What conditions should be met for Ukraine to receive lethal weapons?

The Day discussed with former head of Georgian security service’s foreign intelligence bureau and former first deputy minister of defense of Georgia Batu KUTELIA, who until recently was a fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership (Washington, DC), why Ukraine was not provided with lethal weapons and what were Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical objectives in Ukraine.

 The Georgian expert has arrived in Ukraine to present a course in Security Studies to students of the Civil and Political School.

Recently, an American general said when speaking before the Senate that America should provide weaponry to Ukraine, because Putin’s ultimate objective is the destruction of NATO. Do you agree with this take on the problem?

 “It is difficult to predict what Putin’s ultimate objective is, but he definitely tries to revise the political order of Europe and the world through aggression. As part of this revision, he tries to discredit NATO as the most powerful military and political organization that really has the potential to stop the military aggression of Russia.”

In your opinion, what are obstacles to provision of lethal weapons to Ukraine?

 “I think there are no obstacles, the process is going on at its natural rate. Emotionally, we would like to have a faster decision, but the strength of democracy is that important political decisions, especially those regarding the economy or security, are made following shaping, ‘fermentation’ of this or that decision. Once these decisions are made, their legitimacy is, firstly, much higher, and secondly, the implementation of such decisions is much more effective. Therefore, to achieve the ultimate objective, important political decisions go through all the necessary democra­tic institutions. This, unfortunately, takes time.”

Do you think that the delay in decision-making is in no way linked to the fact that the Ukrai­nian government itself has not shown a clear willingness to resist the Russian aggression?

 “The military capability is less important here than the process that Ukraine should display as a state. Ukraine needs to reform its security system, so that it becomes compatible with the parameters of liberal democracy.

 “As a sovereign democratic state, Ukraine has the right to self-defense, and partners will provide that opportunity as soon as you make steps in this direction.

 “To say that this conflict or war with Russia can serve as a disincentive to assist Ukraine would be wrong. I think that the war with Russia, on the contrary, accelerates the decision and gives a better chance to Ukraine’s political leaders to conduct fast and effective reforms to meet Western standards. It will be one of the main arguments for the political forces in America and Europe which are very active in their support for Ukraine, urging the international community to help your country. This will strengthen their arguments.”

The war in Ukraine demonstrated that the Georgian-Russian conflict was not enough to revise Europe’s approaches to security issues, including those having to do with the Russian Federation. Will European politicians change their approaches now? How should we understand Francois Hollande’s statement that he sees no prospects of NATO enlargement?

 “The fact that the prospects of NATO enlargement policy look different to different politicians is not surprising. Still, now, in my opinion, all the leaders of democratic European nations perceive the Russian threat the same way, for it is a fact that has already taken place, and NATO’s decision to strengthen its military presence in those countries that share a border with Russia has been confirmed. This decision was a consensus one.

 “As for NATO enlargement, it is another matter. I think that strategically, much greater mistake was committed when the 2008 Bucharest summit saw Ukraine and Georgia denied the road map, the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Although the summit confirmed that NATO membership was open to Ukraine and Georgia, not signing the MAP enabled Russia’s aggressive actions in Georgia in 2008 and then the war in Ukraine, as a continuation of its revanchist course.

 “We all know that Germany was among opponents of this decision in 2008. Their reasoning was that such a step would destabilize the European security. They claimed that nations with territorial issues or those not fully reformed to comply with democratic institutions would bring more instability. However, I do not share that argument. I think that just such a program would have allowed us to more effectively integrate these nations. It would be a stabilizing factor. Such examples exist in NATO’s history, since Germany was a divided state with less than fully functioning institutions at the time of its accession to the alliance. It has been NATO membership and security environment provided by the alliance that have allowed its member nations to concentrate their efforts on economic development and building social and democratic institutions.”

What are your recommendations for the National Security and Defense Council and the pre­sident of Ukraine on building a national security strategy amid aggression?

 “In response to the Russian aggression, Ukraine should join EU, because a major goal of the Kremlin is to prevent democratic institutions’ formation and reforms in Ukraine.

 “I personally think that the future of Ukraine’s security is linked to the quest for NATO membership. It will bring long-term stability and prosperity to the Ukrainian people.”

Speaking of tactics, how are we to stop the “hot” conflict? What are pros and cons of the pre­sidential appeal for a UN peacekeeping mission and an EU police mission?

 “The prospects of implementing the security strategy I have just proposed depend on the efficiency of multi-directional diplomatic and information policy of Ukraine. This is the tactical task of the Ukrainian government. It should grow more active in all directions. Ukraine should create an agenda, not follow one created by Russia.”

And what about the involvement of peacekeepers and police mission?

 “Attracting international component in solving the conflict in the Donbas is strategically a right move for Ukraine. It is also important to consi­der the mistakes made previously in the creation of such ‘formats.’ These negotiations should be based on a clear mechanism for enforcement of agreements. This again depends on how effective the Ukrainian diplomacy will be in the international arena where it should consolidate allies who will guarantee implementation of the agreed mechanisms.”

Do you think that the Minsk format and renouncing of the Geneva format was a mistake on the part of the Ukrainian diplomacy?

 “I do not think that the Minsk 2 agreement was the best deal out there. Much more importantly, you need to create effective leverage against Russia, so that it would be unable to renounce this agreement.

 “We must capitalize on what is already there, and move on, create a coalition of nations willing to oppose Russian attempts to revise the existing agreement.

 “Georgia’s experience shows that Russia violates any agreement when she sees it as advantageous.”

Which countries should be involved to make Russia’s compliance with its treaty obligations most likely?

 “The US, the EU and other NATO countries. They have the ability to create leverage by imposing sanctions on Russia and providing Ukraine with weapons that would allow you to protect yourself.”