“Smart defense”

The past year has been a turning point for both the Ukrainian army and Ukraine as a whole. This country has come back, albeit belatedly, to its previous foreign-policy goals on a legislative level.

It will be recalled that Yevhen Marchuk, National Security and Defense Council (RNBO) secretary at the time, saw to it that parliament passed the law “On the Foundations of Ukraine’s National Security” in 2003. The law has a provision that, to guarantee its national security, Ukraine can join military-political blocs, including the North Atlantic alliance. A military doctrine was also mapped out and approved in line with this provision. But the situation changed after NATO’s Istanbul Summit in 2004. It was clear that Ukraine was very close to signing the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), and in that very time Leonid Kuchma and Vladimir Putin suddenly vanished from public view for a couple of days somewhere on the Sea of Azov coast. On coming back, Kuchma instructed that the abovementioned formula on cooperation with NATO be immediately deleted from the military doctrine. Later, when the Yanukovych team came to power, it had parliament also delete this formula from the abovementioned law “On the Foundations of Ukraine’s National Security.” Had the second president, Kuchma, and his best pupil Yanukovych not tampered with the foreign-policy course, Russia would hardly dare commit an open aggression today. Ukraine would have a totally different status and relations with the alliance.

The Russian aggression against this country set into motion certain structural, quantitative, and qualitative changes in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. On December 23, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada canceled the country’s “nonaligned status” and resolved that integration into the Euro-Atlantic security space is one of Ukraine’s top-priority national interests, and closer cooperation with NATO “aimed at achieving the criteria of membership in this organization” is the main direction of the government’s national security policy. The draft National Security Strategy, presented on April 9, also says that European and Euro-Atlantic integration is a top-priority direction in the foreign and domestic policy. “This country regards NATO membership as the only and reliable guarantee of its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is a priority to introduce NATO standards and achieve compatibility of our army and special services with the similar entities of NATO member states, which will make it possible to be admitted to the Alliance in the future,” the RNBO reports.

Ukraine’s intention to draw closer to the North Atlantic Alliance is also finding a broad response within the collective security organization itself. Since the outbreak of hostilities in the Donbas, NATO as a whole and its individual member states have been rendering our country political and material assistance and supplying non-lethal military equipment.

Military-technical cooperation is a strategic field of the Ukraine-NATO relations. This topic was high on the agenda of the roundtable “Cooperation between Ukraine, NATO states, and the EU: Situation, Problems, Ways of Further Development” held past week at the National Institute of Strategic Studies. The Ukrainian side included representatives of the defense ministry, RNBO, and private companies; members of parliament, managers of the state-run company Ukroboronprom, military specialists, and experts. Among the invited foreign participants were NATO Liaison Office representatives, military attaches, representatives of other countries’ defense ministries, private defense and security companies. The forum’s objective was not only to show mutual support, but also to receive practical advice from international experts, display Ukraine’s defense production capability and the important role of private businesses in it, and lay the groundwork for further military and industrial cooperation between Ukraine and NATO and EU member states.

Valentyn Badrak, director of the Center for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies, one of the roundtable’s moderators, said in the introductory word: “A war is going on today, and Ukraine is turning into a serious market for Western defense companies in the field of technologies, licenses, etc. But our country itself has a major defense production complex, so there must be serious multinational projects in the future, which will involve Ukrainian enterprises in the manufacture of new armaments. Our goal is that Western and Ukrainian defense companies should launch concrete negotiations and projects. This forum is also supposed to build mutual confidence between Ukraine and the NATO and EU countries in order to translate our talks and intentions into specific projects and proposals.”

Marcin Koziel, director of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine, also took the floor to say that NATO strives to open up new opportunities for Ukrainian businesses to present Ukraine’s defense industry on the international level. “In early April, representatives of NATO, Ukroboronprom, and Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense drew up a road map to reform the defense standardization system for 2015-18, which calls for a gradual transition to Euro-Atlantic standards in the sphere of weapons and military hardware production,” Koziel said.

These words set the roundtable, which thematically consisted of three sections, into motion.

