Moscow and Kyiv: Political Jealousies Left Behind?
The recent active development of Ukrainian-Russian relations at various levels has raised media fears, “interpretations”, and rumors that Ukraine will as a result find itself in serious political and psychological dependence on Russia. The October 4 tragedy when a Ukrainian missile downed a Russian Tu-154 airliner over the Black Sea and the behavior of Kyiv and Moscow in the first days after the accident might have further reinforce these fears, especially since Kyiv kept repeating anything but the truth in the first days. At the same time Moscow demonstrated complete political correctness, with Russian leaders asking that Ukraine not be blamed without ample evidence. In addition, the dynamic development of contacts between Moscow and the West, above all the US, Germany, and Britain, have created an impression that Ukraine is at risk of staying in Russia’s shadow in this area as well. Given the realities, such fears were not exactly unfounded.
The interview granted by Vladimir RUSHAILO, Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, and Yevhen MARCHUK, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, to The Day shows that the problem must now be viewed from a different angle. First, the tragic air crash has not led to subservience. Secondly, the two states have turned the “page of jealousy toward the West” in their relations, and this has brought common challenges. The current parallel course of Moscow and Kyiv is going to provide new chances in bilateral relations. Thirdly, Moscow shows readiness to fully revise the ideological framework of its relations with NATO in terms of discussing membership conditions, which could well have a positive effect on Ukraine’s position and opportunities. Fourth, the security council secretaries do not conceal that there are quite serious problems between the two countries which can only be solved in an atmosphere of positive contacts, even if these contacts have been brought about by tragedy.
“Mr. Marchuk, what conclusions do you think Ukraine should draw from the Russian Tu-154 accident from the perspective of not only our armed forces reform but also of the relations among our arms-carrying agencies?”
Yevhen MARCHUK: “The first conclusion is in a somewhat different area. The investigation of this tragedy showed that Ukraine and Russia can work very effectively even in such a painful situation, in such a delicate sphere, where the question is one of human lives. I would emphasize this: our month-long joint work revealed a very serious potential for Ukrainian-Soviet cooperation. We saw we were able to find answers to the difficult problems still existing in the relations between Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, we could share experience with and serve as an example for other joint commissions.
“As to the Ukrainian arms-carrying agencies, what requires serious overhaul is primarily the procedures of this kind of live-fire exercises and manuals designed for the firing crews. I would not rush to link what happened to the necessity of making any specific changes in the structure of our Armed Forces. For instance, there has been a host of suggestions, both realistic and fanciful, about whether a civilian or non-civilian should be Minister of Defense. Meanwhile, even if the minister is a civilian, nothing will change because it takes tremendous effort to work out a framework for transition to civilian control over the Ministry of Defense. We must create a division of power between the civilian- staffed Ministry of Defense and the General Staff, etc. It has taken some countries years to achieve this. In other words, even a tragedy like this should not trigger any rash changes in the structure of the Armed Forces for the sake of, so to speak, fashion or the wish to react as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Rushailo, Russia already has the experience of a civilian-headed Ministry of Defense. Do you think you have managed to ensure civilian control over the arms-carrying agencies, a topic of heated debates in Ukraine?”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “You know, this is a difficult question. Russia is so far following this path, which also implies some reform. I think we will make final conclusions after we have reached the end of this road.”
“Does this mean that the appointment of a civilian Minister of Defense required certain structural changes?”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “Of course, there were certain structural changes: the Russian Federation armed forces are being reformed and reduced. Some structural units were also restructured. But it is too early to draw any conclusions: we must first see the results.”
“Is there mutual understanding between the security councils of Russia and Ukraine in what relates to the two countries’ integration in the European structures? It seems to us the Ukrainian and Russian sides have somewhat different visions of integration processes...”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “Naturally, we also discuss, at the level of experts, issues related to international cooperation, our multilateral relations, integration into Europe, etc. This is very important, but we are now setting ourselves certain priorities, combating terrorism undoubtedly being one of them at the moment. We also discussed this subject during an extraordinary session of the security council secretaries of the Collective Security Treaty countries in Dushanbe, in which the Ukrainian side participated as an observer, as did other CIS and GUUAM states. From this standpoint, our approaches are identical. There are some other issues on which we work and exchange experience, for example, cooperation between our armed agencies and special services. Not so long ago, the Security Council of Russia examined such a complex issue as new governmental approaches to controlling illegal drug-trafficking. We share our experience with the Ukrainian colleagues because this is a pressing problem for Ukraine also. Today (November 3 — Ed.), we have signed one more plan of joint work between the staffs of the Security Council of Russia and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine for 2001-2002. We have opted for long-term cooperation. This embraces such issues as combating international terrorism, financial security, energy security, as well as military-technical, regional, border cooperation, etc.”
