Yevhen MARCHUK: “Ukraine must rely on its own resources”

This summer has been hot at the Donbas front, with gunfire in Crimea. It is apparently high time NATO arrived at certain conclusions regarding Russia’s aggressive plans. The Alliance took its time doing so, allowing Russia to keep the international community in a wary suspense, with Ukraine remaining a separate target in the Kremlin’s imperial cross-hairs. The Ukrainian administration made certain conclusions, but, apparently, failed to cover all the issues. A roundtable was held in Kyiv (August 16) to discuss the possibilities of the operational upgrading of Ukraine’s defenses, working out complex measures to combat the Kremlin’s aggression. Among the participants were leading experts, including General of the Army Yevhen Marchuk, as special rapporteur on behalf of Ukraine’s working group with the Trilateral Contact Group; Anatolii Lopata, ex-Chief of General Staff; Oleksandr Skipalsky, ex-Deputy Chief of SBU; Valentyn Burdak, Director, Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Study Center; Leonid Poliakov, ex-First Deputy Minister of Defense; Mykhailo Honchar, president, 21st Century Strategy Global Study Center, et al.

The Kremlin’s recent aggressive military buildup has worried many in Ukraine and the West. Once again, the question is whether Ukraine is prepared to adequately meet the aggressor’s challenge, in the case of a full-scale offensive. The roundtable noted that Russia is still to deploy its air force and artillery on a broad scale, save for sporadic borderland attacks in 2014. Putin’s recent statements that have actually frozen the Normandy Format of the talks are reason enough for serious concern. Obviously, Moscow is determined to expand its occupation of Ukrainian territory, using every means available (of which the Kremlin has enough and to spare, ranging from mass media propaganda to use of diplomatic channels to playing on religious aspects to military provocations to full-scale assault). Russia can display its imperial intentions under the current circumstances that are rather favorable for the Kremlin: “fraternization” with Erdogan and saber-rattling, using air bases in Iran to hit Syria. A number of other factors indicate that the West has underestimated Putin. As a result, even the rigid sanctions imposed on Russia have failed to prevent the Kremlin from scoring methodically in the field of foreign policy. In fact, Russia is slowly but surely worming out of the imposed isolation.

Some at the roundtable said Russia even could use its nuclear potential; and that, historically speaking, would be Russia’s response to America’s A-bombs detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is imperial rhetoric, but the recent large-scale bike show in Crimea, meant to signify the revival of the “Fifth Empire,” would’ve made Dr. Goebbels blush with envy.

REUTERS photo

Andrii Lopata: “I think that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is anything but spontaneous. The reasons behind it have long and deep roots. The Kremlin is aware of the consequences of the Soviet Union’s collapse in the 20th century. Putin said it was ‘the greatest catastrophe of the century.’ What the current conflict is all about is that there is a country that has no national history, and, thus, no future. The Russian Federation, including the Russian Orthodox Church, can’t have its history without Ukraine. The war in Ukraine isn’t a problem born of a coincidence. It is rooted in the global development of the Russian Federation and its determination to revive the [Soviet] empire.”

Once again, what can Ukraine propose to ward off this onslaught? The war in the east has lasted for 2.5 years, with the official manpower losses statistics totaling over 10,000. What about our national self-identity being the number-one target of Russian propaganda? What about our diplomacy, considering that the Russian counterparts are way ahead? What about a professional Ukrainian Army [that largely remains on paper]? What about our politicians – are they just going through the motions of setting Ukraine’s NATO membership course?

In his opening address, Kyiv roundtable’s participant Valentyn Badrak noted: “The Kremlin’s conduct, all those provocations aimed at making the Ukrainian populace panicky, could be part of a plan for putting pressure on the Ukrainian political leadership. This panic is part of [Russia’s] aggression aimed at making concessions, like holding elections in the occupied territory of Donbas. We must draw the current administration’s attention to the fact that we can no longer remain a vulnerable target. Therefore, I wish to address the administration, and propose to revise their defense construction plans. We want, first, an adequate upgrading of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Today, the Army is supplied only what is manufactured in Ukraine, not what it needs to secure the defenses. Starting a defense industry requires a vertical chain of command, something we haven’t done over the years [of national independence], making do with the ‘manual mode.’ Second, the administration, instead of hinting at, must clearly set course on the formation of a professional army, and settle the issue of territorial defense forces.”

