NATO and utilization of ammunition in Ukraine

For over a decade NATO has been helping Ukraine to eliminate obsolete ammunition and various obsolete weapons. For this purpose, member states of the Alliance provide funds and technology. Recently the delegation headed by General Program Manager at NATO’s Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) Dr. Bulent TUDES visited Ukraine to discuss ongoing projects on recycling, funded and implemented through the NATO Trust Fund. In an exclusive interview with The Day Mr. Tudes spoke about what NATO does for ammunition utilization in Ukraine, when we can expect that Ukrainians would finally solve this problems on their own, and the role of mass media in this process.

Do you see the “light at the end of the tunnel” or when would it be possible to say that no help is needed any longer for Ukraine in dealing with this problem – destruction of ammunition?

 “This is not an easy question, because ammunition destruction is a part of the ammunition lifecycle management. So, on the one hand, you produce new ammunition, and on the other, you have to destroy old ammunition. Because when ammunition comes to the end of its service life it becomes very sensitive, and under diverse conditions you can get some depot explosions. So you have to manage your ammunition stocks very effectively. It is not only Ukraine, every country has this problem. So when ammunition comes to ‘end of life,’ you have to destroy it safely.

 “As far as Ukraine is concerned, it is not very lucky in this area, because Ukraine has huge quantities of old ammunition in the stocks: not only in closed warehouses, but also open-air stocks. These are candidates for some explosions. Then you have to take care of this problem. In our Trust Fund projects we are not solving all the problems, so for almost 12 years we have been assisting Ukraine in this area, but I believe at this rate we will have to continue 10 more years, just to reduce it. I believe Ukraine will face this destruction problem for many, many years but thanks to good facilities, available in Ukraine, who are experienced in this, Ukraine will reduce every year the quantity of obsolete ammunition. So again, I can say that the difference between Ukraine and other countries is in that the quantities of the old ammunition here are much bigger than in the other countries. And now, this presents a significant problem to the public, that they should be handled very carefully, and with the speed. So it requires proper funding and good planning.”

Over 12 years of regular visits do you see any tangible progress in resolving this problem?

 “There is a significant progress in 12 years, a lot of anti-personnel mines destroyed, a lot of ammo destroyed, significant ammunition stocks have been destroyed. We could have done more, but the funding from the PFP Trust Fund area, and also the Ukrainian national funding streams do not allow us to do more. So I can say that funding is the biggest problem for us to speed up the process.”

What is the main problem of demilitarization of munitions in Ukraine: lack of technologies or money?

 “Yes, there are some technological areas, but this is not a major issue. Some ammunition requires expensive processes and expensive facilities. However this kind of ammunition does not represent big quantities. As an example; for white phosphorus type ammunition you need to have a special facility. If we take this away for all the other types of technology exist in Ukraine. So I don’t think that technology is a showstopper, or that it is slowing down the processes, but again, the main issue is continuous funding. Because when you hire people and train them, then you have to keep them, you have to bring the work and pay these people. If you interrupt the process, you can lose these people. Then, when you get the money to hire them again, it’s not possible. And you have to hire new people and train them. So this is causing delays, also to our project here. So we’re not catching a good momentum. I can say that we have faced this problem for 12 years in Ukraine. We could have done much more.”

What can you say about efforts of current Ukrainian government in tackling this problem? Does it pay needed attention to it?

 “I am not sure. Not only this government, but all governments during these 12 years gave importance, and they tried to provide funding, but probably, there are some other priorities. I can say that the funding allocated for this objective is not sufficient. And the Trust Fund cannot provide significant amounts of money either. For instance, our current project, Phase 2 Project, is designed for four years and 25 million euros. For this purpose 25 million is probably big money. But with 25 million you can destroy 70,000 tons of ammunition. I believe the current problem is not 70,000 tons, it’s much more than that. So the money needed is much more millions of euros than 25. So as you can see it is not a small amount of money for anybody for this purpose. And another thing: the current ammunition on the list, the recyclable materials are not bringing significant return money to offset the effort spent, because the ammunition used at the beginning was paying more.”

Sure, because it had expensive materials.

 “Yes, brass and other valuable materials, at the beginning they paid back. Recycling current ammunition, unfortunately, is not bringing good offsets. So we have to put more money for these efforts, and then government probably will get some problems, NATO contributors are getting some problems to provide these significant funds, and then we’re not going fast with that.”

You have visited many ammunition utilization facilities. What can you say about their possibilities?

 “My impression is that they are expecting more funding. They are ready, they are organized, they have people, they can work three shifts a day, but again, because of the funding issue, they are facing a big problem, and they could even lose some of the workers. And then, we don’t have to look at this problem only as at the Trust Fund issue. Also national resources should be used to keep these workers for the continuation of the project. This was the biggest complaint from the companies. You know, we are working with five companies in different locations right now, and hundreds of new people are hired, trained, and they need business, they need salaries – and who is going to provide these salaries? Not only the Trust Fund, but also the government should keep this capability, because the problem will not end in a few years. This problem will continue, maybe for decades. And the more effort we show in the next 10 or 20 years, the fewer problems will remain. Otherwise, if we don’t provide enough funding for this project, safety risks from this ammunition will remain in Ukraine for long years.”

Should not media pay more attention to this problem and raise awareness of public about urgency of this problem and how this influences their security?