The first speaker was Ernest Herold, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment Division, NATO, who told about some joint projects of Ukraine and the North Atlantic alliance. “NATO member states have launched five aid foundations to help Ukraine in logistics, command, control, communication, computer equipment, cyber security, conversion training of retired servicemen, and medical rehabilitation of the wounded. NATO is also working on coordination between the countries that help Ukraine in order to avoid duplication,” he said. In Herold’s words, work is going on in a number of fields to intensify the defense reform and cooperation with NATO, but the comprehensive review of the national security and defense systems has not yet been finished. “Lack of clarity about the development of the security and defense sector makes it difficult for NATO to render effective assistance. But we are inspired by the practical efforts aimed at improving coordination of defense reforms and cooperating with NATO. This also applies to RNBO-supervised interdepartmental coordination. And we have seen progress in a number of fields after our recent meetings in Brussels,” the NATO representative said.

Another field of cooperation is the NATO initiative “Smart Defense” which envisions the pooling and joint utilization of resources in order to save the latter. Ukraine takes part in a port protection project, but the Alliance says it is prepared to cooperate in other projects, too.

“We cooperate in the field of air safety, the key element of which is exchange of information on the air situation. Owing to the Russia crisis, the information we furnish to Ukraine is about broader swathes of territory,” Herold said. “NATO will encourage Ukraine to acquire codified systems and help it train the necessary personnel. We hope Ukraine will continue sending its experts to work within the framework of the Conference of National Armaments Directors, and we will continue giving financial assistance to this end.”

The next speaker, state-run concern Ukroboronprom manager Roman Romanov, spoke about the problems the company has come to grips with today and about his vision of the company’s cooperation with NATO and EU structures. “We have to seek new ways to supply the Armed Forces of Ukraine with armaments in the current political and economic conditions. One of the ways out can be the development of new types of armaments in conjunction with European countries, including NATO member states. The company needs help in the shape of know-how, technological lines, or special installations to produce the military equipment which Ukraine has never manufactured before,” Romanov said.

Romanov singled out the following important fields, where military-industrial cooperation can be intensified: “Expanding cooperation with leading companies in order to make and buy high-tech systems for improving the technical characteristics of Ukrainian defense products. Setting up modern-day complementary production between the defense facilities of various countries in order to design and manufacture new types of military hardware. A gradual transition of the Ukrainian armed forces to NATO standards, technical re-equipment of and full-fledged participation of Ukraine’s defense enterprises in NATO projects that deal with designing, producing, modernizing, and recycling military equipment according to world standards.”

The Ukroboronprom manager also spoke about what exactly attracts defense investors in Ukraine. “Ukraine is capable of a closed-cycle production of aircraft units and engines, tanks and APCs. We have experience in building warships and all kinds of civilian vessels. Ukraine is one of the leaders in gas turbine production, and it is among the top 10 states that develop missiles, radars, and high-precision weapons,” he said.

Oleksii Skrypnyk, member of the parliamentary committee for national security and defense, commented on the roundtable participants’ proposals that Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO and the EU in the field of national security and defense be legislatively supported. “We should find out what we must do to change the level of cooperation with NATO countries in a year. One of the problems is that our NATO cooperation foundations do not work because we have not yet passed amendments to the taxation laws, and it is wrong to tax the aid we receive. We also have a problem of interaction between the Ukrainian agencies in charge of cooperation.”

Skrypnyk also outlined the main directions of important changes in the national security sector. “The first is about the defense complex. The coalition agreement calls for setting up a commission responsible for all kinds of defense enterprises – Ukroboronprom, the Ukrainian Space Agency, independent producers, and the defense ministry-run facilities – in order to achieve full coordination about the way we make, import, and export arms. The current situation is extremely unsatisfactory. It is necessary to set up a council of general designers and coordinate the import and export of arms at all levels. We need a clear-cut program about NATO foundations – we must know what we should do, also on the legislative level. Lack of coordination is a worldwide problem,” the MP said. “There are very many people who have received a Western education, but they are severely underrepresented in the Ukrainian army. We also need a single coordination center which will help us know clearly what kind of real aid we can expect from NATO countries and act accordingly.” Skrypnyk said parliament is prepared for this cooperation, but it must know what problems may come up in this case.

