In conditions when many members of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and deputies of the Verkhovna Rada appeared on the islands far from Ukraine, cut off from the homeland by the warm seas and oceans, meeting of parliamentary committee on questions of national security and defense last Thursday became that a platform on which representatives of various political forces, the Ukrainian government bodies and intelligence services, heads of other committees of the Verkhovna Rada without journalists and television cameras could discuss professionally the situation which has developed in the Caucasus in connection with military operations between Russia and Georgia, and also questions of minimization of its possible negative consequences for our country.
On the eve of this meeting we met the head of committee of questions of national safety and defense Anatoly GRITSENKO to ask it questions by which, in our opinion, many Ukrainians are set today.
"We will tell directly is a war"
- Anatoly Stepanovich, that we with horror observed some days in Georgia, the West bashfully calls an exit of Russia for borders of peacekeeping mission. Russia speaks about aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia and ethnic cleanings. What definition you can give to an event?
- For localization of the conflict and especially its consequences, regional and global, it is necessary to give an assessment to that occurred. And to leave thus from system of coordinates "the - the stranger" because a situation difficult, it isn't black - white and it can't unambiguously be estimated in the terms "aggressor" and "aggression victim".
It is absolutely predicted that after precedent of recognition of Kosovo the frozen conflicts in the territory of Georgia - in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had to blow up sooner or later. They exploded now. In South Ossetia the conflict passed into a hot phase, it is necessary to recognize it, the decision of the president Saakashvili on use of force for restoration of a constitutional order. I consider is a wrong and tragic step on the consequences of the Georgian president. Moreover, it undertook it, without having informed neither partners in NATO and EU, nor the president of Ukraine.The head of the state has no right for emotional decisions, he has to keep cool in any conditions. Even when it provoke to power actions, and Saakashvili provoked long.
Therefore, expressing solidarity with the people of Georgia which have become object of military aggression, I am not solidary with the decision of the Georgian president.
Still a month ago I supported its powerful initiatives directed on normalization of the relations with Abkhazia. Saakashvili offered this republic it is impossible large powers and preferences: post vice-the president of Georgia, a quota for representatives of the republic in the central power, special economic conditions for priority development of the region, even the veto on adoption of separate laws by parliament of Georgia. Offers were rejected without discussion. Reasons, in my opinion, two: deep mutual distrust and orientation of Abkhazia to support of Russia.
And now about the conflict and its consequences. The power action of the Georgian army yielded the result opposite to on what counted Saakashvili. I think, despite all efforts on preservation of territorial integrity, Georgia de facto lost both republics - both South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.
- In historical prospect it is impossible to speak "forever". We will remember, there were the empires which were considering that will "forever0" exist. Empires broke up, there were the new states, the new unions... But I don't see real prerequisites that in the near future - in 10, 15, 20 years - Tbilisi could restore the constitutional control over Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. This the first.
The second. I categorically don't accept and I condemn application by the Georgian army of jet systems of volley fire - on the territory and against the citizens. Even from the military point of view, not systems like "Hail" struggle with fighters and terrorists. For this purpose there are special troops, as a last resort, dot blows of artillery or aircraft. And jet systems of volley fire destroy all live and destroy all structures in a defeat zone. Such way of restoration of a constitutional order is unacceptable. Therefore I consider that the officials who have given the order on use of systems of volley fire, have to be prosecuted.
- And if it was the order personally Saakashvili?
- I will repeat: the official who has given the order has to answer. Whoever him was.
Now as for actions of Russia. I will note two moments.In - the first, not the Russian power to call the world for moral, speaking about inadmissibility of victims among civilians, about genocide and ethnic cleanings. On our memory the parliament, almost wiped out Chechnya and its capital shot by the decision of the Russian authorities the city of Grozny when, quoting the known Russian politician, "wasted in the outhouse" everything that moved suspiciously.
Therefore don't cost the Russian power морализаторствовать. Heads of the states who could resolve peacefully the internal conflicts, including separatism manifestations can authoritatively speak about it. Czechs and the Slovaks who have peacefully divided the country can. Ukraine, not pressing tanks of separatists of Meshkov in the Crimea, not shot the Maidan and not wiped out Severodonetsk …can also
The second. The answer of Russia to events in South Ossetia was obviously inadequate on the force and scale. Russia broke norms of international law when entered on the territory of the sovereign state the active armed forces and the beginnings against Georgia large-scale military aggression. It is difficult to call such actions peacemaking, we will tell directly is a war.
Military operations were conducted in all three spheres: with air, from the sea, on land. Blows were struck to all territory of Georgia - artillery, and also tactical, front and strategic aircraft. With elements of sea blockade by the ships BSF, active information and cyberwar.
Plan of Russians it is predicted quickly understood in other unrecognized republic - Abkhazia, and operations extended on this region of Georgia. Armed groups of Abkhazia left out of its limits, striking blows with artillery, aircraft and again - - jet systems of volley fire. Eventually, on the territory of Georgia Russia in addition entered about two divisions - approximately on a division into each of two unrecognized republics. Including the tank, mechanized and artillery parts, special troops and paratroopers, with equipment and arms. And still "volunteers" whom nobody considered.
"Russia itself tired out itself in a trap"
- Whether there is today a confidence, what the parties of the conflict won't return to operations? After all on the one hand, the president Saakashvili declares an exit from the CIS and, the main thing, denunciation of agreements on peacekeeping mission of the CIS, he declares Russian "peacekeepers" occupational armies.On the other hand, the president Medvedev, speaking about the end of military operation in Georgia, makes the order to the military leaders "in case of new aggression from the Georgian party to make the decision on destruction of an aggressor". The established world is how fragile or how strong?
