Warsaw hosted the third round of consultations between Ukraine and NATO at the defense ministers’ level. How was this meeting different from the previous ones?
Holopatiuk: The meeting was held in a very positive microclimate. The agenda included a great many issues, particularly reform, not only in the sphere of defense, but also in the entire security sector. Another characteristic distinction was that countries that became NATO members only recently, during the first and second rounds of enlargement, set the tone of the consultations. I should mention statements made by Lithuanian Defense Minister Linas LinkeviПius, who stressed that Ukrainian efforts to integrate into NATO are valuable in and of themselves, not to mention the prospects of NATO membership of which Vilnius has no doubt. He said that Ukraine is almost ready for NATO membership. In general, the tone of the consultations was definitely set by the new member countries; they were unanimous in supporting the need to expand the format of the Ukraine-NATO relationship. Many attending the meeting frequently stated that it was time to start working in the membership action plan format.
You say that the new NATO members were unanimous in their support. Does this mean that NATO may have no solid strategy with regard to Ukraine?
Holopatiuk: No, I’d like to stress that an unofficial conference took place in Warsaw, based on the principle of sharing ideas, commentaries, and criticism. No one intended to take an official stand or voice a concept or strategy. Consultations are ongoing, different views are being expressed, and after that everything is summed up and accumulated into a certain strategy and approach.
You mentioned three thematic modules during the meeting in Warsaw. What were they all about? How did NATO members respond to some of the issues?
Holopatiuk: The first module was called “ Progress Achieved by Ukraine in Implementing Defence and Security Sector Reforms.” Volodymyr Horbulin, head of the National Center for Euro-Atlantic Integration, addressed this topic. He focused on problems related to reforms in the security sector. One idea that was proposed concerned the need to consolidate all power structures in order to carry out this kind of reform, and that more coordination was required on the part of the government. Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk gave a speech during the second part of the meeting, which was devoted to the prospects of Ukraine’s further participation in NATO peacekeeping operations. The points in question were our contribution to peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, and our assistance to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The possibility of enlisting Ukraine in NATO’s Active Endeavor operations in the Mediterranean region was also discussed. In addition, Yevhen Marchuk shared some views concerning the stabilization process in Iraq. During the discussions in this module US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Ian Brzezinski made a memorable statement to the effect that Ukraine is operating as a de facto NATO member. Polish Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski in turn noted that Poland values Ukraine as a strategic partner not only because it occupies an important geopolitical position, but also because of the contribution it is making. He added that values inherent in the Ukrainian military and political elite tally with those upheld by NATO countries. The third module concerned support of the reforms in Ukraine. National Security and Defense Council Deputy Secretary Serhiy Pyrozhkov gave a speech outlining the priorities that must be considered in the next couple of months and years of cooperation between Ukraine and the alliance. During this part of the consultation even countries, such as Canada and Spain, regarded as the patriarchs of the alliance, made it perfectly clear that they were convinced that taking effective measures within the action plan framework would result in Ukraine’s candidacy and then full NATO membership.
A number of experts noted that the Warsaw meeting would more or less clearly formulate the Ukraine-NATO Commission’s agenda for the Istanbul summit. Did this happen?
Holopatiuk: No such goal was designated. At the moment, no one can say exactly what issues will be discussed by the commission, although the results of the conference will certainly have a decisive effect on the formation of the Istanbul agenda. No doubt about that. I think that they will mainly discuss Ukraine’s progress in adopting measures in keeping with the action plan and the annual target plan. NATO will determine how effectively Ukraine is coping with its “homework,” which is rather complicated.
Meaning that the membership action plan won’t be on the Istanbul agenda?
Holopatiuk: NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk correctly pointed out that placing the issue at the top of the Istanbul agenda would be incorrect and improper. Look at the preliminary NATO summit agenda and you’ll see that it contains major conceptual issues. The alliance is experiencing a difficult period involving numerous problems, including the Mediterranean region, Middle East, Balkans, and NATO capabilities relative to enlargement. It would be hard to predict the summit’s outcome if the agenda included Ukrainian membership. All the experts who are familiar with internal NATO procedures are openly smiling and saying that placing the matter on the agenda would make no sense. Things like that were done under the Soviets, when certain events would be pegged to a congress. NATO works on entirely different principles. Skeptics who say that no one is promising us anything and or giving us anything are wrong. NATO never makes any promises to anyone. NATO promised one time to have an open door policy, and if they want, other countries can take advantage of it. Ukraine made certain commitments and is implementing them scrupulously. Yes, we have shortcomings, but we honestly point them out and try to solve them. We shouldn’t expect anything extraordinary from the Istanbul summit. Suffice it to say that Ukraine received a top-level invitation to attend, without any backstage wheelings and dealings. Ukraine will feel rather confident at the summit, since a lot has been accomplished. The Warsaw consultations were further proof that we are on the right track. NATO can see that Ukraine is a future partner, worth dealing with, and that it is making a tangible contribution, so Ukraine’s candidacy and full membership are simply a matter of time.
NATO’s Secretary General said in Warsaw that supremacy of the law and freedom of speech are the key prerequisites of the Ukrainian-NATO rapprochement. Which part of the consultations was dedicated to the problem of democratic transformations?
Holopatiuk: A discussion of political matters was not meant to be part of the agenda in principle. The participants focused on reform in the security and defense sector. The delegations were headed by defense ministers responsible for certain spheres in their countries, so political aspects were actually left out.
Did any of the NATO people say that extending the format of cooperation with NATO would depend on the transparency of the presidential elections in Ukraine?
Holopatiuk: Frankly, I heard this only from journalists in the lobby. NATO doesn’t work that way. It would be absurd to make such statements. The only thing that they expect from us is that we fulfill our commitments. Sooner or later we’ll get to the point where we’ll be discussing a broader format of cooperation. I am perfectly sure that this may well happen toward the end of the year. Why not?
A memorandum was signed in Warsaw about NATO using Ukrainian cargo aircraft. This was probably another characteristic feature of the consultations?
Holopatiuk: Indeed, this was one of the most important results of the consultations. From the political standpoint, this memorandum confirmed Ukraine’s consistent position. Let me explain something, as there have been many interpretations of this document. The memorandum is a framework instrument; it doesn’t specify payments, flights, or aircraft models. Its purpose is to establish NATO procedures governing the use of our cargo aircraft in case of need, such as missions or training. The document clearly defines the general terms and commitments on the part of Ukraine and NATO countries, general funding and insurance principles, and so on. I don’t think there will be significant problems ratifying the memorandum, since its economic advantages, not to mention immense political dividends, are self-evident.
