Proposal to a special partner

The negotiations held on Thursday, February 24, between NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Ukraine’s top authorities showed that Ukraine was not going to slow down cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance, despite the fact that last year the current government proclaimed Ukraine to be a neutral state. “The main result of the today’s meeting is that the parties demonstrated their readiness to continue partnership relations. We agreed to further support an active political dialog and develop practical cooperation between Ukraine and NATO. As a special partner, Ukraine is ready to take an active part in the development and strengthening of the Alliance’s partnership,” stated Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych after meeting with Rasmussen, who visited our state for the first time. The head of the Ukrainian state also confirmed the further readiness to interact with the Alliance within the framework of peacekeeping operations and assured that the parties would continue cooperation on all previously approved projects and programs. According to him, in the course of the negotiations with NATO’s Secretary General a possibility of cooperation in counteraction to traditional and new security challenges and threats was also discussed.

On his part, the Rasmussen stressed that “Ukraine is a big state and plays a very important role in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.” “We highly appreciate our partnership with Ukraine,” he said.

A little earlier, during a briefing in the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Rasmussen stated that during the meeting with Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko he discussed the question of cooperation in anti-ballistic missile defense (ABMD). According to him, Ukraine is interested in such cooperation and the parties agreed on establishing an expert group that will hold “expert consultations,” which will enable to determine how Ukraine can contribute to this process. He also expressed hope that Ukraine would send instructors to Afghanistan to train the military and police in this country.

At the same time, the Secretary General added that an integral part of partnership is further dialog and discussing questions regarding democracy, human rights and supremacy of law, and all those values the Alliance supports. “We appeal to all our partners to comply with these principles,” Rasmussen highlighted.

The Secretary General also said that the parties would continue cooperation within the framework of the Ukraine-NATO commission, and the next sitting on the level of foreign ministers would take place in Brussels as soon as in April.

COMMENTARIES

Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA, doctor of political sciences, professor at the Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University:

“Generally, I assess Rasmussen’s visit as very positive. For despite all skeptic evaluations, this visit, firstly, confirms the Alliance’s interest in Ukraine. And secondly, this interest is stipulated not by the need for additional forces to hold missions, in particular, in Afghanistan. It is obvious that the Alliance, in view of the context of the new strategic concept signed in Lisbon, still sees Ukraine’s prospects regarding its future membership as positive. In my opinion, most likely, this visit is aimed at supporting the status quo and the conditions Ukraine declared by accepting the neutral status. At least NATO continues to look at Ukraine with hope and is ready to work in any format, especially the format offered to Kyiv today. Though this format does not quite correspond to the interests of our own national security, it remains a positive trend in relations between Ukraine and NATO.

“The Ukrainian side doesn’t have its own vision of the European security system, only in the context of the initiatives suggested by Medvedev. Therefore the common statement of Yanukovych and Medvedev in May last year doesn’t leave any independence in regards to Russia. It seems to me that this is a premature attempt to please Russia and find a place under Russia’s cover, which would enable cooperating with Russia in NATO initiatives.

“For example, anti-ballistic missile defense is one of such initiatives. But I don’t see big prospects for Ukraine in the realization of the project of European anti-ballistic missile defense with Russia’s participation. For in this case we declare ourselves as a Russian satellite and a subcontractor of what Russia will get from NATO in this project. Russia set rather tough conditions: either we are a part of this united system or we don’t participate in it. Conversely. NATO appeals Russia to cooperate in establishing such a system, not building a united one. This is the key difference. I suppose that Kyiv doesn’t feel this difference and Kyiv’s main message is: let’s cooperate with NATO together with Russia. But it’s very difficult to unite when geostrategic interests are different. Therefore I don’t see the prospect of this project’s realization with Ukraine’s participation.”

Oleksandr SUSHKO, director of the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation:

“Today the question of dialog on anti-ballistic missile defense is theoretical. It deals with involving Ukraine in the debates on this issue. In the meanwhile, discussions are held in different places, and different interests intersect. Besides, today there are several competing conceptions on anti-ballistic missile defense. One can predict that the Ukrainian side will hold discussions in the context of the officially proclaimed neutrality, which will lie in this case in attempts to offer non-conflict solutions that would hypothetically satisfy both NATO and Russia. But since the issue of a common anti-ballistic missile defense for NATO and Russia is still rather theoretical, Ukraine’s participation in this discussion will be more theoretical as well. This is a form of political obeisance, an attempt to uncover a position that has not been properly formulated. This is an attempt to involve the dormant possibilities of the radar systems, not functioning as of today, which are located on Ukraine’s territory but which Ukraine never used — in Mukacheve and Sevastopol. Certainly, this requires much money, but most importantly, some understanding: with what purpose and within which broader system they should be used. Indeed, they were constructed to watch the western direction and were an element of the Soviet shield against Europe. It was expected that such conversations would persist whether or not Ukraine was invited to the discussion. And since NATO itself doesn’t have the answer to this question, so far the discussions don’t presuppose any active possibility for Ukraine to considerably advance and increase its reach. It all remains a diplomatic issue.

“Concerning Afghanistan, indeed, in this case both NATO and Ukraine have their interest. Because there is a possibility to involve the resources Ukraine possesses but which are not used today and are losing their capacity. However, it deals with a very narrow circle of people, specialists who can be sent as instructors to Afghanistan to train police and security forces in this country. Generally, this is a very modest contribution on behalf of the Ukrainian side in the stabilization of Afghanistan. But in any case this step would be useful for the international standing of Ukraine and for the realization of knowledge, skills and abilities of the specialists Ukraine has.

“Generally, there are not so many places today where Ukraine can enhance its practical cooperation with NATO. Ukraine is very dependent on Russia’s position and tries to be involved as little as possible in some projects that do not involve any conflicts. I wouldn’t expect any substantial contribution or emergence of new directions in the cooperation between Ukraine and NATO which wouldn’t conform to the context of the dialog Russia-NATO. Here Ukraine plays the role of a very cautious partner that looks around before making any decisions.”