Aleksandrov, O.S. Ukraine-NATO: New Conditions and Realities of Collaboration, 2011. Analytical Report, National Institute of Strategic Studies, 56 pages.

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.