On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Armed Forces, Den/The Day asked the website readers: “December 6 marks the Ukrainian Armed Services Day; do you think that your Armed Forces adequately carry out their main duty? Do you feel protected?” Replies: “Yes, I do. Our Armed Forces rely on the heritage of the powerful Soviet military-industrial complex” (1.15 percent); “Yes, I do. Ukraine’s participation in international peacekeeping missions across the world is proof of this country’s high military standard” (2.88 percent); “Our Armed Forces can adequately discharge their functions if and when reformed (e.g., contract service)” (6.14 percent); “No, I don’t. Our Armed Forces have lost their prestige for want of morale, because of corruption and lack of funding” (58.73 percent); “No, I don’t because Ukraine’s non-bloc status has deprived our Armed Forces of the possibility of developing in accordance with international standards” (29.17 percent). This website registered over 500 visitors.
The following is an interview with Valentyn BADRAK, director, Army Conversion and Disarmament Study Center.
Mr. Badrak, we have a red-letter date, but is there reason enough to celebrate it?
“There is none. Sad but true. Over the 20 years of Ukrainian independence its Armed Forces can hardly be used for the key objective of containing acts of aggression. In other words, there is no way our military can meet a single challenge in the international sense of the word. Why?
“First, because our materiel is obsolete, lagging behind in terms of ge-nerations, compared to the developed countries. Ukraine received what was left of the Soviet Armed Forces: 900 officers and men, and lots of Soviet materiel, so Ukraine didn’t have to finance its Armed Forces for a certain period of time, but by the year 2000 our materiel had become outdated, and there was a noticeable decline in terms of morale.
“It was then that a rocket hit an apartment house, followed by other cases showing that something had gone wrong with our Armed Forces in general and military training in particular.
“Of course, materiel isn’t the only indicator of military efficiency. In Ukraine, however, it reflects the attitude of the existing political elite to national security. We keep hearing about Ukraine’s stable and harmonious geopolitical status. This reminds me of what happened at Tuzla in 2003, or when a neighboring country threatened Ukraine with war in 2008-09. Today we have to determine whether or not Ukraine needs truly effective armed forces, because what we have is no good.”
You have mentioned loss of prestige, yet there are polls showing that the ratings of our Armed Forces — and our Church — are way over those of the Verkhovna Rada.
“Ratings, indeed, but that’s how the Ukrainian in the street sees a man in uniform, assuming military discipline and skills. What I mean by that loss of prestige is that we no longer have an army that can actually protect this country against an aggressor. Take my word: few if any believe that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can do just that. A rank-and-file commanding officer is paid a bit more than a supermarket cashier, although he is responsible for manpower and materiel.
“This financial and social status of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is enough proof that their prestige has gone down the drain; there are increasingly fewer people prepared to believe in a military career. Previously this career was prestigious. Not now… A US officer can email his resume for a business vacancy while serving in the army. No such chance for a Ukrainian officer. The same is true of the contract servicemen: no housing, education privileges; meager payroll (while the law says it has to be 30 percent higher than Ukraine’s average monthly pay).”
