I have read the report stating that Ukraine’s accession to NATO was rightfully included into the coalition agreement. I am pleased with it very much. Now, I would like to explain what those tasked with implementing this idea need to know. Ukraine is currently cooperating with NATO within the framework which is called the Annual Action Plan. It includes more than 100 different measures, which are developed in conjunction with the NATO headquarters. Two-thirds of the plan, as a rule, deal with activities outside the military sphere. It concerns reforming economy, judicial and law-enforcement systems, freedom of speech promotion and other non-military spheres. This plan does not provide for accession to NATO. It may be fulfilled to the best of our ability, but then, one may well put no special effort into it, as we saw under Viktor Yanukovych. NATO has such cooperation plans with many countries that have never been going to join NATO. Russia is one of them.
For those who want to join the alliance in the future, there is another mode. It is called Membership Action Plan (MAP). It is different for each candidate. Being annual, it consists of many (150 or more) measures. About 30 percent of them are military and defense-related. The remaining 70 percent have to do with eradication of corruption, reforming economy, judicial and law-enforcement systems, freedom of speech and human rights promotion, government assistance to civil society development, fair electoral laws... More generally, they serve to enable adaptation of economy, state and society to European standards through the transformation of law and fundamental reforms.
However, getting the MAP is not that simple. It must be agreed to by all the members of NATO after considering the candidate nation’s application at a special summit of the alliance, followed by approving the plan itself, pre-designed with the participation of NATO headquarters. NATO is also a club of states which do not accept to membership politically and militarily unpredictable partners, thoroughly permeated with corruption of the state machine.
Yes, this is the world’s most powerful system of collective defense and security. Still, it has long been concerned with other issues as well. Russia, however, has broken this happy calm lately. The alliance is similar to a fashionable aristocratic club. Therefore, when adding to the text of the coalition agreement this very correct and very relevant point, it should be understood what we will have to do before getting assent of the alliance can be a seriously entertained prospect. Meanwhile, an application may be submitted at any time. Even now, especially since we submitted one before.
It should be borne in mind that the MAP can last for several years. It has no rigid timing. We must understand that even if, after the MAP is completely fulfilled, NATO summit will decide to admit our country to the membership, the final decision will require parliaments of all 28 NATO countries to agree to this. These are not parliaments of some totalitarian regimes.
Since Article 5 of the NATO Charter enshrines principle “One for all and all for one,” while Ukraine is de facto at war, it is unrealistic to expect parliaments of all these countries to gladly vote for sending their soldiers to fight somewhere. At the same time, I am not even going into what efforts will Russia make to counteract this process.
I remember that when Romania was joining NATO, its president Ion Iliescu then came to us several times and begged president Leonid Kuchma to have Ukraine to officially declare that Ukraine and Romania had no contentious border issues, including on the Zmiiny Island. NATO does not admit countries having border disputes with their neighbors.
NATO (remember, it means 28 heads of state and 28 national parliaments) is not interested to take on some additional headaches. It has enough of its own problems. To ask a rhetorical question, do we have today a border issue with Russia? Formally, we seem to have no such issue. However, the mature politicians of NATO nations are unlikely to believe it.
We need to take a sober look at things. Striving to join NATO is certainly necessary, but it must be understood that nobody will fight for us with our current status. Moreover, each NATO country has its own internal problems, like elections, opposition activities, unemployment, financial crises, etc. Nobody wants to take on even more problems by admitting Ukraine. Political pressure on Russia, political support of Ukraine is a given. We should thank them for it. Sanctions on Russia are more complicated, as they hurt their businesses, that is, their voters. On the other hand, military involvement on our side is off the table, as it needs to be analyzed in more detail.
I am saying this only so that those who are planning our path to NATO have a real idea of what an incredibly hard road we have to go through to get to NATO. We have to do it, there is no alternative. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step! New members of the Verkhovna Rada include several lawmakers who know all these procedures and technologies, so advisors are there. It is possible that the mode of entry into NATO, which I have outlined above, can be changed, and Ukraine will be an exception. It would be very good, but it will be very difficult to achieve.
A perimeter system of defense and security, which is really needed by Ukraine now, will cost us dearly and will be incredibly inefficient. We sit at a juncture of two military-political blocs. All of our western neighbors are NATO members, while all other neighbors are members of another military-political bloc, called the CSTO and led by Russia. Russia has long imposed on our leaders the idea that our neutral status will guarantee our security. Many of our self-styled intellectuals were infected by this idea and began to propose Austria and Turkmenistan as examples, as countries that received this status under the security guarantee from the UN. They say these countries are doing well in this way, and had only Ukraine enshrined its neutral status in the constitution and received assurances from the UN Security Council, then we all would have been happy and problem-free.
This idea was actively promoted by Russia as well, and Yanukovych was seduced by it. This story is well studied and widely speculated about. I know all the arguments of supporters and opponents of the idea. There is not enough space for discussing it all here, I can only say one thing: we have already got a good lesson with the Budapest Memorandum and are now reaping the fruits of its guarantees. Stories of obtaining non-aligned status by Austria and Turkmenistan are very different and they cannot be compared with our situation, not to mention the fact that they have no border with Russia, and Austria is fully surrounded by NATO countries and is a de facto consumer of the NATO system of defense and security.
There are many twists and turns to this topic, which should be discussed separately. I can only say one thing now. We have been a non-aligned state for 23 years, which has resulted in a Russian aggression which was not caused by some decisions of Ukraine’s government to join NATO. Thus, Russia itself, its aggression against Ukraine, has completely destroyed all the above reasons in favor of the non-aligned status and it is pushing us to deciding promptly to abandon our non-aligned status. Yes, Russia will dig in its heels to prevent our Euro-Atlantic integration, it will try to really frighten members of NATO itself among other measures.
However, if we do not take decisive steps towards Euro-Atlantic integration in the near future, with full understanding of the problems and difficulties which I have mentioned above, we will lay a serious problem (I do not want to call it a mine) under the foundations of our national independence for decades. We must take this decision, but we must understand as well that NATO does not owe anything to us. Therefore, we need to not only beg for support, but also demonstrate by concrete actions that we are ready, willing, and determined to fulfill all the requirements for NATO candidates and do not count on any waivers. In any case, we should not behave like a poor relative, begging for a free lunch, or as an eternal victim. They do not like such applicants. Our line for NATO should be “Yes, we are now having it very hard, but we want to be your partners on mutually beneficial terms.”