 “I agree with you, the public media are not very much aware of the size of the problem. And the problem is not only in Ukraine. Every year we hear of four or five ammunition depot explosions in the world. You can see in the media, even in the neighboring countries they have ammunition depot explosions, and some people dying, some environmental problems are coming... But as far as the Ukrainian issue is concerned, the size and quantity of the ammunition is not comparable, except for Russia. Ukraine’s excess ammunition stocks are top two or three in the world.”

Our readers would like to know more about projects which are being implemented this year and will be realized in the future in the framework of the Trust Fund?

“Actually our project is planned to destroy 133,000 tons in 12 years. This is only the Trust Fund’s portion. I believe this is at least double or triple of the required amount for destruction. So if we see the 133,000 tons for the Trust Fund, and I expect at least 20,000 more sitting there waiting for other types of funding, other types of donors in Ukraine. So you understand the size. This is a significant amount. And the problem is how to show this amount to other media and other entities and then attract more contributors to this project, and eliminate the risk in the reasonable time. I believe, I think 10 years from now should be reasonable time to destroy these 200,000-300,000 tons of ammunition in Ukraine. And then you will go to normal conditions which every nation has – because every nation has the same problem, but the size is incomparable. So, how to promote this from our perspective in the NATO area? What concerns Ukraine’s missions to NATO, we have been doing (especially in the past few years) extensive marketing on that. But, and you should appreciate that, some spot is not sufficient to present these problems. So we need more media activity. Internal Ukrainian media, television, documentaries, magazines, articles in the most distributed magazines in the world, some organizational seminars, like the Geneva seminar, and so on. This problem should be represented. The media should have an important task here: to give the right information to everybody, without causing the community to panic, but showing the size of the problem. And I believe we will get more contribution on that. I can see the governmental type. We always get support. But this is not the only issue, and you cannot expect unlimited amounts of sources. We are progressing at almost the same speed, but not the desired speed. We have to increase our current tempo at least twice or three times. This is my assessment.”

Are enough efforts being made by both parties (NATO and Ukraine) for Ukrainians to know about this contribution by the Alliance, or what could be done for the public in our country to know more about NATO helping Ukraine to solve the excess munitions problem which relates to the safety of every Ukrainian?

 “I have not made any interviews with the public here, but I can just say that the public is not too knowledgeable, because I have seen some media and news. For instance, we are trying to eliminate this problem, but the media are saying ‘Farewell to Arms.’ This is fully conflicting to what we are doing here. We are trying to provide safety here, but the media are advertising this as ‘a farewell to arms.’ So which arms are we talking about? We are talking about 100-year-old, 50-year-old ammunition that no one can use. It’s just a bomb sitting there. But why are these wrong messages being given to the public? This is not the question I can answer. This kind of media information should be corrected. More positive messages from the media, supporting our effort, should be seen by the public. Otherwise, the public will even try to stop our operations here, if we advertise like that. Unfortunately, the public media are not too much aware of it, and I can’t see any big support from the communities, NGOs, or any other elements. So there should be mass propaganda, and joint support from all elements. In this way we can expedite these activities. Otherwise we will slow down, we will not gain momentum, and our 10-year target will become 30 or 40 years. Just imagine that this problem will exist so many years in Ukraine.

 “How to organize the media? I do not know, I’m not the expert, you are (laughs). For that we invite the media to our seminars and whatever, but the media should talk the same language, and not one time only. There are seminars and visits to facilities to show them. Also, we are providing labor, just for the new destruction program our project hired hundreds of people. Sustainable capability is another thing. This is capability, and if you sustain it, you are ready to continue on that. So this capability should be sustained, this is another element. But I would like to summarize my assessment: the public is not very much aware of it, they show resistance because of wrong information in some media in Ukraine. So I don’t know how to correct this kind of perception, it’s not my job. But media should support and not block this project.”

Why did you personally decide to devote your career to deal with destruction of ammunition?

 “In the NSPA, I am the Program Manager of all ammunition requirements of the NATO nations. In the year 2000 we decided to develop a policy with the NATO Headquarters to help the nations eliminate the problems with anti-personnel land mines this time. Do you remember the Ottawa Agreement to band these mines, and destroy them?”

Surely I heard of it. Ukraine signed it.

 “And many partner nations, PFP nations, also signed this Agreement. But they asked for support from NATO because of some technical issues and funding requirements. And then this policy has been established. When it was established, my program received the task to develop and execute these projects, and not only in Ukraine, but in all partner nations. So we started from Albania, Moldova, and then Ukraine. This is why I was involved. And then, when we saw the real problem, it was not only anti-personnel mines, there were much more problems. Even the rocket fuel oxidizers were another issue, some chemicals… So we have expanded the policy. And why me? I am also one of the founders of this policy. And I think this policy provided a lot of contributions to the partner nations on that. And then, in 12 years I think I’ve visited Ukraine 7 times now. I see the problem, I see the capabilities, I see the industry. So never give up. We are still working in this direction. And again, I would like to say in conclusion that we expect much more support from the media.

 “There was a very useful meeting of NSPA and Ukraine representatives. Then next year we will see in which other areas we can make cooperation together. Trust Fund is only one percent of NSPA duties so it is just a tip of the iceberg. And Ukraine never ruled out other elements for cooperation. But during the meeting we discussed in what other areas we could provide more benefits to Ukrainian armed forces. So it was a very valuable meeting.”