The head of NATO’s mission to Ukraine says that in seeking to adopt the standards of the US-led military alliance by 2020, Kyiv has set itself “a very ambitious goal,” which will involve “a fundamental change in mindsets.”
In an interview with the Kyiv Post, Alexander Vinnikov said the NATO allies want Ukraine “to become a success story,” but says the nation “should make full use of the current window of opportunity to make tangible progress.”
Since Russia launched its war on Ukraine in the Donbas in the spring of 2014, with armed groups supported by Moscow and backed by Russian troops taking over parts of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, the need for sweeping change within Ukraine’s armed forces came into sharp focus.
With Ukraine only able to field around 6,000 combat-ready troops at the onset of the war, a massive volunteer effort came to the rescue and is credited with saving the country in the face of the Kremlin’s aggression. But in the wake of bloody battles and long casualty lists at Ilovaisk, Donetsk airport and Debaltseve, the need for deep reform and modernization away from Soviet-era military standards became undeniable.
After the Ukrainian military’s shortcomings in logistics, manpower and equipment were exposed, NATO increased its support activities in Ukraine to unprecedented levels.
Ukraine’s plan to achieve NATO military standards was made official in September 2015, when President Petro Poroshenko signed the National Defense Doctrine, which states the country’s goal is to make its military NATO-compliant by 2020. The roadmap for reaching those standards, The Strategic Defense Bulletin, was finally unveiled last summer. Ihor Dolhov, Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister, told the Kyiv Post earlier this month that the country has a list of some 600 points which require attention.
But with a little over three years until the 2020 deadline, can all those issues be addressed? NATO has been an outspoken critic of Russia’s actions in the Donbas and has provided significant training for Ukrainian forces since the war began. But does the alliance believe it can achieve full interoperability with Ukraine, and even one day welcome the country as a member? The Kyiv Post put those questions to Vinnikov.
KP: How realistic is it for Ukraine to reach NATO standards by 2020? Isn’t there a huge amount of work to do? Based on what you’ve seen in the months since the Strategic Defense Bulletin was adopted, do you think the 2020 goal is achievable?
AV: I think that given the unprecedented level of allied support, Ukraine should make full use of the current window of opportunity to make tangible progress in implementing NATO standards and best practices.
\Given the consistent political messaging by the Ukrainian authorities, expectations are high. Now the key challenge is to implement the goals outlined in the Strategic Defense Bulletin.
Some of our own allies have successfully gone through a similar transition process from a post-Soviet to a Western system, and spent over a decade doing so – without having to fight a conflict on their territory at the same time. So Ukraine needs both strong political will and less resistance at the lower levels to implement systemic reforms, despite understandably difficult circumstances. And NATO stands ready to provide practical support to Ukraine in this endeavor, based on the wide range of experience of our own members.
Currently our advisory team consists of fifteen advisers living and working in Ukraine on a wide range of security and defence sector reform areas. Our capacity-building and capability development programs include the six trust funds created since the September 2014 Wales Summit – long-running programs aimed at dealing with some of the consequences of Soviet military activity in Ukraine.
NATO’s assistance is aimed at helping Ukraine become more resilient, carry out needed reforms, and thus better provide for its own security. But the responsibility of implementation and meeting deadlines it has set itself remain Ukraine’s.
KP: When we talk of “NATO standards,” what do we actually mean? This isn’t just about military hardware and training troops. Isn’t this also about instilling political and ideological values like democracy and rule of law?
AV: You’re right. NATO standards are not only about technical standards. They are also about standards of democracy, good governance, rule of law, human rights, and a market economy. Centrally, they include a commitment to civilian control and democratic oversight, to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the ability and willingness to contribute to NATO operations. Ultimately, it is about a fundamental change in mindsets and in the way that institutions act and interact.
KP: But isn’t it in these areas that Ukraine and NATO will face the greatest challenges to success? If we take the EuroMaidan demonstrations as just the most recent example of an attempt to make those changes, then that was supposed to be a “revolutionary” push for democracy, transparency and rule of law. But nearly three years on, don’t we see that the the results are very much a mixed picture?
AV: The NATO allies want Ukraine to become a success story. They’re convinced that an independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security. It’s also the best response to Russian aggression. Today Ukraine has a unique opportunity to strengthen its public institutions, rule of law, economic competitiveness and security and defense sector. That’s why NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine going forward.
The allies have commended Ukraine’s progress on the path of reform, in particular with regard to macroeconomic stabilization, police and defense reform, and public procurement. Positive steps were also welcomed with regard to decentralization, judicial reform and anti-corruption efforts, as well as fulfilling IMF conditions. Nevertheless significant challenges remain and allies strongly encourage Ukraine to continue timely and comprehensive implementation of systemic reform in these and other areas, and to ensure their sustainability.
KP: Let’s assume Ukraine does reach NATO standards, either in 2020 or at some later point. I think we can agree that would be a great achievement, but we shouldn’t harbor any illusions—this doesn’t mean Ukraine will suddenly be able to join the alliance. The reasons for this are well known: Ukraine joining NATO would be too provocative for Russia and NATO member states do not want to confront the Kremlin in this way. Is that an accurate reading of the situation?
AV: As any European democracy, Ukraine has the right to seek or not to seek NATO membership. Whether or not to apply for NATO membership is a sovereign national decision. For its part, the Alliance’s Open Door policy – enshrined in our founding treaty – remains in place and a possible application by Ukraine would be considered as any other application would. It is a matter concerning only the applicant state and the 28 (soon to be 29) member states of the Alliance – no third party has a say in this process.
KP: Isn’t it best for Ukraine to look at this as a welcome “carrot” of NATO membership, because it will push the country to make the reforms, which are clearly needed? And that this will put the country in a position to be able to join the alliance at some future point, when the political climate is right?
AV: I believe that the prospect of NATO membership is not and should not be the key motivation for Ukraine to proceed with reforms. These should be pursued first and foremost for the sake of the people of Ukraine, who have sacrificed so much on the Maidan, and continue to pay the ultimate price in the Donbas, in order to see their country firmly anchored among European democracies. It is therefore heartening to see that Ukraine has reformed more since the Revolution of Dignity than during all of the previous years of its independence. However, much work remains ahead to fully meet the aspirations of its citizens.
At this stage, Ukraine’s leadership has opted for a step-by-step approach: the first focus (will be) on reforms to bring the country in line with Euro-Atlantic standards, and then the membership issue can be put on the political agenda. In other words, do the homework now, and consider membership when the homework is done. I think that’s a wise approach.
