NATO’s trump cards

After the blatant annexation of Crimea by Russia, situation on the eastern and southern borders of Ukraine remains tense. The West and NATO in particular have joined our country in understanding it. A proof of it is this statement by the NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe Philip Breedlove, who said: “There is absolutely sufficient Russian force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Transnistria if the decision is made to do that, and that is very worrisome.”

The West understands how difficult is the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s situation. The now-dismissed Acting Defense Minister Ihor Teniukh confessed to the Verkhovna Rada that while the ground forces roll included 41,000 soldiers, only 6,000 of them were actually battle-ready. Moreover, only 1 out of 98 aircraft were air-worthy. Since mid-March, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which are holding exercises near the eastern borders of Ukraine and in Crimea, have been maintaining 220,000-strong force there, equipped with 1,800 tanks, over 400 helicopters, 150 aircraft, and 60 ships.

Clearly, in this situation Ukraine needs to look for allies. However, Ukraine, not being a member of NATO, cannot technically benefit from Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which can be restated as “one for all and all for one,” i.e., an armed attack against one member state is an armed attack against them all. Ukraine was equally unable to use guarantees offered by the Budapest Memorandum in defense of its territorial integrity after it had been violated by Russia, a signatory of this document.

The Day asked former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2007-09) Volodymyr Ohryzko to comment on proposals to strengthen the security of Ukraine after his recent visit to the NATO headquarters as a member of a high-level expert delegation on security and defense, which had the opportunity to talk with the Alliance leadership, in particular on the strengthening of security in Ukraine due to the aggressive actions of Russia.

Did you discuss plans for a return of Crimea to Ukraine, because even Barack Obama said on March 25 that it was not a done deal yet?

“Our understanding of the situation is that we have to quickly show the attractiveness of the new European Ukraine not only for its temporary occupied region, but for the neighbors, too, including Belarus, Russia, and all other post-Soviet countries. So, we feel no need to start a war that would threaten to escalate into a global one, but we do need to be an example of the economic benefits of European path. Additionally, we need a real reorganization of the Ukrainian armed forces and assistance in ensuring that they are in proper condition for defense, for protection of the sovereignty of Ukraine, as the second important component of this task. The third component calls for a coordinated response of a consolidated West, including various elements – political, diplomatic, and economic – that would make Russia really feel that for its aggression, it will have to pay very high and serious costs in economic stagnation and regression in their development that will surely affect any future foreign policy moves by that nation. Thus, the potential is there. We just need to discuss it, and most importantly, act on it. An isolated Russia will fall faster than most radical pessimists imagine.”

The government should make every effort to have parliament introduce changes in the law on the principles of Ukrainian foreign policy along the lines of resuming Euro-Atlantic integration. NATO is prepared to start talks on the subject after Ukraine requests this.

The NATO and US said they were not going to send their soldiers to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine from Russian aggression. Should the actual shooting war start, with a military operation involving Russian troops invading the territory of Ukraine from the east or the south, what support from the NATO and US can we expect? For example, would the West support a request to introduce a “no-fly zone” over the territory of Ukraine, as we have almost nothing with what to protect our airspace? As The Day learned from our source in the Cabinet, Ukraine will urge the Western allies to do that very thing in case of an attack on Ukrainian territory.

“Various options to help Ukraine, including what you have mentioned, are being discussed now. There are quite a few ways to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, this is a topic for experts and military personnel who should hold such negotiations immediately and thoroughly. To do this, Ukraine needs to put forward clear and articulate demands. Some of them have already been presented to the NATO headquarters, some are still being developed. Thus, I think these options can be implemented should the Ukrainian government be willing to break with the policy of continuing a ‘phony Crimean war.’”

A defensive alliance with the US and UK, both signatories of the Budapest Memorandum and, accordingly, guarantors of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, is discussed now. Is such a union really possible, what is required for it, and would it in fact guarantee our security?

“Everything is possible in this world. Personally, I see bringing up this issue as a sensible move. We totally have moral, political, and legal rights to such guarantees. Only this time, they should be clearly spelled out and enshrined in international treaties. The key clause of such a treaty would be a version of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Will the three Western guarantors agree to it? It would be better for them to provide the guarantee and have Ukraine join NATO in the future than see it becoming a nuclear power again. In fact, it is our only other option.”