- Shortly I won't answer and I will begin with the conflict reasons - they dual. On the one hand, the roots they consign to the past, and with another - are sent to the future. Why in the future? I will explain figuratively: on battle-orders of the Russian command and a press - releases of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs when heating three words written by sympathetic ink can be shown: "Kosovo" and "Great Russia".
Warned after all that Kosovan precedent is directly projected to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, as well as other frozen conflicts worldwide, including Western Europe - their more than 150. Russia opposed recognition of independence of Kosovo, and I consider that Ukraine too shouldn't recognize the self-proclaimed republic. Because demonstrations of separatism can take place on all planet and we won't manage to extinguish fires. So, I think, the first factor - Russia decided to punish the West for recognition of independence of Kosovo.
And the second factor is "Great Russia". In recently published (already at the president Medvedev) to the Concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation it is prescribed that "influence of the West on global processes is weakened", in the same place is spoken about strengthening of capacity of Russia, and it is the truth. Probably, the Russian heads considered that their hour already came and it is time to restore the accelerated rates the superpower status. Which will actively influence all world processes and important regions, since the "neighboring countries" countries. Obviously, in a smaller measure concerning three Baltic states which managed to jump into NATO and EU trains. That is why reasons deep and long-term.
And still, whether Russia on - to another could arrive? Not only to win tactically (having strengthened positions in the Caucasus), but also not to lose thus strategically (having undermined the image and trust around the world)? I could, but I couldn't.
If Russia, in response to Saakashvili's power actions, entered armies on the territory of South Ossetia, strengthened the peacekeepers, and then rigidly demanded ceasefire and together with the world community achieved conflict localization, without overstepping the bounds of an autonomy, actions of the Russian Federation would receive not enthusiastic, but nevertheless other assessment.
Even thus that it on - former violation of the sovereignty of Georgia, I think, such step of Russia would apprehend the world quieter. And then there would come very hard times for the president of Georgia. But Russia didn't stop.
It is necessary to recognize that the Russian military, from the professional point of view, acted competently. To stop blows of the Georgian army to the territory of South Ossetia, it is necessary to beat on backs, the communications, the second echelons, objects of military infrastructure. But except military logic there are still norms of international law. There is a sovereignty of other state, there are civil objects blows on which are inadmissible under war laws. Here Russia crossed line, and its further actions are already aggression and disproportionate use of force.
Russia itself tired out itself in a trap. With each new blow, new destruction which the world saw on screens in hundred millions houses, the authority of Russia fell, everywhere. On - to mine, only Fidel Castro told some words in support of Russia. Anxiously kept silent even in the Union State Belarus. The world shuddered and remembered the USSR of a sample 1956-го, 1968-го, 1979-го …
By the way, if to be limited to only military aspect, let's recognize that the Georgian army was weaker, than of it thought. And it not a question of soldiers, and it is rather a question of command. In many cases it worked nonprofessionally.
Yet time for final estimates, but some actions during war (and after all the martial law was declared) caused bewilderment. During war the Supreme Commander shouldn't organize mass meetings if bombs are torn in several tens kilometers from the capital. Also, from the military point of view, unclear why the Roksky tunnel wasn't blocked and why to a column of the Russian armored machinery allowed to pass freely far inland, understanding, what then this armored machinery will destroy divisions of the Georgian army? There is a lot of similar questions. It is clear one - the capacity of the Georgian army wasn't used effectively.
And now about ceasefire. Without having behind the back of consensus of EU countries and the mandate on more hard and honest line, the president Sarkozy accepted six principles of settlement written by the Russian side, among which - and ceasefire. Not all principles suit the president Saakashvili, but he was compelled to accept them. In its situation it is difficult to dictate conditions. The main thing - to stop war and to return the country to peace life.
I think, fire of active armed forces of Russia and Georgia will be stopped. But as the leadership of Abkhazia will lead, it is difficult to predict, today (midday of the environment - T.S.) there still are at war for complete control over the Kodorsky gorge. Can be and the provocations intended or from uncontrollable to the authorities of fighting groups. Besides, whose commands are executed by "volunteers"?
- And other principles from among six will be sustained?
- Not without difficulties and problems, but, I think, will be. I will note the main thing that didn't get to six principles of settlement - preservation of territorial integrity of Georgia. Despite efforts of many countries, including Ukraine and certain EU member states and NATO, I will repeat: I don't believe that will be possible to achieve it. I think, on South Caucasus nevertheless Kosovan precedent will be realized. And both self-proclaimed republics - not tomorrow, so the day after tomorrow - call themselves the states. Also there will be countries which recognize them. I don't exclude that subsequently South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or both republics, will want to join Russia.
If to speak about political actions of Russia, substantially they are irrational. Because actually it and before war had almost complete control over both republics. Leading posts in them are held by the Russian citizens. They always were guided by Russia, didn't communicate with the Georgian management, instead of Tbilisi went on meetings to Moscow. Russia after all isn't necessary simply additional territories. It has no people to occupy the available. And to take two more republics under the responsibility are additional budgetary expenses on their restoration, additional problems which Moscow should solve.
Negative economic and political consequences of this war will be not only for Russia and Georgia. For Georgia - especially, it will need billion international help and the credits for stabilization of economy and a financial system. In a difficult situation there was also Armenia - the strategic partner of Russia. After all 70% of external commodity turnover of this country go through Poti, and this Georgian port was blocked. Besides, gas from Russia arrives to Armenia also through the territory of Georgia.
Problems arose both at Azerbaijan, and at consumers of its energy resources. I will remind, only alternative, not passing through the territory of Russia the pipeline for transportation of energy carriers of the Caspian Sea (-Tbilisi - Ceyhan) too passes Baku through the territory of Georgia.And today seriously there was a question of its safety. Straight lines and indirect consequences of war will be much. Including for Ukraine.
