Our expert community has not been conducting research on Ukraine-NATO and Ukraine-Russia-NATO cooperation (and has not informed the public about it). Security is such an important aspect of state-building, but our lawmakers prefer not to mention it. Even while addressing the latest events in Libya, we have mainly considered the problem of evacuating Ukrainian citizens working in this North African country, and have left aside geopolitics and security. Meanwhile, Ukraine keeps straddling two military and political blocks – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, being the only state in Central Europe which does not belong to either NATO or the CSTO.

“Kyiv Insipidity”

The visit to Ukraine by NATO Secretary General Mr. Anders Vog Rasmussen in late February 2011 did not enjoy the attention of local experts and journalists. The same applies to the cautious messages and comments made by the alliance’s leader with regard to the actual status and perspectives for Ukraine-NATO cooperation. Even Rasmussen’s appearance at Kyiv’s National Taras Shevchenko University was expectedly reserved and non-emotional, although the event could have provoked a less formal and more creative vision of Ukraine’s place and role in reforming the European security environment.

“Insipidity” is a good definition for all that took place during the secretary general’s visit to Ukraine.

It immediately reminded me of the visit of U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden to Kyiv in July 2009. He kept assuring that development of strategic relations between Ukraine and the U.S. would continue, and stressed that a reset in the U.S.-Russia relationship would not negatively affect Ukrainian national interests. But every word was enveloped by some warning and caution.

Ukraine Offside. For the Time Being.

Currently, bilateral political, geopolitical and European security aspects are practically missing in the Ukraine–NATO relationship. Generally, expressions like “geopolitical game”, “national interest in foreign policy”, “strategic planning” or “planning development of foreign policy processes” vanished not only from the lexicon of Ukraine’s foreign ministry, but from those of President Viktor Yanukovych and the government. The Ukraine-NATO dialogue is comprised of just military and technical cooperation, involvement of Ukrainian military personnel in NATO peacemaking missions and operations, as well as different ways of fighting international terrorism and piracy.

It would not be a mistake to say there is scepticism about the president’s and parliamentary majority’s views regarding the progress in relations between Ukraine and NATO. One only need mention the law regarding the foundations of interior and foreign policies, and disbandment of governmental agencies in charge of European integration.

Such an attitude of Ukrainian leaders may be both beneficial and unfavourable for NATO.

Why beneficial? Because Ukraine’s non-aligned status has temporarily removed irritants in the development of the NATO-Russia dialogue, calmed Russian politicians and the public, made it possible for the alliance to proceed in its discussions with Russia on important issues. These include support of NATO military operations in Afghanistan; the continuation of fighting international terrorism; and the establishment of an all-European anti-missile defence system with the participation of Russia and probably, even Ukraine.

Why unfavourable? Because it could seriously disturb the process of the alliance’s eastern extension to Ukraine and Georgia. Rasmussen’s statements regarding the alliance’s “open doors” are evidence that NATO is not going to abandon its expansion plans, which, apropos, was confirmed in the new Strategic Concept of NATO, approved in Lisbon in November 2010.

Therefore, the endeavours of both parties – NATO and Ukraine – to avoid any straightforward formulations and not burn bridges to potential cooperation shows the security balance created by Ukraine within the last 12 months is a temporary one.

Russia Playing. Already.

There are other reasons, including internal ones, for the cautious approach to Ukraine-NATO cooperation.

Obviously, Russia is one. This country is strategically important and equally problematic for both the European Union and the U.S.

Europe today appears satisfied that for the second winter no problems have arisen with Russian natural gas supplies to the European market, and that Kyiv has stopped asking the Europeans to back it in continuous disputes with Moscow.

The U.S. is also satisfied, although moderately, with the renewal of an atmosphere of trust between Ukraine and Russia.

First, Ukraine has not prevented the reset of Russia-U.S. relations, which is a main trump card for U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration.

Second, with the revolutionary Middle East holding significant deposits of energy resources, Russian oil and gas are important stabilising factors in global terms.

Third, presidential elections will take place in 2012 in the U.S. and Russia, where great achievements in developing Russia-U.S. relations have to be demonstrated. In this context “Ukrainian surprises” would be absolutely irrelevant.

Russia has masterfully kept both the European Union and U.S. dependent on it. Furthermore, Moscow continuously articulates proposals for Ukraine to join CSTO – the only military and political alliance which never participated in military campaigns and practically has no potential to confront today’s global challenges and threats. Can we seriously consider the potential of 4,000 troops, ten airplanes and fourteen helicopters of Soviet production?

Libya Will Help Us

Strange as it is, perhaps recent developments in Libya, along with NATO’s decision to take over command of the military operations in that country will finally move forward the stagnant security dialog regarding Ukraine.

This has not always been the case. We are not beginners in geopolitical politics, having substantial intellectual resources and practical knowledge which allow us not just the analysis of global security processes, but the ability to react adequately to and even influence the outcome.

I thus expect that Libyan developments will awaken in Ukraine awareness of political responsibility for own security, both of our country and our people.

Oleh Lyashko is a lawmaker in Ukraine’s parliament.