People watching news bulletins, invariably with reports on turf wars between the national law-enforcement agencies’ use of force, tend to believe that their government is a puppet on a string being handled by a perverted puppeteer. Cans packed with hard cash, found [by anticorruption detectives] at Justice Chaus’s office are like time bombs [planted by the enemy] behind the rear lines. Meanwhile, Russia has actually established a powerful military conclave in the Donbas. For over a year experts have been pointing to Russia’s constant military buildup alongside the Ukrainian border. Does this mean that we – all of us, including the government and the media – are on the edge of an abyss, being blissfully unaware of our precarious position? Mykhailo Honchar made a harsh statement, concerning the national information policy: “We have three media magnates. One of them is President Poroshenko, but somehow we don’t have effective counter-propaganda.”

Leonid Poliakov took the floor, and declared: “Ukraine is in a state of war; this war is both obvious and covert. Discussing the possibility of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, we must have clear cut guidelines and a plan of action to deter this aggression. There is no ruling out a full-scale aggression against Ukraine, and there are a number of preconditions. The military ones in the first place. We are witness to Russia’s military buildup on the Russian-Ukrainian border and along the temporary disengagement line. Russia has deployed enough troops and materiel for an act of aggression. Number two: intelligence. Russia is stepping it up, increasing the number of UAVs, recon/sabotage teams, and so on. Number three: there is mounting pressure on Ukraine’s partners and allies, who won’t be likely to lend us a hand in case of full-scale aggression. Therefore, we must rely only on our own resources and brace ourselves for any turn in events. Our partners are taking their time helping us, for a variety of reasons, and what happened back in 2004 is graphic proof.”

Yevhen Marchuk, a direct participant in the Minsk talks, made a brief and to the point presentation, regarding factors working for Russia’s aggressive foreign policy; and weak spots in Ukraine’s foreign policy that have to be remedied pronto: “Over the past eight years, Russia has outplayed the West in all standings. The West in general and its clandestine agencies in particular, have shown a light-minded attitude to the Russian Federation’s conduct. In 2008, the Russian Federation withdrew from the conventional weapons treaty, and proceeded to restructure [upgrade] its Western Military District, for the whole world to see. The RF has been doing so until this day, at an accelerated rate. This restructuring is mainly in terms of offensive weapons. In 2008, RF perpetrated an open, demonstrative act of aggression against Georgia. Our partners in the West responded politically, more or less actively, but no conclusions were made.

“Clandestine agencies in NATO countries are obviously out of shape, as evidenced by a series of hair-raising terrorist attacks, each followed closely by the next. Their consequences were both human losses and a formidable message. They [clandestine agencies] failed to detect and prevent three terrorist attacks in France, one in Brussels, the HQ of practically all European institutions, and the attempted coup d’etat in Turkey. I asked some NATO officials if they were shocked by having practically lost the north-eastern flank, considering that Russia had first annexed Crimea and then turned it into a military base which is being regularly supplied with materiel, including nuclear systems. The attempted coup in Istanbul, Erdogan’s peculiar conduct, his meeting with Putin – all these are pieces of a puzzle falling into place.

“Ukraine is hanging in the Russia-NATO balance – this, and the fact that no intelligence service anywhere in the West could predict Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, let alone the outbreak of the war of aggression in Donbas. For Ukraine, this isn’t theory, but vitally important practice. Several conclusions should be made from this experience. First, we shouldn’t idealize our partners. We should appreciate their support, but Ukraine must rely on its own resources, certainly in the context of partnership with the world’s leading countries. Second, how are we to forecast Russia’s conduct in regard to Ukraine? Have we paid enough attention to the key sectors? For example, there has been no Ukrainian representative to NATO for over a year. After Mr. Dolhov left to take the post of Deputy Defense Minister, there has been just the Ukrainian charge d’affaires at NATO. This kind of diplomacy is symbolic.”