"And on the strong there will be a justice"
- Then we will return to the international reaction. In my opinion, it doesn't maintain any criticism as was shamefully careful and sluggish. All spoke only about need of ceasefire, but nobody gave an accurate assessment to actions of Russia from the point of view of international law. Next day after bombardments Burn, after death of the European journalists, after absolutely wild statements of the highest officials of Russia, it is visible обчитавшихся by Orwell and Zamyatin's works, the same Sarkozy (with which Medvedev defiantly on "you") declares that arrived to talk to "the Russian friends" about the world. I think, each of us quite assumes that Russians at desire easily could enter Tbilisi and capture the president Saakashvili. It is sure that thus any tank, any plane of the European Union countries or NATO wouldn't move a little to protect the sovereign state - the partner of these organizations and his duly elected president. It turns out that today Russia with impunity can беспредельничать in the territory which it considers as a zone of the interests. You see who or what can stop Russia?
- I understand, we now speak about Russia. But estimating effectiveness of the international organizations, give delicately, but we will raise a question on - to another, is wider: and someone is capable today resolutely and quickly to stop China? Or USA, Great Britain, France? I will immodestly remind readers, whether in 1999 in article "The new Military doctrine is necessary to Ukraine? " on the ZN pages I took up these questions, and that material keeps the relevance.
We will begin with the UN. It is only on a planet the global international organization, but it is incapacitated in case the participant of the conflict is one of permanent members of UN Security Council. Veto. Means, the stopping or condemning decision of the UN won't be. By the way, in case of the conflict round Ukraine the permanent member of Security Council will be one of participants or interested party always. With the UN clearly.
Further. OSCE - the only international organization which unites all states of Europe plus of the USA and Canada. At all respect for OSCE, it always was sluggish in decision-making, and in case of the military conflict at most, on what is capable - of intermediary diplomatic mission and humanitarian assistance.
About the CIS and GUAM it is better to tell nothing.
Now NATO and European Union. If threat is directed against member countries of these organizations, they will protect themselves. Will work quicker and more resolutely, will interrupt holidays, will collect ministers and heads of governments not in 7 - 10 days, and immediately.
Other case if the country outside membership in NATO and EU becomes object of aggression. She can count on the consolidated political and diplomatic support. And that - not really consolidated as we see it today.
If the situation demands rendering the military help, allocation of serious material and human resources, with predicted victims then I put a huge question mark. The few states of EU and NATO will be ready to work adequately a situation and to protect the country even if it directed a vector of the policy towards membership in these organizations.
It is absolutely obvious that in a present situation anybody, including the USA, wasn't ready and wasn't going to give Georgia military help. Though the Georgian crew of peacekeepers at this moment was in Iraq, carrying out problems of military character, shoulder to shoulder including with members of NATO and EU.
- Means, Russia can continue to do everything, what to it will take in head?
- No, can't. Yes, the world order isn't perfect and is in many respects unfair. Yes, powerful in the economic and military relation of the country are able to afford to work aggressively. But we shouldn't perceive it with any fatalism. The right of the strong worked always. But also on strong if he acted aggressively, there was a justice, remember world wars, than they ended? Besides today the world we interdepend, more than ever earlier. Even the strongest states can't exist is closed, without active exchange, in a mode of a subsistence economy. We will wound the world, and they are vulnerable. The understanding of this factor plus the democratic values distinguishing the third millennium from previous, is, let slow, but a limiting factor.
And in this concrete situation? Yes, Russia could take Tbilisi in days, could overthrow the president Saakashvili, and really couldn't interfere with it and there would be nobody. But it would be not the last point in war.
"The military conflict between Ukraine and Russia is inadmissible"
- You know when on TV showed shots from destroyed by bombing Burn, being in several tens kilometers from Tbilisi, eyes involuntarily found on the card Borispol, Butts, Fastov, Cornflowers … Yes, the majority of Ukrainians will tell today that it is nonsense, an absolute fantasy that Russia never will launch war against Ukraine. But for the Georgian the Russian bombers over Burn still quite recently too were a fantasy. Whether you consider, what military aggression of Russia against Ukraine is possible?
- Give itself we won't frighten and to wind. We need to think, draw conclusions and to work.
- Well, let us assume, those Ukrainian experts and journalists who suggested that Ukraine will be following after Georgia, overflowed emotions. But a number of the western colleagues and analysts including well-known British James Cher in our country, and the most experienced American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, stated confidence that, being at war in Georgia, Russia thought of Ukraine.
- Despite mistakes at different stages of creation of the relations between Ukraine and Russia, we managed to avoid the similar conflicts. I think, so will be and from now on. Despite of a set of contradictions in various spheres.
Obviously, behind it the understanding is worth it that the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine - two largest countries of Europe - would become a real crash for all continent. And in all aspects - political, economic, ecological, power and others. We have to proceed from a paradigm: the military conflict between Ukraine and Russia is inadmissible.
But let's distract from the concrete states. Yes, strong militarily the country X can try to crush under itself weaker country of Y. Also can succeed at the initial stage - due to military power and an element of surprise.
Yes, the powerful army is necessary. But not only. After all at the big state the army will be all the same more numerous and is stronger. So, the country is always doomed more weakly? No. Who doubts, I advise to read classics of military strategy - Chinese, German, Russian …
War is won not by who has more than planes, the ships and army cases. And at whom the unity of own triangle "the power - the people - army" is stronger and who will be able to break the same triangle of the opponent. To it many centuries were learned back by the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu.
It is necessary not only strong army, but, first of all - the strong power relying on support of the people. And if to speak about military aspects, there is a set of opportunities for asymmetric actions. Shamil Basayev showed how forces to a battalion it is possible to beat off for the long period at the big country with two-million army desire to continue war. I categorically don't approve Basayev's which have led to numerous peace victims the actions, and I give only therefore this version of the asymmetric answer that it is known to the reader.