In the second block of speeches, Borys Kremenetsky, acting First Deputy Chief of the Main Directorate for Military Cooperation and Peacekeeping Operations at the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces spoke about the top-priority areas of intensified military cooperation between Ukraine and the NATO and EU countries. “The priority goal of our cooperation is to be able to increase, as soon as possible, the Ukrainian armed forces’ operational capability of rebuffing any aggression. We are speaking about the development of defense capabilities and cooperation aimed at reforming the armed forces and achieving mutual compatibility,” Kremenetsky said. Accordingly, “it is important to ensure: maintenance and enlargement of a military and political dialog between the defense ministers of Ukraine, EU, and NATO countries; take part in joint military exercises, participation of NATO instructors in the field training of Ukrainian troops; provision of logistical support to and meeting the urgent requirements of the Ukrainian units stationed in the ATO zone; cooperation with the Committee for Military and Civilian Cooperation, Defense Reformation, and Informational Operations; professional and linguistic training of Ukrainian servicemen at EU and NATO educational institutions; participation of the Ukrainian military in NATO’s rapid reaction forces and the EU’s multinational tactical groups; participation in regional initiatives jointly with the EU and NATO countries, as well as continued participation in international peacekeeping operations; medical treatment and rehabilitation of the wounded Ukrainian servicemen in the EU and NATO countries’ medical institutions.”

Kremenetsky spoke about priorities in reforming the armed forces. “First of all, it is the control, communication, and combat support systems, special-purpose units, and battlefield medicine. They must be radically reformed as soon as possible. One of the principal mechanisms is the Joint Ukrainian-American Coordination Committee for Military Cooperation and Defense Reformation,” he said.

Kremenetsky also described Ukraine’s previous experience in international war games and further plans for the next year: “Past year we managed to hold three multinational exercises on the territory of Ukraine, which involved more than 1,500 servicemen, 160 pieces of equipment, 7 ships, and 5 aircraft. Ukraine took part in five international exercises outside its territory. It is planned to hold four exercises in Ukraine this year, and take part in 7 multinational live war games and in 5 multinational command post exercises. The chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ General Staff is supposed to participate in a session of the EU Military Committee this year. We continue to take part in some operations under the European Union’s auspices by way of information exchange. We are planning to take part in the EU tactical battle group patrolling in 2016 together with Greece, Bulgaria, and Rumania, as well as in Visegrad Four’s tactical battle group.”

“The formation of a Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade, a multinational tripartite unit, is now in a practical phase. Ukraine’s defense ministry is going to sign a cooperation agreement which will allow Ukroboronprom to gain access to EU classified standards in the defense production sphere,” the General Staff officer pointed out.

The next conference participant, Vaidotas Malinionis, director of the Lithuanian Defense and Security Industries Association, at first spoke about the obstacles that are coming up on the road of Ukraine’s cooperation with EU and NATO structures. “NATO and the EU wish to cooperate with Ukraine, but there is very little progress, while your situation demands fast steps, as you are at war. It is our soft spot to which we will have to pay more attention in the future. ‘Hybrid war’ sounds a bit odd, for our politicians, in Lithuania too, think that it is not a war. Meanwhile, the enemy makes decisions very fast. Another problem of ours is operational interchangeability – even in our country there are several types of transportation means, which complicates logistical support. All the three Baltic countries also purchase three different types of systems, while Poland also has a different type of armored personnel carriers. This is a waste of resources,” he said.

Admiral Ihor Kabanenko, Ukraine’s former deputy minister of defense, UARPA company president, told the roundtable about the main conclusions and lessons of the Donbas war. “In the existing practice, commanders rely on a military group, whereas they are supposed to rely on the art of war – the situation demands that they be leaders. The hostilities are conducted between the groupings of troops instead of between combat systems. A quantitative advantage of troops is being regarded as crucial, whereas a qualitative advantage is more important, and the personnel’s training level is of a paramount importance. We have a centralized system of command and control, when all decisions are made in Kyiv, whereas practice demands a decentralized command and control. We can see reactive actions, whereas the situation demands greater activity and dynamism, a maneuver, and taking the lead over the enemy in time and action. We can also see a vertical-linear type of communication, whereas there should be a vertical, horizontal, and interactive type,” he said. On the basis of these conclusions, Kabanenko noted the importance of employing “cutting-edge technologies in the equipment and armaments, and the understanding that there should be effective battle systems that knit together combat equipment, man, computer, software, sensors, communications, etc., that is, the advantages of up-to-date technologies, in order to take a lead over the enemy in the ideas of military culture. There should also be a positive motivation for leadership and reduction of the command distance in the army and governmental bodies.”

