Book Review-Alisa Moldavanova
This
analytical report provides an overview of the recent changes in Ukrainian
foreign policy and Ukraine-NATO relations. In particular, the report examines the
main areas of military and technical collaboration between Ukraine and NATO, as
they are affected by Ukraine’s recently adopted policy of non-alignment. In
addition to the analytic report, the book includes abstracts from the round-table
discussion “Ukraine-NATO: New Conditions and Realities of Collaboration”
organized by the National Institute of Strategic Studies and the J. Marshall
European Center of Security Studies, that was funded by the NATO Communications
Office in Ukraine. According to the report, the recent changes in Ukraine-NATO
collaboration have resulted from several factors, and these factors are
analyzed through the following sections of the report: the non-alignment policy
adopted by Ukraine; the adoption of the new Strategic Concept by NATO itself; the
contemporary dynamic of Ukraine-NATO relations; the main directions of
collaboration between Ukraine and NATO; current problems in Ukraine-NATO
collaboration; and conclusions.
In
terms of the non-alignment policy, it involves looking at two aspects – internal
and external. The former considers the non-alignment policy as a stabilizing tool
for Ukraine, considering its social divisions and heated political discussions
regarding conflicting foreign policy objectives. The latter considers the
non-alignment policy as an effective tool for finding a more balanced foreign
policy model that accounts for the interests of the entire range of foreign
countries – both NATO member-states and Russia. According to the report,
non-alignment is a more strategic and forward-looking choice for Ukraine that
offers a better balance between Eastern and Western foreign policy vectors. In
particular, the report acknowledges the successful demarcation of the
Ukraine-Russia border and solving the issue of the Russian Black Sea fleet as
particularly successful steps in improving the security of Ukraine and the European
region in general.
The
new Strategic Concept developed by NATO establishes the Alliance as a dominant
regional security structure in Europe, and it also identifies the main
prospective threats, including international terrorism, cyber crime,
trafficking, drugs and weapons trade, as well as the energy–related security. Along
with this, NATO’s primary goals are not limited to defense; they rather focus
on the search of non-military tools, such as improved diplomacy and intelligence,
to improve regional security. In this respect, Ukraine’s interests fit well into
all of these areas, however, Ukraine is particularly interested in the
collaboration and development of its energy-related infrastructure (as a
transit country that had a negative previous experience of being in the middle
of an energy crisis in Eurasia). The other issue of Ukraine’s concern is the country’s
indirect involvement in NATO’s operations that are not authorized by the
Security Council. This issue needs further development since Ukraine is
concerned about maintaining good relations with third countries involved in
international security conflicts. The other important aspect of the new NATO
collaborative security doctrine is Ukraine’s participation in creating a pan-European
missile defense system (PRO).
Regarding
the contemporary dynamic of Ukraine-NATO relations, the report claims that NATO
approves the current foreign policy choices of Ukraine, and in fact, some of
the member-states are “thankful to the Ukrainian leadership for refusing the
Euro-Atlantic intentions Ukraine that were “dividing” the organizational unity and
were creating problems in the process of normalizing the relations with Russia”
(p. 6). At the same time, NATO is interested in more specific policy
collaborations with Ukraine, such as military collaboration. Hence, the report
claims that NATO has officially recognized the non-alignment policy of Ukraine
while leaving the security door open, depending on the development of the
foreign political situation. In support,
some Ukrainian experts say that the non-alignment policy has, in fact,
intensified Ukraine-NATO collaborations as evidenced by the adoption of the
Presidential law from 2011 on the free movement of foreign policy forces on the
territory of Ukraine with the purpose of joint military training; the adoption
of the Presidential law in 2010 regarding the new system of the coordination of
Ukraine-NATO collaborative projects; the adoption of the annual governmental
program “Ukraine-NATO” by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for 2011; and the
2011 Presidential law approving the implementation of the aforementioned annual
governmental program.