The one who never will resist at a head-on collision, can quite break will of the opponent or cause it unacceptable damage asymmetric actions.
Let's charge to professional military working off of scenarios which are stored in "dark" rooms, and we will demand responsible and effective management of the country from politicians. Because today bigger threat, than ourselves, for Ukraine doesn't exist.
- I too don't want фатализировать the future at all. But throughout everything российско - the Georgian conflict Moscow talked to Kiev the tone which was a little differing from tone of its communication with Tbilisi. Ukraine accused and that it armed Georgia, both in bias, and in support of one of the parties, and in intervention in activity of the Black Sea fleet. On the one hand, it is rather humiliating to take down similar hails silently. With another - it is obvious that us too provoke. How Ukraine has to build now dialogue with Russia that also to keep national advantage, and not to fuel tension with the northern neighbor, and especially, not to appear in a trap to which got Saakashvili and Georgia?
- How to build dialogue? Quietly, professionally and responsibly. But for a start to both parties to recognize that the brotherly relations between Ukraine and Russia never was, isn't present and won't be.
The relations at me with the brother Vitaly, the citizen of Russia can be the brotherly. And the interstate relations the brotherly can't be, and will suffice politicians on it to speculate. The relations between the states have to be mutually advantageous and equal.
Now about tone of statements of Russians. The last statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are written in language 50-60-x years of last century, and with clumsy diplomatic sarcasm. "Ukraine with passion to the teeth armed the Georgian army, directly pushing to intervention and ethnic cleanings" - the provocative, irresponsible and inveracious statement.I set - well to Loskutov, the adviser - the envoy of the Russian Embassy (the ambassador in holiday) a question: who specifically from the Ukrainian management pushed to intervention and ethnic cleanings? Yushchenko? Tymoshenko? Yanukovych? Bogatyreva? Kinakh? Ekhanurov? Gritsenko? Who? - Anybody! It is an absolute lie.
Character of it and the subsequent statements reflects hostility and the dissatisfaction which have collected for many years. Ideologists of "Great Russia" psychologically don't want to recognize the right of the sovereign country to pursue own policy and independently to define its priorities, without coordinating them with the Kremlin. But these priorities can differ from the Russian. Not all system to go.
- But whether we are capable to defend for a start the priorities at least in a question of basing of the Russian Black Sea fleet?
- We already said that the relations with Russia never will be brotherly, but they have to be mutually advantageous, equal. We will emphasize on a root "right" and we will specify positions on basing in Ukraine the BSF of Russia. I consider, we urgently have to take the step provided by basic agreements on the Black Sea fleet of 1997 and which was in details analyzed a month ago on the ZN pages. The step about which why - that tell in Cabinet of Ministers a little and at all isn't told by the president.
In the document it is written down: since 2008, Russia has to pay to Ukraine for objects rented by fleet according to the legislation of Ukraine. The legislation of our country provides a market assessment of leased property and respectively - a market rent. On the ZN pages and other editions experts estimated it approximately at 1 billion dollars a year.
And what we have today? Since 1997, Russia annually wrote off to Ukraine 97 million dollars from total amount of the debt recorded on that period. With it, and it is real - from next year we can pass to new system of a rent, but only in case completely we satisfy a debt to Russia. Today we owe Russia 1,3 billion dollars.
The prime minister Yulia Timoshenko says that the government, thanks to wise policy, in addition introduced more than 20 billion hryvnias in treasury. Here I also offer - to the government, Rada, to the president - in September at introduction of the bill of change of the budget-2008 without fail to provide repayment of our debt of the Russian Federation of 1,3 billion. And to pass after that to collection of a market rent for basing of the BSF of the Russian Federation.
Yes, we will lose this year, but in the next nine years - we will win. And all this will be made legally, according to existing bilateral agreements. And then there will be absolutely other logic of stay and perception in Ukraine of the Russian fleet. The authorities of Sevastopol and Simferopol will receive huge additional resources on a development of the city and the Crimea as a whole. And nobody will claim, say, the BSF of Russia contains Sevastopol. For billion dollars ourselves will create in tens, if not hundreds times more workplaces in Sevastopol and across all Crimea. If the government doesn't include such item of expenditure, I won't begin to vote for change of the budget-2008. Even if my voice will be 226 - m. It should be made, and it will be equal and mutually advantageous: Russia received base for fleet, Ukraine - real compensation for rent of the objects and the earth.
- It is again compelled to state doubt: whether enough we are strong for carrying out own independent policy?
- The strong foreign and defensive policy can be only when the country and society are uniform, the power is strong and uniform in the actions, the army is efficient - you remember a triangle, nacherchenny the Chinese strategist?
What do we observe at us when there is a war between two strategic partners of Ukraine and in this war involve our state?
We will begin with the parliament, the first branch of the power. I understand, the period of holidays. But this reason can explain a delay on one - two days. But passes three, four, five days, and leaders of the leading political forces presented in parliament (except KPU), didn't declare the positions concerning war.
Not so important, what they would be - Yulia Timoshenko, Victor Yanukovych, Vladimir Litvin, Vyacheslav Kirilenko's positions - it is important to have them. Same political, instead of business - leaders, the truth? There are no positions of leaders of parties - there is no sense even to speak about development of a uniform position of Rada. We wait till September?
Now about a presidential vertical and executive power. To us as a whole the position of the president as heads of state is known, it is expressed by statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, the president immediately didn't collect the National Security and Defense Council which he heads.I didn't withdraw from holidays of the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, all ministers, heads of intelligence services and the law enforcement agencies which are a part of Council, as well as heads of military investigation and a border service, the head of own secretariat.