Yevhen MARCHUK: “The security councils and their staffs deal with problems of, if I may say so, an integrated and generalized nature which cannot be solved at the departmental level due to their complexity. Our participation in the discussion of these problems provides a faster and more visible result. In addition to the problems Mr. Rushailo has just been speaking about, Ukraine is concerned with such difficult issues in Ukrainian-Russian relations as borders, for example, the Azov segment of the Ukrainian-Russian border. On many occasions, when our department level negotiations reached a deadlock, the intervention of the security councils gave them a certain impetus. The reason is that our direct access to our presidents, integrated approach to the problems, and consultations allow us to make substantial progress in solving of these problems.
“As to European integration, I have heard some insinuations that the Russian side might feel a certain dissatisfaction over Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO and so on. This has never happened at any level. As we see, Russia itself is developing quite dynamically the European vector in its own foreign policy. I think what some of our commentators, including those who don’t quite get the picture, must do is compare the dynamics of Russian efforts in the European direction before and now. The conclusion is obvious: we are going almost in step. In some cases Russia leads, in others we do.
“This page has already been turned on Russia’s politically demonstrative jealousy over Ukraine’s European integration. Russia is today dynamically integrating in Europe. In other words, the problem no longer exists.”
“Russia is dynamically developing its relations with the West and seeking new forms of interaction with NATO. At the same time, cooperation between Ukraine and Russia is also noticeably on the rise. Can we really claim against this backdrop that the page of jealousy has been turned and our states will no longer consider each other as rivals on their way to NATO?”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “I don’t think this is a problem. Indeed, we can say we have some new forms of cooperation. What distinguishes the current year is an unprecedented and active dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, above all at the top. The number of meetings between our presidents is reaching ten.”
Yevhen MARCHUK: “I do not think we have had any such thing throughout the years of our independence.”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “This testifies to the common interests of our national leaders. Also more active are contacts at the level of prime ministers and leaders of federal agencies. A long series of mutually advantageous economic projects has been drawn up and implemented, and I think the security council secretaries also have to follow suit with our presidents and heads of government. We also actively work in various directions. I must say that our security councils observe the Cooperation Protocol of May 21, 2000, and last February we signed a new framework document that sets out the guidelines of our cooperation. We have common approaches to most international problems. We have been meeting in Kyiv, Moscow, Orel, Dushanbe, and the Crimea, which also shows our aspiration to strengthen ties between our security councils. Experts are also meeting far more often than before. We attach great importance to the fact that in 2002 Russia will observe the Year of Ukraine. Many ministries and departments have already begun active preparation for these events, so virtually all aspects of Russian- Ukrainian relations are now being studied. I think the main thing is that citizens of Ukraine and Russia should see that these functions do them good. I think our presidents are pursuing precisely this objective.”
Yevhen MARCHUK: “I would give two examples showing why our cooperation even in such a complex issue as terrorism is more of regional than of global importance. During the economic crisis of 1998, by force of our economic interconnections, the Russian wave swept over Ukraine as rapidly as perhaps nowhere else in the world. Now there is Afghanistan. What about refugees and illegal migrants? This is a Ukrainian-Russian problem. At the current stage, it will have a lesser impact on, say, Yakutia or Finland... We have a common and specific border — although not closed, it is still a border. The very route of migration and drug trafficking runs across Russia and Ukraine. This is why our cooperation is more specific and profound than what we have with other countries.”
“But you did not say if jealousy had been done away with.”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “We have no jealousy at all!”
“Does it mean Russia will not object if tomorrow Ukraine applies for NATO membership?”
Vladimir RUSHAILO: “You know, I do not think this is a Security Council question. I can only express my own view. We are also revising our attitude toward NATO, but our position is this: Russia cannot afford to get into a regular line and wait until this is discussed even if NATO were ready to admit Russia. If there is any cooperation, it will require changes and new forms.”
