The electorate underestimates the benefits of joining the Alliance
The opinion of Ukrainians on NATO membership still remains divided, although there clearly is quite a high level of public support for this country joining the Alliance. According to the results of a survey conducted by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation and Taylor Nelson Sofres Ukraine from November 27 till December 5 among 1200 people, 41.5% of those polled take a dim view of the idea of NATO membership, while 32.3% take a positive attitude. Yet, 26.2% of those polled find it difficult to identify their position, so the further development of anti—and pro-NATO attitudes will depend precisely on this group. The age—and region-related analysis of the pollees showed that the staunchest opponents of Ukraine’s integration into the Alliance are older generation individuals (aged 55 and above), as well as residents of the Crimea, eastern, north-eastern, and south-eastern regions, where over 50% of the population are antagonized towards NATO.
What the NATO opponents mostly fear is that “this may draw Ukraine into NATO’s military operations” (42.2% of those opposing the Alliance membership), and “this will compel Ukraine to spend considerable additional funds’ (35.3%), then come “pacifist” and “nationalistic” reasons — “Ukraine should be a non- aligned state” (25.3%) and “Ukraine will be at the mercy of foreigners and foreign capital” (20.3%). About 17% worry that entry into NATO “will spoil Ukraine’s relations with Russia.”
Commenting to The Day on the poll results, people’s deputy and ex- foreign minister Borys Tarasiuk, director of the Institute of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, opined that the main causes of Ukrainian fears about NATO are caused by stereotypes hammered into the older generation in the years of Soviet power and lack of unbiased information about the Alliance and the cooperation of Ukraine with it. According to Mr. Tarasiuk, the versions that Ukraine’s NATO membership will have a negative effect on the well- being of our citizens and our economic development and that Ukrainian soldiers will be forcibly involved in the bloc’s military operations are nothing but myths born by the “communist” and “Russian” propaganda and, again, by lack of information. The latter should perhaps be blamed on the state which, declaring a course towards Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration, failed to do its best to adequately popularize this country’s foreign political goals and arguments in support of these. “There being no reliable information as an alternative, stereotypes get entrenched in public consciousness and are reflected in public opinion polls,” Mr. Tarasiuk said. In the people deputy’s opinion, “NATO membership will in no way boost budgetary expenses for defense.” Explaining his viewpoint, The Day’s guest gave the example of Poland as a new NATO member that mostly resembles Ukraine in terms of its potential. Poland’s membership fee is $40-50 million a year. Mr. Tarasiuk thinks Ukraine’s fee “will be within these limits or $10 million higher.” As to defense expenditure, the ex-foreign minister claims, there is a recommendation that the Alliance members should spend about 2% of their GDP for defense. Last year Ukraine spent 1.25% of its GDP on defense, although Verkhovna Rada resolved that these expenses should be at least 3% (this decision was made out of the context of the likely NATO membership as the objective requirement for our armed forces and our national security).
“In other words,” Mr. Tarasiuk continues, “we will need a twofold increase in defense expenses, which quite meets our own requirements.” It should be also taken into account that, as experience shows, membership in a collective security system allows each individual participant to put down its defense expenditures, for expenses are distributed among all the bloc members.
Debunking the stereotype that “if Ukraine joins NATO, our children may go to a war in Iraq or Afghanistan,” Mr. Tarasiuk explained that each country is free to decide on its own whether to allow its troops to participate in the bloc’s hostilities. Besides, NATO makes all decisions by full consensus only, so even the smallest member state can thwart the “use of force.” For example, the military of only a few NATO countries took part in the Afghanistan operation approved by the UN Security Council. In other words, the participation of NATO members in the Alliance’s military operations is not automatic if it does not serve a country’s national interests, the people’s deputy concluded.
It will be also good to recall in this connection the experience of Norway, as told to The Day by that country’s ambassador to Ukraine. He said that Norway attracted heavy foreign investments in the national infrastructure precisely after it joined the bloc. Among the other advantages of this membership is the opportunity to modernize the Ukrainian army by utilizing the years-long experience of NATO states, the implementation of advanced management technologies, the increased role and importance of Ukraine on the international arena, access to highly- developed markets, and an impulse to carry out domestic transformations by fulfilling a number of commitments and recommendations aimed at democratizing the state. Incidentally, most of those polled who supported Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration stated exactly the same arguments.