Result - nobody organized accurately coordinated round-the-clock work in a mode of situational rooms at interdepartmental level. Streams of operational information aren't ordered, there is no system analysis of all arriving information with an exit to options of actions - counted, coordinated, realistic.
Therefore on behalf of the state statements and the requirements which performance it, the state, is incapable to defend and provide are sounded. The decision on not admission on base to Sevastopol of the ships BSF of Russia can be executed, in the different ways, but - whether the president of Ukraine is ready, giving the order, to bear then responsibility for quite predicted negative consequences of such step?
Therefore one of investigations in writing reports on August (!) 8 upward that everything is quiet when around the world already know that in the Caucasus there is a war.
Therefore instead of unsigned resolutions of Cabinet of Ministers decrees of the president in a hurry are accepted. And right there the official of the joint venture drives in a wedge into one of triangle sides - in unity of the power, confidentially telling the whole world who from members of the government didn't sign the decision of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine coordinated on correspondence. War by war, and competitors on the following elections should be "killed" in advance. And vice-the prime minister right there sends (to whom? ) the message, say, Cabinet of Ministers will carry out only technological decrees. And next day other official of the joint venture will add to a question of unity of the power - "to kill", so on - to the adult, accusing members of the government of complicity to other state.
And how there one more top of a triangle - army? The army waits for the promised and not given out money (changes in the budget aren't accepted) and 8000 apartments (the failure report signed by Ekhanurov is available) are even louder promised, but without chances of receiving. The army beforehand eats up already November funds for the food, burns up the remains of the fuel bought at the price is much more expensive, than it is possible to buy at gas stations (the act of GLAVKRU is available). And at everything thus the army helps people: directs bridges and rescues from a flood.
But the main thing not it, the main thing - parade! So the glavkoverkh ordered.No matter, that money withdrew from combat training, it is unimportant that caterpillars we will tear asphalt (on production of a rubber obuvka there is no time, the decision - that was accepted not in advance, and as usual), it is unimportant that the Kiev state administration didn't authorize flight of military planes over the capital. All this is unimportant, we will beat out and we will punch - parade! Under any weather conditions, even if on a territory half - as the president tells, "the second Chernobyl", and at borders - war.
- But after all the strong army is really necessary for us. Though until recently mass media discussed, whether the army in general is necessary to Ukraine?
- Now doubting will be less. To create strong army, anything new it isn't necessary to invent. In - the first, it is necessary to execute the State program of development of Armed forces of Ukraine for the period till 2011 which was developed in the Ministry of Defence, it is coordinated by two governments (Tymoshenko and Ekhanurov), it is supported by members of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and it is put into operation by the decree of the president.
The program in full isn't carried out. First of all, from - for insufficient financing. The prime minister promised to allocate armies of 2% of gross domestic product, allocated - a little more than 1% of gross domestic product. Means, the program will be broken. There will be no technical re-equipment of army on modern systems of arms, first of all domestic which our military industrial complex can already make.
In - the second, it is necessary to execute the Program of transition of VS on the contract principle of completing. It too breaks. It is already clear that without emergency actions in the remained one and a half years Yushchenko won't keep an election pledge - to create professional contract army until the end of 2010.
In - the third, it is necessary to execute the Program of development of forces of special operations. By the way, it was the last document which I signed on a post of the Minister of Defence in December of last year. This program became a result of year work of the Ministry of Defence, the General Staff, GURA, commanders of parts and simply skilled officers of special troops.
Forces of special operations is the most boyegotovny component of our Armed forces. In parts of special troops and fighting groups even the logic, spirit and ethics of relationship is under construction on the principles which I planned to extend to future professional army. There is no ostentatious servility. The small fighting group has to carry out tasks independently, in a separation from base, in extreme conditions, including in others territory.Therefore each fighter depends on others, irrespective of military ranks, and the general result depends on each fighter as success, and failure of performance of a task. In parts of special troops such qualities, as independence in decision-making, responsibility, impudence and readiness to take the risk are cultivated. Soldiers of special troops, without speaking about sergeants and officers, go with a direct back, unlike fighters of regular parts who from Soviet period move on halfbent, trained to walk a system, to salute, clean the territory, to paint borders, to avoid the administration and it is only superficial - actually military profession.
It is compelled to state, unfortunately, the minister Ekhanurov broke implementation of the Program of development of forces of special operations. It not the budget or Cabinet of Ministers question, is a question of the Ministry of Defence within that budget which is allocated. This year 300 million hryvnias on special troops were provided in addition. When I signed the program, all in the General Staff and in the Ministry of Defence accurately understood that whatever was the general budget of the Ministry of Defence, money will be allocated no matter what. Even by cut in expenditure in other directions.
Because parts of special troops are capable to carry out tactical division tasks, without exaggeration, strategic importance. It is army elite. They are capable to act on land, from air, from - under waters. The group of four - five people is capable to block any staff, management point, airfield or port of the opponent, to capture launchers of rockets. These are the professionals, capable to carry out asymmetric actions, including outside the territory of the country. To convince an aggressor whoever he was that aggression continuation against Ukraine is fraught for it with serious problems in own territory.
And here such important program was broken! At the initial stage of planning in the General Staff and the Ministry of Defence when there was a voted budget, for it allocated instead of 300 about 160 million (on paper), and upon - it is twice less. Modern communication systems, the weapon and ammunition, parachutes …won't be bought
Why? Yes because there is no professionalism and responsibility. In Ukraine there is no Minister of Defence, there is a minister of excess military property. From five of his deputies only one professional understanding army and to that supporting parts (can because some months worked in my team are assigned? ). Other four - the people understanding financial resources and in excess property.None of the management of the Ministry of Defence, at the silent General Staff, didn't tell the president that it is much more important to allocate money for development of forces of special operations for country defense, than to carry out parade (more than 80 million hryvnias) and to build in Baturin one more, 18-й on the account lyceum (50 million in the current year on documentation and hundreds millions - in the following on construction). I managed to constrain influences from the outside and to develop those components of army which guarantee safety of the country and its citizens, instead of symbolical attributes which have insignificant value for the country.
