Ukraine Integration Into NATO and EU

Political events in Ukraine in November and December of 2004 attracted attention of the world community to this country as the wind of democratic changes came to this former republic of the Soviet Union. Even though the Soviet Union collapsed 13 years ago, historical political and economical bounds between those 15 new independent states where quite strong and even though these countries became independent, their dependence upon the policy of Kremlin remained. All 15 countries chose the way of democratic reforms but their totalitarian past and no experience democracy prevented from any effective realization of their reformative policies. In fact, this 15-year period was characterized by hyperinflation, extreme poverty and sharpening social contradictions. Russia had preserved its dominance over the politics of its close neighbors: Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan dictating them its conditions of economical development which were Moscow-oriented. The corrupted governments of these countries with corrupted legislative and executive branches of power had turned their countries into full dependence upon Moscow's will.

Before discussing the modern political tendencies of Ukraine it's important to revise 15 years of Ukrainian independence in order to understand the nature of contradictions and crisis of political power which revealed itself at the end of 2004.

Communist experience of Ukraine was the main break factor which prevented country from integration to Europe, free equal trade with western and eastern partners, military reform and other essential reforms of civil state. Pro-Russian parliamentarians, who were former members of the Communist party continued to be loyal to Russia and Russian domination in Eastern Europe, so they did their best in order to keep "warm relations with big brother" and did what Kremlin wanted them to do. For a decade Ukrainian politicians were lost what side to support: Russia's or the side of Europe. As a result of such corruptive and selfish political management Ukraine became backward country with ruined heavy industry and collapsing agricultural sector. Inflation reached unbelievable rate (100-000% if compared to 1991)

and average salary in the year of 2004 was approximately 100$

. But the problems of the country were not limited only to economical problems.

In early 1990's Ukraine fully experienced what separatism meant as the Crimean region officials, sponsored by Russian political authorities who wanted to secure Russian military bases in the port of Sevastopol wanted to separate from Ukraine and join Russian Federation. Crimea became autonomous, which now has economical autonomy from official Kiev (the capital of Ukraine), but it doesn't mean that standards of living in Crimea are higher than in Ukraine. Crimea was just an object for Russia to demonstrate its power and prove Ukraine its political weakness and dependence.

Besides, recent events show that Ukraine was turned into Russia's energy slave as main energy resources: gas and oil are exported from Russia. In order to secure domination on energy market of Ukraine, Russian oil companies became the owners of 15 biggest oil-refining plants which in the past guaranteed energy independence from Russia. It wouldn't happen in any democratic country with a true government, but corrupted Ukrainian officials promoted this policy as the compensation from the side of Russia was a political support.

Another important particularity of Ukraine is that ethnic Ukrainians form only 73% of its population, ethnic Russians - 22%.

But the Russian speaking minority is 40% of the country's population. Independent Ukraine failed to promote its cultural nationalization policy; the language issue remains to be unsolved: in the eastern part of Ukraine there is miserable number of schools where subjects are taught in Ukrainian, Ukrainian is neither used in universities in the eastern part of the country.

But the most terrible and shameful for the image of the country became total corruption of state institutions: starting from the administration of president and going all the way down to high school counselors. If in 1994 before Leonid Kuchma was elected as a president, the word "corruption" was rarely used either in media or in politics and was associated with the world of Sicilian mafia from the movies, then in quite a short period of time the nation experienced the effects of corruption and mafia on themselves.

Disrespect of the nation towards government and oligarchs caused political crisis of 2001 which turned into numerous actions of protest in Kiev led by consolidated opposition: socialists, right nationalists and communists with the only slogan "Kuchma go away!." But this action of protest failed and president remained in his office.

Soviet bureaucracy was substituted by a new ineffective anti-people's government, which had no idea about country's development and looked either on Moscow or on Western Europe, but in fact its policy did not satisfy any of these sides. Orientation on Moscow and flirt with Western world were the main attributes of former Ukrainian president's policy. Legacy of former Ukrainian president impresses:

Pro-Russian government which always fulfilled the order of Kremlin, which always participated in fraud and money-laundering as well as loyal majority of Ukrainian parliament to president prevented country from dynamic development.

Oligarchs (less than 30 families) who control 75% of nation's wealth

. During privatization of state enterprises in early 1990's using money of mafia certain groups got the control over the most profitable enterprises: steel mills, heavy industry plants, pipelines. Besides, all private enterprises which have an income of more than $500.000 are controlled by regional organized crime. Fore more than a decade government was closing their eyes on lawlessness and chaos.