In the admiral’s view, it is civil society and the private sector that are most capable of introducing these innovations into the system of Ukraine’s security and defense. “Civil society and the private sector show flexibility, speed, adaptability to conditions, and an effective network approach to the implementation of some high-tech projects,” Kabanenko says. “A number of civil-society-proposed computerization decisions have helped raise the quality of operational command and control. The public and private sectors should improve cooperation in the defense sector, as far as implementation of modern-day technological achievements is concerned. All this activity needs coordination. For this purpose, a group of companies, enthusiasts, and teams has formed a network cluster of high technologies and an association of companies in order to employ modern defense technologies in Ukraine, and set up the company UARPA that deals with coordination, service, and expert examination. Our goal is to work for the sake of Ukraine’s security and defense,” the ex-deputy minister of defense said.

The roundtable was also addressed by Alan Merbaum, representative of Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s largest defense-oriented companies, who gave a number of recommendations to Ukrainian defense producers.

“The defense infrastructure in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts has been undermined. Now it can only be a question of important infrastructural elements in the Dnipropetrovsk and western regions. This is an opportunity to attract foreign investments, ensure the work of such businesses near Poland and Romania, and open up a prospect for increasing trade in this field. This will also enable Ukraine to build new up-to-date enterprises. Revising the principles of supply is an occasion for creating jobs in the MIC for medium and small businesses, for they are more efficient than large supply entities. This will make it possible to distribute supply on different levels. The introduction of regulations and specifications will help Ukraine meet international industrial standards. Special simulator-type objects will make it possible to achieve new levels of training. What will attract the international investor is ethical behavior, i.e., proper governance and management that adheres to European international principles. The procurement policy should rest on responsibility for all contracts, including the response of the defense ministry. Procurement should be based on the principles of fairness, efficiency, innovativeness, proper control and supervision. As for the export policy and market strategy, Ukraine has abandoned Russian producers in the period of sanctions, so Ukrainian companies can increase their components and enter the international market. You should create a system of efficiency evaluation in the defense sector with proper support from governmental entities. You should struggle against old approaches to business,” Merbaum said.

The roundtable’s concluding phase heard private defense businessmen who spoke about problems in their work, such as difficulties in marketing their products both in Ukraine and abroad, including EU and NATO member states. Among these speakers was Valerii Bohuslavsky, general manager of the Aerotekhnika Research and Production Association. He said that, due to Ukraine’s imperfect laws, his corporation’s sales had gone down. “Since 2010, our exports have dropped drastically in some cases due to Ukroboronprom’s inactivity, for we cannot work abroad independently. Our company invests in foreign firms because there no domestic customers, access to high technologies is limited, and it is very difficult to export products. As for the domestic market, the situation is also difficult. Our cooperation with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense goes through the Department of Armaments Development and Procurement,” the Aerotekhnika general manager says. “We have been barred from governmental orders since 2010 due to opaque procedures. The private sector needs no state investments in the shape of money or technologies – all we need is clear-cut plans and orders. The private sector will always be able to decide how to invest its money.”

Another private sector representative, Oleksandr Hordieiev from the Kharkiv-based LLC Sotrudnichestvo, was more optimistic about problems of the Ukrainian MIC. In his opinion, Ukraine is now one of the world’s leaders in the IT sector owing to low labor costs and an ample intellectual potential of Ukrainians. “‘Smart Defense’ is perhaps the only sector which Ukraine will not be ashamed of in the future,” Hordieiev says. “The work that must fetch 4,000 euros is assessed at 400 in Ukraine. But we are full of knowledge and are beginning to look like Israel now. There are a lot of cutting-edge sectors in Ukraine.”