I won't begin to continue examples of inefficient actions or criminal omission of the power in critical conditions for the country. The main thing is clear - the government not that isn't strong - it doesn't work and if works, is more often on a negative.
And state machinery which sets the purposes is, more than ever, necessary today to us, instead of reflexes; protects national interests, instead of ratings; constantly monitors trends of development and calls within the country and beyond its limits that then is emergency not to choke with pieces of overdue and unusual information …
While we have only disorder, without convergence, in all branches and on all power vertical, it isn't necessary to count on strong foreign and defensive policy. Us "part" and will "part" further. Both strong, and weak.
"The civilized world is very weak today"
- So, we the weakest in this world?
- Today we speak about war between Russia and Georgia more. But, believe, except the Caucasus flaring today there are global world processes. Their analysis shows, what not such wars and not such threats become the real call for the civilized world. I will dare to claim that the civilized world is weak today, more than ever! And threats to it - on the contrary, are strong, more than ever. And very much I hope that in fight against these threats present participants of the conflict, both Russia, and Georgia, will stand nearby, on one party, as though improbable it seemed today.
We can carry out on the card a strip from North Korea, through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, Sudan and to finish on the Balkans. It will be not only, but the most dangerous conflict zone. By the way, keen on events in the Caucasus and the Olympic Games, world and domestic mass media forgot that in Pakistan procedure of impeachment of the president is started.Than it will end? It is known that stability in this country keeps on the general Musharraf. And in many respects stability in the next Afghanistan, on border with which Pakistan for several years holds group more than 60 thousand people, covering border. And not only from drugs. More than one thousand Pakistan soldiers was lost already. There can be a serious problem in the explosive region. In Ukraine about it at all don't speak.
In the mentioned explosive strip there is all: frozen, smoldering and fire the burning conflicts; uncontrollable to the authorities transnational terrorist and criminal groups; huge financial resources; nuclear and other types of weapon of mass defeat, their technology and components; huge number of the most dangerous usual means of defeat; world narcobusiness prospers. There are armies of many countries, the governments, there new acts of terrorism and loss of human life there are inefficient every day.
The most important, fighting groups aren't burdened by democratic values and are ready to endow people not only strangers, but also the, thousands and tens of thousands. They are ready to the most resolute actions on all globe. Threats are serious. For any country. Even for the strongest. By the way, the USA repeatedly modelled localization of threat of application of components of the biological weapon. Result each time one - million victims, own forces it is impossible to localize threat. These are the USA! And Ukraine, Georgia, Russia?
And now we will look, what there on the other hand - in the civilized world? What it now? And so I claim that it is weak more than ever. Why? I will call four most important, in my opinion, a factor.
The first. All developed, stable democratic countries on elections, whether it be presidential or parliamentary, vote about fifty on fifty. On - to another also can't be in the stable country. We will take Western Europe, the USA or even Ukraine. Here someone can't receive on elections 80-90% of votes, that is the sheer support. It is possible only in authoritarian regimes, or in the countries at critical stages of history. In other world - fifty on fifty. About what it speaks? About weakness and political vulnerability of the highest level - the political country leaders. And the closer to elections, the it is more vulnerable and is weaker.
In such situation it is very difficult to make important, crucial, unpopular decisions. Namely the decision on sending the armies to the dangerous region will be that.It is even more difficult to hold blow when bodies of victims come back to the country, sending thus to a conflict zone million, then milliard resources. Thinking of elections, daily under a press of criticism of mass media, oppositions …
Obviously: sending armies to Iraq that ours that Polish, the population didn't support - more than 70% were against. Very difficult at the highest political level (the president, the government, parliament) to make such decisions. We saw how after elections in certain EU countries and NATO, for example in Spain, peacekeepers were brought immediately - in two weeks. (By the way, Ukraine removed the contingent gradually, within a year. ) That is very much we will wound the highest political level. Especially, when the country approaches to elections. It is visible today and in the United States.
The second. We fall by the following level - voyenno - political. Level of Ministers of Defence. I worked at a post of the minister two years and ten months. When left, at the positions only five of about 40 Ministers of Defence with whom I started working continued to remain. In Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkey and Denmark. In other countries ministers exchanged, which - where several times.
In many countries to a position of the Minister of Defence appoint (such is practice in the civilized world) people from the sphere of medicine, finance, cultures, journalism. The exotic case was in Spain: there the Minister of Defence appointed the woman on the seventh month of pregnancy. Someone can present it the able-bodied minister in case there is a conflict and it will be necessary to work hard for 24 hours per day days in a row?
At what I drive? At weak highest political level the following level - Ministers of Defence who has to offer the top management of the country options counted and verified on consequences voyenno - the political decision, to be able to defend the most optimum option - this level isn't ready to such role. Objectively. Means, rely on military.
The third. The following level - the top military management - as a rule, the chief of the General Staff. Let's ask a question: in what countries these people - generals with many stars - have personal experience of planning, expansion and fighting application of armies? Not shelf or crews, and significant general group? Too it is possible to count on fingers: USA, Russia, Turkey, Israel, Britain. And practically all. The others read textbooks, as a rule, written according to the analysis of the previous and others wars.Means, can't count on firm professional recommendations of military at the difficult moment the top management of the country too.
- low efficiency of the international organizations, insufficient efficiency in decision-making - we already discussed the fourth factor. I will add only that power of democracy has also significant weaknesses. After all the most democratic of alliances are under construction on the principle of consensus, and the one and only country can block the decision of the same NATO.
