Way to NATO: is a “fast-track” scenario possible?

Kyiv has hosted a two-day workshop, “International Expert Support for Security and Defense Reforms in Ukraine.” The Day managed to conduct an exclusive interview with Iulian CHIFU, president of the Bucharest-based Center for Conflict Prevention and Early Warning, a participant in this forum. He told us about the attitude of Romania and the West to the so-called Donbas crisis, i.e., in fact a Russian aggression. Mr. Chifu also explained on what conditions Ukraine can join NATO in the foreseeable future despite the loss of some territories.

“We consider this as annexation of Crimea and military aggression in eastern Ukraine, which involves Russian military servicemen and militants. It is clear to Romania and complies with NATO documents, including those of the Wales Summit. There will be no short-term solution to the conflict. As for Crimea, I doubt that any country will accept a change of territory by force or this kind of Anschluss. In this situation, it is hardly possible to use force to regain the occupied territories.

“We must take into account that there is a huge Russian military grouping in the east, which outnumbers the NATO troops in the neighboring states. Therefore, Ukraine’s security is our prime concern now. I am one of those who back supplying Ukraine with the weapons that will help repulse any new attack. I think Ukraine should in fact have demarcation lines in the Donbas and north of Crimea.

“In this situation, weapons might be supplied to Ukraine so that it can defend itself from a new aggression, but it should not use them in the hostilities against separatists. In my view, it is the most realistic way of estimating the situation in Ukraine. Otherwise, Ukraine will lose its sovereignty, which Russia is trying to achieve through the so-called decentralization, in fact the dismembering of this country. On the other hand, the Minsk Agreements cannot be observed unless all the foreign troops and weapons are totally withdrawn and the Ukrainian armed forces reestablish full control of the border. I am not sure that the current generation of leaders can resolve this problem. Rather, it is a task for the next generation – so the Ukrainian armed forces are supposed to be stationed there for at least 10 to 15 years.”

In other words, you think we must be prepared to live for a long time without controlling a part of our own territory?

“Yes, it is too early to broach the problem of regaining the lost territories before you acquire a real military capability. Since the Minsk Agreements were signed in September, I have seen no military possibilities for you to restore control over the Donbas and Crimea. Therefore, combat actions will not help Ukraine even if we give it arms to fight against Russia, for Kyiv will not succeed in any case. Russia will have enough troops and weapons to turn the situation to its advantage and retain control over the territories it has already occupied. So, in my opinion, one of the rational options in this moment is to expose, as much as possible, the presence of Russian troops and Russia’s responsibility for aggression in eastern Ukraine, as it was done in the case of Crimea. And it is important in this context to file lawsuits and use other means – but not to resort to new military operations. For this will not work but will cause a very heavy death toll.”

Some foreign experts and journalists point out that the West is more pressuring Kyiv than Moscow to observe the Minsk Agreements, while Moscow is not observing them at all. Is it not so?

“You know very well that the West is on your side in resisting Moscow’s pressure. Russia is suffering losses due to sanctions and is going to pay a high price. And Kyiv’s problem is that your political class is not closely knit inside, there is no political will to move on and carry out difficult reforms which are not so pleasant for either the grassroots or the oligarchs. Unless there is a result in this sphere or if internecine struggle breaks out inside the government, this will cause a full defeat of Ukraine. So, in my view, the most important thing now is cohesion and political will to carry out reforms in Ukraine.”

The recent visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to Sochi and his talks with the Russian president create an impression that Ukraine is being “ditched.” The US media, too, call this visit a show of the White House’s weakness and desperation. What would you say to this?

“You pledged to observe the Minsk Agreements, so it is not a question of somebody pressuring you. On the other hand, judging by what happened in Sochi, Kyiv, and now in Moscow (Victoria Nuland’s visit), I can see no signal that somebody is using Ukraine as a pawn in the relations with Russia. On the contrary, I can see a rift here between the understanding and support of the grassroots and the political class in Kyiv and in the West. With due account of the situation, the West is helping you greatly now. Ukraine is a nonaligned country which once refused to go down the road to NATO. That was a sovereign decision of Ukraine. But now that you are in a state of war and have lost some territories, do not expect very much from the West, particularly joint defense. Of course, if you were an Alliance member, you could make use of Article 5 of the Washington Agreement. And the fact that the West is helping you to train your armed forces and border security units is a major step forward which means that the West really wants to support you instead of forcing you to surrender or conducting some negotiations at the expense of Ukraine.”

Some experts note that there are three ways of joining NATO and one of which provides for an immediate entry of a partner country which is under a threat of being attacked. Is this scenario of a speedy admission of our country to NATO possible if it meets the criteria?

“NATO really supports Ukraine and has already brought into action Article 4 which provides for security-related consultations with a partner. But you cannot request the Alliance that its troops fight in Ukraine. The Alliance has never taken this commitment to Ukraine. NATO pledged to help you the way you asked. When the war broke out, you understood that you needed more – reforms in the armed forces, exercises, etc. And here we come back to Item 1 – the necessity for Ukraine to establish de facto control over the border. You can’t possibly join NATO if you have a blurred border or lack a part of territory without a defense line. So, Ukraine must build a fortified border from its side of the demarcation line in the east and one with northern Crimea.

“Another point is reforms. But I mean true in-depth reforms, including the rights of minorities and fulfillment of all commitments about NATO and EU membership. This will enable you to move on in this direction. You will thus come closer to the Copenhagen criteria and to meeting the conditions indispensable for applying for NATO membership. But, first and foremost, you must be able to defend yourself, which means to have a true fortified line of defense.”