During the regime of former president more than 30 journalists were murdered as they criticized government in anti-people's activity and personal enrichment. Oligarchs had tax privileges which promoted national impoverishment as the budget was losing billions of dollars of unpaid taxes.

Ukraine couldn't even dream about integration to any European institutions without the approval from Moscow. Black sea Russian navy which is dislocated on the territory of Ukraine in the city of Sevastopol (Autonomous republic of Crimea) demonstrates the dependence of Ukraine.

Besides, the administration of former president and Ukrainian ministry of defense was involved into international scandal as they sold unique radar systems to Iraqis leader Saddam Hussein which contradicted to all international obligations and treaties signed by Ukraine. This issue made the U.S.A. And countries of European Union to revise their attitude towards Ukraine and cut off financial aid and investments to country's economy. In order to change the attitude of the U.S.A. towards Ukraine for better, the country sent its 1650 troops to Iraq as a member of coalition.

But tragic event of Jan. 8, 2005 when "eight Ukrainian soldiers were killed in an explosion at an ammunition dump caused The Ukrainian parliament to call Tuesday for immediate withdrawal of the nation's 1,650 troops in Iraq. The vote was nonbinding but reflected growing national dismay over the mission. The blast was reported as an accident, but a top commander later raised suspicions that it could have been an insurgent attack."

In fact according to the report of corruption monitoring organization Transparency International, Ukraine ranked 108th from 133 possible (between African poor countries of Sudan and Zimbabve); Russia with its well-known lawlessness ranked 128th, while none of European Union countries appeared to be lower than 67th in corruption rank.

These factors became those very obstacles which prevent Ukraine from quick and successful integration in to European institutions and NATO.

The events of "orange revolution" or velvet revolution which took place in December of 2004 had changed political orientation of the country. Yushchenko, new Ukraine's president who is a pro-western democrat stands for independence of Ukraine from any foreign influence, stands for promoting democracy in the country and future integration into European Union and NATO. He chose a thorny way as he has to fight prolonged poverty, corruption, oligarchs and what is the most important he has to overcome distrust to the U.S.A. And Europe which remained in mentality of Ukrainians- citizens of the former Soviet Union.

The author of the article Yushchenko vs. Putin published in International Herald Tribune mentions that though Putin and Yushchenko are indignant at corruption and oligarchs they have different views on the solution of this problem. Putin wants to consolidate power and feels nostalgia about "powerful Soviet union," while Yushchenko has an aim to fight these vices promoting democratic values and building civil state.

Economical programs of Putin and Yushchenko are alike, as both of them stand for development of a free market economy. Both countries use fixated income tax (13%), but the priorities of development are different. Russian economical legislature is more advanced and is closer to world standards, but the shift towards authoritarism and state control over business prevents it from dynamic development. Ukraine has more perspectives in this direction.

Ukraine's new political priorities look very radical for conservative political elite of the country and even look frightening for Moscow officials. Western observers mark that Putin had lost the battle for Ukraine once and probably forever. Absence of any definite political strategy towards Ukraine had resulted in the failure of pro-Russian candidate despite falsifications and violations during presidential elections.

Nevertheless, the victory of Yushchenko doesn't mean that all problems will be solved once and forever. His promises in inauguration speech inspired Ukrainians but at the same time they mean that the nation has to make a tremendous effort in order to overcome its dark past. Economical development and gross product growth rate which is by the way the highest in Europe (13% in 2004) doesn't mean that forecast of Ukraine's economy will be optimistic.

Ukraine is not the member of WTO, without this membership it can not even dream about membership in EU. The U.S.A. had not abolished restrictions on trade with Ukraine as Ukraine is still the country subjected to the amendment of Jackson-Vennik

(Which imposes restrictions on trade with countries where human rights are not fully protected. This amendment was a reply on the demands of Russian-Jewish emigrants who asked the U.S.A. government to impose restrictions on trade with the U.S.S.R. As its policy encouraged anti-Semitism and suppressed democracy).

Ukraine has unfair taxation legislature which prevents the development of free business. The government control over banks and economy prevents the country from integration into global trade community.

There exists a set of other premises in order to refuse Ukraine membership in EU, but its aspirations are greatly encouraged by EU members. Besides, its close historical partners (Poland, Czech Republic and Germany) promise assistance and aid in development of relations with EU, as EU is interested in country which seems to be a potential member of EU.