And now we will remember once again who can throw down a challenge stable, peace, quiet, slow in decision-making to the civilized world? They are ready to destroy thousands people and in thousands to perish. To deliver death to others territory, the huge car of logistics, dry closets, the conditioner in barracks and five types of ice cream for dinner isn't necessary to them. With a rice handful if only there was a weapon, they for weeks move on any district. And the main thing - we are trained and ready to work asymmetrically, striking blows to the most painful points of the developed democratic society.
It is convinced, leaders of the democratic states have to realize and recognize as soon as possible vulnerability and weakness both the certain countries, and the international organizations. Probably, it will be easier for them to make it right now, after the conflict between Russia and Georgia when some weaknesses came to a surface.
And what Ukraine? Our leaders and in the country, and abroad speak about same - about the coalition, elections … Serious regional and world problems or aren't realized, or in general never interested.
"I would withdraw the demand of Ukraine for PDCh"
- I can't but ask: whether Ukraine after the Georgian events on a way to NATO has to be accelerated? Or this purpose for us is already irrelevant? Also our chances to receive PDCh in December increased or decreased?
- I don't consider this question today as the most actual. We after all don't speak about membership to which it is necessary will be prepared, to create a uniform political position which citizens of the country have to support then. Now prerequisites for this purpose aren't present. Therefore to speak about membership it isn't necessary.
To all it is already clear, any country alone won't be able to resist to serious threat. As it is obvious that association of efforts more favourably, including from the economic point of view. And as it is clear that if on a planet exists though one effective military alliance, this NATO, another isn't present.In NATO on - former there is a turn, unlike the Tashkent contract which only leave.
Why I consider a question of formal accession to PDCh irrelevant? Because to us nobody prevents to carry out it already today. Anybody. Irrespective of, NATO will make the relevant decision in December or April or won't accept.
If the Ukrainian power realizes that we need to lift the economy, ecology, judicial system, a military vehicle, let it do it. And here it everything also is called as PDCh abbreviation. I understood it and, being the Minister of Defence, in November, 2005 at a meeting with Ministers of Defence of the countries of NATO took the initiative and told that Ukraine itself will develop for itself PDCh to lift level of Armed forces to NATO standards. After all above standards doesn't exist. To me answered: "Perfectly, develop".
Why I then made it? I wanted that conversations on PDCh passed into the practical plane. That about PDCh didn't speak as about "a black box" or "transcendental object" and that the document lay at the minister on a table. And we knew that it is necessary to make, with what resources, in what terms. We developed the PDCh project in three months, discussed, presented to NATO officials, involved their consultants, first of all from the countries which have recently entered alliance. Listened to their recommendations and accepted in that part which was presented to us useful. In PDCh that is necessary for us, Ukraine is written down only. Anything else. I speak about it responsibly.
For that matter, the government program "Ukrainian break" also is PDCh. I told about it to Yulia Timoshenko before her trip to Brussels: it isn't necessary to be afraid of reaction of people, it and is PDCh, in vision of the present government. And anything else in this document won't be. There will be the section devoted to a normal electoral system, to normal market economy, fight against corruption is it is necessary for us, not of. The strong efficient army - is necessary to us, instead of to Americans, at them is.
Therefore nobody prevents ourselves to carry out the PDCh. And I have a reasonable reproach to members of the government: why they didn't develop PDCh for the ministries and why don't carry out?
I know well if in June, 2006 when passed Commission meeting Ukraine - NATO at the level of Ministers of Defence on which I was present, in the country there was a coalition and the new government, we with guarantee would receive PDCh. And then for it would vote both Germans, and French, both Belgians, and all the others.Why?
Because at each meeting with Ministers of Defence of NATO we exchanged the reached results and experience. Each time I reported on new results, and all NATO officials understood that the Ukrainian army knows where to move, and moves in this direction systematically and consistently.
And now question: who disturbs today to all our ministers - to Shandre, Knyazevich, Onishchuk, Vakarchuk, Danalishin and another - to develop PDCh and with an interval in three days to pass on a route Brussels - Berlin - Paris to present to partners of PDCh of everyone in the sphere of responsibility? And in two months - again on the same route, with the first results of performance. In two months - again. You know, than it would end? NATO officials would tell us: "Will suffice, children. At us doesn't remain to time for the work. One your minister leaves, another right there comes with the report. Everything, we are full, we see results, you convinced us, we will support Ukraine".
But same isn't present! In the government about PDCh speak, but in it aren't engaged. The president could issue for a long time the decree obliging each minister to develop within two months the part of PDCh and actively to carry out it. But after all Yushchenko too didn't make it.
Therefore formal acceptance or not making decision on granting PDCh to Ukraine in December is for us not basic. I will tell even more. On Yushchenko's place I would withdraw the demand of Ukraine for receiving PDCh from a staff - NATO apartments. But thus I provided its real performance by Ukraine without any decisions of NATO, they aren't obligatory.
- But, maybe, events in Georgia just also will push earlier doubting countries of alliance to the positive decision for Ukraine? Or you consider, what opposite, will even more strongly frighten them?
- Someone will push, someone will frighten. Today it is difficult to give estimates. But I think that cardinal change of a position won't be. For different reasons, including power. But about it a bit later.
We will return to a response of the demand for PDCh. Let's not to put alliance in an uncomfortable position. When within the country there is no unity, when there is no it in parliament and from - for this question block a tribune and don't allow to adopt very important laws. When there is no unity on all power vertical. When there is no effective state machinery. After all, I will repeat, it is a question not of the accession to alliance. The accession to NATO is if to compare figuratively, receipt in university.And now, discussing PDCh, we speak only about the right of Ukraine to go to library to read books, to increase the knowledge then successfully to pass examination. Well, so read books! We have them, and the, and others.
