this country among the leaders. Even though Russian President Vladimir Putin, together with Leonid Kuchma, inspected a military parade on Khreshchatyk, US ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual claims that this year “Ukraine is implementing 120 various schemes with NATO, about 80 with the United States, and approximately 55 with the Russian Federation” in the field of security.
What has become an important landmark in the military cooperation between Ukraine and the US is the session of the bilateral US-Ukrainian Security Committee held in Kyiv in late August. Although convened for the thirteenth time since 1993, this was the first session since the new administration came to power in America. US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice visited Ukraine. These visits only confirmed the great importance the US attaches to relations with Ukraine. This is the opinion shared by Edward P USEY , director of the US Defense Department’s office for cooperation with Eurasian countries, who headed the American delegation during the Kyiv talks.
“The US is going to cut financial aid to Ukraine next year. This raises no doubts among US legislators. Will this also reflect on the funding of US foreign military cooperation programs?”
“We can now talk about this only in general outlines. For this is a continuous process. I try to be very careful about terms when such things are in question. While some call it aid, I prefer the term acting together. We work taking into account the general objectives that suit both the US and Ukraine.
“The US renders assistance to Ukraine under the budget item on foreign military aid which allows handing over hardware and equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces, thus improving the situation in military education, training for peacekeeping operations, etc. Another expenditure item envisaged by US legislation is funding various training project with the participation of the American military.
“We are going to have about $7 million under the first article, with some amounts to be added next year under the second article. As to the mechanism of utilizing these funds, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and General Staff will have to establish their priorities. On our part, we analyze this and decide what we can take part in. Besides, this is a free-flowing process without any preset dates, periods, or sizes.”
“The US and Ukrainian military have long been saying it would be a good idea to conclude a memorandum of mutual understanding on the exchange of secret information. The memorandum was also mentioned this time. Is it going to be signed at all?”
“This was not part of the official negotiations we held. But I am sure the subject you’ve mentioned will be discussed in due time.”
“But this in fact means the US and Ukrainian military currently have no legal instruments to begin military and technical cooperation. For the memorandum is expected to be the first step toward contacts in this field.”
“No, I would not say so. Just the contrary, a section of our bilateral committee did discuss the exchange of military and technical information. One should not only think that the exchange of this information must be classified as top secret. In the US, many of the things we do are not secret. More often than not, it is a question of the military application of conventional technologies. The Kyiv talks pivoted precisely on these points. There is a huge array of information that can be exchanged in this field without having to be classified.”
“Ukraine wants to hand over or sell a batch of its armored vehicles to the US. In particular, this hardware could be used on US proving grounds. Is there any progress in this direction?”
“We have other experts who are in touch with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense on this issue. These talks are ongoing. But no agreement has so far been reached.”
“One of the important results of the committee’s session was practical implementation of the idea to assess Ukraine’s defense capability. Does the American side believe this will help modify the military reform plans now being carried out in Ukraine on the basis of our programs?”
“Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksandr Kuzmuk and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld came to the common conclusion that joint work will be done to assess defense capabilities. In the course of the meeting, the committee set the dates for and worked out the methods of this work. I want to point out this will be a joint analysis. We hope the results and conclusions of this study will serve the military reform goals set by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. The analysis must take into account the interests of both sides. The Ukrainian side should be helped to decide on the best way to carry out its planned changes. The American side should ascertain in which spheres we can make efforts to help Ukraine in this endeavor on a bilateral basis. We look forward to this joint analytical project being unfolded.”
“What time limit has been set to assess Ukraine’s defense capability?”
“This process will start after a bilateral agreement has been signed in the next few weeks. Then analytical groups will work for a few months. Only after this will the final analysis be presented.”
INSTEAD OF AN AFTERWORD
The US side can be expected to try to convince its Ukrainian counterpart in the course of the joint analysis that this country’s actual financial capabilities is the primary thing, while the number and arsenals of the troops is something secondary and not the other way round. For instance, when dealing with Georgia, the Pentagon recommended Tbilisi cut its army from its present-day 20,000 to 12-13,000. As to Ukraine, the list of the coming recommendations is most likely to include measures that Kyiv will try to implement by means of US financial aid. In particular, this is the gradual abolition of conscription and final adoption of volunteer armed forces, training of multinational staff officers at the National Defense College, the reduction and conversion of military bases into commercial structures with the participation of retired officers (the trial run could be done at the Uzyn Airfield, where the strategic bombers were previously based).
It is completely possible that the number of bilateral schemes conducted by the US and Ukrainian defense departments will be slashed next year. The current program of cooperation for 2001 features 88 cooperative action, including 25-27 based on collaboration with the national guards of Kansas and California. The experience of 1999, which saw the largest number of bilateral US-Ukrainian schemes (120), testified to the formal, rather than practically useful, nature of such schemes. A certain number of schemes was also duplicated with Ukraine-NATO cooperation programs. Following this, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to draw up methods to answer the question: of what kind of Ukraine does the US want to see twenty years later? Only then could the announced targets be reached by implementing cooperation plans within three to five and ten to fifteen years. First of all, this implies restructuring the armed forces so that they fit in with NATO structures.
This year total US aid toward the development of military cooperation with Ukraine is an estimated $9 million.