Besides, new tendencies in Ukrainian politics do not look favorable for Russia, which traditionally viewed Ukraine as an object of its influence. Russia is quite an important trade partner of EU, one of its main energy resources suppliers and it may dictate its own will striking back on reorientation of Ukraine hitting both Ukraine and EU. So EU members have to be realistic about consequences of such changes. Moreover, recent practices have shown that Russia has enough political will to resist: pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian tendencies in politics of Poland (new member of EU) have resulted in restrictions imposed on Polish business in Russia and export of Polish goods to RF.

On the hand with problems towards future membership in EU, Ukraine faces a lot of obstacles towards membership in NATO. But, membership in NATO is more realistic for this country. Ukraine doesn't have to fulfill a complicated program of economical reforms in order to become NATO's member. For example Turkey, which is not the member of EU, is an equal member of NATO. Ukraine has to start its military reform, cut the number of troops, establishing well equipped professional army, which will respond to the demands of modern military doctrine of any European country. A special issue is Russian navy dislocated in the city of Sevastopol in Crimea, as Ukraine can not be guaranteed potential membership if there is military presence of another country on its territory. Ukrainian officials were warned: "NATO is not just a club," a senior State Department official said. "You've got to be able to contribute."

But we can not say that current Ukrainian government is idle and does nothing in order to solve these urgent questions. Current events show that reforming tendencies are full of enthusiasm and big hope towards country's future. Yushchenko had informed Times that his government will promote a three-year program of reforms which was ratified in Brussels by EU Council towards potential membership in European Union. Mr. Yushchenko had told the following:

"We think it very essential that the joint three-year EU-Ukraine action plan leads to the launch of membership negotiations in 2007, The policy we are shaping now is not for the EU. This is the policy we are shaping for our nation. We want freedom of speech and rule of law, we want democratic values to be respected, we want the free and competitive market to work. We need those things irrespective of whether we join the EU."(Times)

His words witness that Ukrainian officials do not live in the world of illusions but they are ready to work first of all for the good of the nation.

Reforms in the sphere of economy promoted by "iron lady of Ukrainian politics" Yulia Timoshenko demonstrate that reformists are ready to work. Changes become obvious from day-to-day. Last week Ukrainian Nation Bank had changed exchange rate of hrivna, stabilizing positions of national currency towards U.S. dollar and Euro. Current exchange rate is 1$=5.05 UAH, and 1 EUR=6.39 UAH compared to previous 1$=5.35UAH and 1 EUR=6.6 UAH. This tendency witnesses that current government is ready to accept free market policies and open national market for imported goods. The prime minister of Ukraine who has a wide support within the nation keeping her promises about war on contraband, corruption and power abuse. As Misha Glenny writes in International Herald tribune:

"She has addressed her two major domestic issues with gusto. At the heart of Ukraine's problems and Kuchma's legacy lie a tax regime that is an open invitation for Ukraine's superrich oligarchs to cheat the state of revenues and a customs operation that claimed to protect Ukrainian industry with high tariffs but in reality benefited only large-scale fraudsters and smugglers.

A more equitable tax regime and a "No to Contraband" campaign was Tymoshenko's bold answer to this. She drastically lowered tariffs on a range of key products, wiping out at a stroke the incentives for people to move goods illegally across Ukraine's borders. She has also ordered an overhaul of the notoriously corrupt Customs Service.

Her second problem contains greater dangers but also a couple of awkward moral dilemmas: The influence and financial clout of the oligarchs who indulged in everything from grand larceny, extortion and (most people believe) murder to amass huge fortunes under Kuchma."

Besides, current Ukrainian government had proved that it can function independently from Moscow and even make decisions which will contradict Russian economical interests: now Ukrainian government together with anti-monopoly committee are investigating price policies of oil-traders on Ukrainian fuel market:

Ukraine's government will begin talks today with Russian oil companies that have threatened to cut the country's fuel supplies unless Kiev abandons plans to cap petrol prices. Peter Henshaw, a spokesman at TNK-BP, the Anglo-Russian oil company, said the price controls ran counter to rising petrol prices around the world.

It only proves the words of Mr. Yushchenko who said that Ukraine stands for development of historical relations of both countries as partners, "warning that his policies, including relations with Russia, would be determined by his country's national interest rather than what he called the "byzantine" politics of the past."

The shift towards NATO integration becomes obvious as well: "NATO acted officially on Thursday to open discussions with Ukraine, a former partner of Russia, to become a member of the Atlantic military alliance

Yushchenko pressed the case for joining NATO in Washington earlier this month when he visited the White House and addressed Congress. Bush backed the request, but this week American officials said that entry would not be easy or rapid. Ukraine used to have one of the largest armies in Europe, but its armed forces have shrunk recently."