It isn't sure that the initiative of a response of the demand will support. But I would concentrate today on creation of effective system of the power and achievement of concrete results. And when every week, each new month our citizens will feel that to them began to live better, they will respect the power. And then they will entrust it any strategic decisions. Any. Even without referendum. They will understand that the power works for them. And time it wisely works within the country, so she can entrust and adoption of important foreign policy decisions.
And when we have permanent internal political wars when at people every day the feeling of vulnerability grows, vulnerabilities when they can't plan the family budget or own business, no respect for the power is present. Then people won't entrust it important decisions and will want to accept them on referenda.
So it isn't necessary to shift the problems to Europe. Carry out the PDCh. To finish this subject, I will remind that many countries became members of NATO without any PDCh. And today there are European states - not members of NATO who didn't gather and won't carry out PDCh. But thanks to effective domestic and foreign policy can be admitted to alliance at any time as soon as will submit an application.
"We shouldn't change value for the prices"
- You were going to return to power aspect.
- The matter is that EU countries and NATO ensure the safety collective efforts, and negotiations with "Gazprom" are held by each country separately. And here for one call, and for others (including our government) - temptation to change values for the prices. Strategic objectives, democratic values - on cheap gas for concrete year, under concrete elections, under the specific prime minister or the president.
I don't want that Ukraine changed values for the prices. We already did it more than once. Also saw, than it ended. Cheap gas doesn't happen. The price rest all the same will gather additionally according to the closed schemes and by control establishment over our economy.
For independence of the country it is necessary to fight and it is necessary to pay. If we don't wish to creep on a lap, and we want to go with an equal back, means it is necessary to pay market price for gas.It all the same becomes that regardless of the fact that declared or the president or why the prime minister kept silent didn't declare, watching war in the Caucasus.
It is necessary to prepare for it. And to do it not in a state of shock. It is clear that the subject of gas got fatalistic sounding (a pier, the economy and the social sphere will fail) substantially from - for what on gas were earned and the milliard capitals continue to be earned. Gas lobby very strong. Exactly from there the greatest metastasises of corruption proceed. Irrespective of, who president and who prime minister.
I will introduce the idea which is shared today by the few, but will share the majority of thinking people soon. Actually, at reasonable policy of our power gas price has no for Ukraine of basic value. It won't be transcendental, it will be market. Yes, it will be much higher, than now. But let's look at this problem not through a fear prism, and coolly, and we will estimate that is at us other countries don't have that in this sphere.
The first. Our country has own gas - more than 20 billion cubes annually. The majority of the countries of Europe doesn't have that.
The second. We have a strategic pipe to which after the conflict in Georgia will pay still bigger attention. The majority of the countries of Europe has no such pipe. Also I want to remind that this pipe gave in our balance of gas in 2004-2005 in addition to 28 billion cubes of gas (for comparison in the current year - only 9 billion).
The third. We have underground gas storages. They too aren't present in the majority of the countries of Europe. And it too plus in our gas balance.
The fourth. We have coal, approximately for 400 years. With all problems of this branch, but also with all its potential opportunities. Such stocks of coal too aren't present in the majority of the countries of Europe.
The fifth. We have a nuclear power. It isn't present in very many countries of Europe.
The sixth. We have a hydropower thanks to the powerful rivers which aren't present in very many countries of Europe. And there was still a small hydropower. It, unfortunately, froze or destroyed, but in due time it provided with the electric power the whole areas. And it can be restored.
The seventh and, probably, most important. We have a power consumption on unit of developed production in four - six times higher, than in the developed European countries. Also it is the huge reserve for reduction of consumption of gas - since housing and communal services, from each apartment.To stop heating pipes the earth, to put regulators on batteries, instead of to open window leaves in the winter.
And now question: having what has no majority of the countries of Europe, we won't survive, we will be gone? And how they survived, and not simply survived, and normally and are well off?
Market price of gas (and another also won't be soon) becomes huge incentive for decrease in power consumption. No decision of Cabinet of Ministers will exist big incentive, than the high price. Because everyone, from the businessman to the ordinary citizen, will reflect how to heat the house or the apartment, and will start saving.
So we not in a weak position. In addition to told, we need to outline a state role more accurately. Our high officials, ministers and presidents shouldn't to creep on a lap at negotiations, achieving low gas price for people who increase the fortune annually on five - ten billions. Let these people will pay market price, it to them quite on a pocket.
Certainly, the state will help them as the structures creating workplaces and bringing money in the budget in a type of tax. But the state shouldn't agree about gas price for business. Let buy in the market. And many of them do it already today. And some and the pipe have. Companions from "Mittal Steel", misters Firtash, Akhmetov, Pinchuk and others sell the production in the world market at the world prices. Thus they don't pay to the workers a salary on the international standards. There are reserves of profitability, profitability. Let buy gas at market prices. And the state will provide that has to: budgetary sphere and housing and communal services. For any period the state, probably, will support the credits the most vulnerable branches of economy.
You remember, how many said, what if gas price will be more than 130 dollars, all economy will fail? Today to it deliver gas on 296 dollars. A lot of things didn't fail. Where - that profitability decreased. And here where failed, the country has to help. And for the short period - three - four years - we will be able to forget about a gas subject. I any more don't speak about reserves which we would open, having carried out audit of fields, having checked who disposes of them what of them are preserved and production can be renewed, check, whose gas is in underground storages, who and where it exports. Seriously, instead of via half-closed and obviously inefficient mechanisms would develop a gas shelf. Not with "Venko", and with the serious investor.
We need to become stronger, and then PDCh will be again. Then someone's dictatorship will be secondary. If, of course, we want to be the independent state.