The
consultations regarding Ukraine-NATO collaborations encompass a wide range of
issues, including Ukraine’s participation in NATO’s missions of various
purposes (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya); the collaboration in reforming the
defense sector as well as military and military-technical collaboration; and the
collaboration in research and environmental projects. Of particular
significance is the program for disposing excessive military equipment and leftover
ballistic missiles equipment in Ukraine that is being implemented in two
stages: the period of 2006-2010 that resulted in the prevention of potential ‘technogenic’
catastrophes, the creation of new employment opportunities as well as the
introduction of new technologies; and the second stage that started in 2010 and
will last for 3 years.
Regarding
the current problems in Ukraine-NATO collaboration, the major issues include
the implementation of the administrative reform in Ukraine that slows down the Ukraine-NATO
collaboration, the lack of coordination among Ukrainian Ministries with regard
to NATO issues, the developing of alternative security alliances by Ukraine
(such as considering to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization - CSTO)
at the expense of the relations with NATO. For instance, some Ukrainian
politicians advocate for the enhanced collaboration with the CSTO, as a way to
maintain the foreign policy neutrality position. Hence, they argue, Ukraine has
developed numerous formal programs of collaboration with NATO, while similar
programs are absent in Ukraine-CSTO relations, and should be developed to
balance out the foreign security vector. However, the majority of Ukrainian
politicians believe that there is no need to improve the balance of foreign
policy vectors by developing additional collaborations with the former Soviet
Union countries. Particularly, they criticize the ability of CSTO to ensure
security in the region, and acknowledge the lack of its military capacities as
compared to NATO.
Overall,
the report concludes that there is a need to conduct intensive educational
campaigns regarding the benefits and reasons of Ukraine-NATO collaboration,
which would include conferences, round-table discussions, public speeches of
Ukrainian governmental officials, politicians and experts. The major current
and prospective directions in Ukraine-NATO collaboration should include
military and technical collaboration as well as reforming the military and
defense sector in Ukraine. Of particular importance is the participation of
Ukraine in a three-way missile defense system “USA-NATO-Russia” that could
utilize Ukrainian missile detection equipment. Finally, the major inhibitor of
Ukraine-NATO relations is the pressure from other military and security unions
such as the CTSO.
The
second part of the report includes abstracts from the conference participants’
speeches, and I will provide the translation of the presentation topics to give
a general sense of the topics covered:
·
Introductory
speeches by Andriy Yermolayev (National Institute of Strategic Studies), Pavlo
Klimkin (Foreign Affairs Ministry of Ukraine), John Tefft (U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine), Marcin Koziel (NATO Communications Office in Ukraine).
·
Oleh
Oleksandrov, “Current Aspects of Military and Technical Collaboration between
Ukraine and NATO in Consideration of the Non-Alignment Doctrine and a New
Strategic Concept by NATO.”
·
Leonid
Holopatyuk, “Main Directions of Military Collaboration between Ukraine and
NATO, Considering the Change in Foreign Policy Priorities by Ukraine.”
·
Kersti
Kelder, “The Potential Military and Technical Collaboration between Ukraine and
NATO.”
·
Vasyl
Lytvynchuk, “The Project “Partnership for Peace” in Ukraine (disposing light
and medium capacity military equipment): Potential Directions of
Collaboration.”
·
Valentyn
Badrak, “The Broadening of Defense Collaboration with NATO Member-States as a
Factor in Ukrainian Defense Capacity and the Catalyst of the Defense Industry
Development.”
·
Final
summarizing comments by Oleksiy Melnyk, the military expert in the Ukrainian
Center of Economic and Political Studies names after Oleksandr Razumkov.
Overall, the report is doing a good job
in providing the analysis of the multiple vectors of Ukraine-NATO collaboration
and providing some factual information regarding Ukraine’s participation in
various military and military-technical projects. It also gives a good sense of
the state of Ukrainian scholarship on Ukraine-NATO collaboration, and would be
a useful reading for anyone interested in a general survey of Ukraine-NATO
relations. At the same time, although this report presents a useful attempt to
analyze the dynamics of Ukraine-NATO relations, it also presents a narrow point
of view, which reflects the general confusion of Ukrainian political leaders
regarding Ukraine’s foreign policy identity and prospective foreign policy
priorities.