As writes, Ukraine's foreign minister Boris Tarasyuk told that Ukraine provides a set of reforms for its military and will probably meet the conditions for Alliance membership by the year of 2008. It's quite interesting, as the president of Ukraine, Mr. Yushchenko had also said that Ukraine will ask EU to start negotiations about Ukraine's possible membership in NATO in the year of 2008. But NATO members are not so optimistic about Ukraine's ambitions. At least they have declared that they won't make concessions to Ukraine simply because it wants membership in Northern Alliance. NATO appreciates Ukraine's shift towards independence in its foreign affairs policy, but at the same time NATO doesn't want to aggravate relations with official Moscow. Not long ago Baltic States joined NATO which was a serious blow on Russian diplomacy, as NATO overcame so-called "buffer zone" of Warsaw Pact members and even took into its membership three former Soviet republics.

Of course, Ukraine's traditional partners: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland are very enthusiastic about Ukraine's membership in NATO, as they have overcome "iron curtain" barrier and now want Ukraine to follow them. But NATO officials are more pragmatic and realistic about Ukraine:

The U.S. And Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary-general, backed Kiev's membership goal but refused to give a timetable and emphasised that it was Ukraine's responsibility to carry out necessary reforms.

"If states fulfill the criteria then NATO fulfils its promise to offer membership," said Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state.

Some Nato members, principally France, remain wary of putting Ukraine on the fast track to membership."

None would even argue that "orange revolution" as well as pro-western orientation of Ukrainian government made Russia to change its attitude towards this country. Putin understood that old practices of domination over neighboring state and bribery of government and parliament officials won't succeed from now on and will only make Russia's image worse. Putin's success during his second term is going down, autocratic methods of rule and oppression of business (YUKOS case) have wounded the image of Russia in the face of the U.S.A. And Europe. The events in Ukraine had only promoted "chilling" in relations of the U.S.A. And Russia.

Understandably, Russia had become more careful in its foreign policy towards its close neighbors, but never the less it may strike back imposing economical sanctions against Ukraine. The only problem is who will suffer more from this "revenge" Ukraine or Russia's international image. The words of Russian leader said on the first meeting with president of Ukraine do not sound sincere at all:

"You know that Russia has never acted behind the scenes in post-Soviet space," Putin said. "We have never acted [in a way that would] bypass the government, and the same pertains to Ukraine. Lately, we have only been doing what the Ukrainian government asked. You know this, it's not a secret. We only hope that we have the same trustworthy relations with you."

Neither Russia nor Ukraine are making sporadic political decisions about their future: new government hasn't worked even for 4 months. But different strategies of these countries become obvious: Russia is looking for the ways in order to get rid of dependence on Ukrainian goods:

"Last week, President Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, signed an agreement to build a gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea. By 2010, this will end Ukraine's virtual monopoly over the transit route supplying Russian and Central Asian gas to Western Europe. Ukraine is dependent on revenues from the transit to subsidize its own hugely inefficient gas consumption. The situation is even more bleak because the deal under which Turkmenistan sells cheap gas to Ukraine ends next year, and the Turkmens insist they will charge much more in the future. The new Baltic pipeline deal looks very much like Russia putting the squeeze on Ukraine where the country is most vulnerable."

What will happen later is not known. The only thing understood is that until economical cooperation is profitable for both countries they'll work together as neither Ukraine nor Russia can afford now to sacrifice economical interests for the sake of independent politics. Situation either in Ukraine or in Russia is far away from prosperity and stability: Russian authorities are afraid of "Ukrainian scenario" and separatism which is present in remote regions of the country. One Russian parliamentarian said "If your orange revolution was peaceful and velvet than ours would be bloody." So Russia's economy is not ready even for unnoticeable changes as it will make an impact on people's income.

The decision of Ukraine to join NATO in close future will also impact Russia's geopolitics, but right now Russian officials restrain from making any forecasts. Sergei Lavrov, foreign minister of Russian Federation told on NATO summit in Vilnius that "It would be the choice of Ukraine to choose its partners and it is the sovereign matter of Ukraine"

Observers say that it's too early now to make any predictions about the future of Ukraine. It's difficult to foretell the reaction of Russia on changes which take place Ukraine as well. Everything depends upon the common sense of Ukrainian and Russian politicians. Besides, "orange revolution" had shown that Russia has to refuse from Soviet model of relations with its neighbors as none of them wants Russian domination. Events in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan proved that these countries have chosen independent model of development and none of them wants to remain under Russia's protection. Despite all economical hardships they'll face when entering WTO and other trade organizations these countries deliberately desire this integration. And the task of the rest of developed world is to assist these countries in making their choice.