Oleg Chabala: "Transparency of security forces is not unconditional in the West either"

Oleg Chabala

How did Ukrainian strategic planning change after the revolution and the start of the war? Can we talk about the progress of Ukrainian integration into NATO? Is transparency relevant for security sector structures? Is donor aid always useful and why is the fight against corruption so difficult? About this and other things - in a conversation with the associate expert of the Council on Foreign Policy "Ukrainian Prism", a well-known commentator on security issues Oleg Chabala.

Oleg Volodymyrovych, has a clear doctrine of foreign policy, defense and security of Ukraine been formed today, is there a priority list of threats?

Priorities in the spheres of foreign policy, security and defense are defined in a number of documents. However, at the same time, certain issues related to the activity of structures related to the relevant field remain open and require updating and reforming.

In the doctrinal sense, quite a lot has been done by the Ukrainian authorities, especially after the Revolution of Dignity (2014), although the steps taken are not enough in my opinion. The window of opportunity is not closed, nor is the list of necessary steps exhausted.

It is worth noting that in 2015 it was adopted National Security Strategy of Ukraine in which Current threats to the national security of Ukraine were indicated (item 3).

The new Strategy is aimed at implementing by 2020 the priorities of the state security policy, as well as reforms in view of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU and the Sustainable Development Strategy "Ukraine - 2020".

In fact, the mentioned document states as the main goals: (1) reducing threats to state sovereignty and creating conditions for restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine; (2) guaranteeing a peaceful future of Ukraine; (3) ensuring a new quality of economic, social and humanitarian development.

After the Revolution of Dignity there was the Military Doctrine has been updated (adopted in 2004). Among the main reasons, it is worth highlighting the occupation of Crimea and the beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine in 2015. In this document, Ukraine renounced the non-aligned status actually imposed on the Russian Federation, and followed the path of deep reform of the security sector, and also, taking into account a number of circumstances, the Russian Federation was recognized as a military enemy of Ukraine.

Creation and implementation are important Strategic Defense Bulletin in 2016, which became a road map for reforming the security and defense sector. In fact, the bulletin was created on the basis of the Military Doctrine and taking into account the need to deepen Ukraine's partnership with NATO. Of significant importance is the fact that on the basis of the bulletin, the state program for the development of the Armed Forces and other components of the defense forces, as well as state target defense programs for the creation of new types of weapons and military equipment, the construction of military facilities, solving problems in the field of defense, etc., are determined.

It is of great importance The concept of the development of the security and defense sector of Ukraine, which was adopted in 2016. The basis of which are the documents listed above. This Concept "defines a system of views on the development of security and defense capabilities of Ukraine in the medium term, formed on the basis of an assessment of the security environment and financial and economic capabilities of the state, carried out as part of a comprehensive review of the security and defense sector of Ukraine."

It is important Cyber ​​security strategy of Ukraine (adopted in 2016) in which threats to cyber security are defined (clause 2).

It is also worth considering the role Law of Ukraine "On the Basics of National Security of Ukraine", which has undergone significant changes since 2003 until now. In this document, the threats to the national interests and national security of Ukraine are quite meticulously defined (Article 7)

What has changed compared to the period before 2014?

The president is actively and persistently trying to direct Ukrainian foreign policy in the necessary direction, given his considerable experience in this field, but the situation in security matters has not changed significantly. The fact that integration into NATO and the EU was not a priority for quite a long time is indicated. Although one can agree with experts in the relevant field that the greatest progress in NATO issues among the 5 presidents was achieved under Presidents Kuchma and Poroshenko.

For example, if the National Security Council talks about integration into the European Union, it does not talk about joining NATO, instead, this document talks about a special partnership with the Alliance

From my point of view, an attempt to introduce a reference point of Euro-Atlantic integration into the body of the Basic Law (the Preamble of the Constitution) can be considered unfeasible. Most likely, this will not become a reality, despite significant efforts in this direction. And the idea of ​​holding a referendum on joining NATO does not have such a significant impact not only on Ukraine's position, but also on the level of support for Euro-Atlantic integration in Ukrainian society.

At the same time, one of the positives at the foreign policy level is the fact that the Ukrainian state received the status of a "graduate student" (candidate for membership in NATO). However, in practice, encouraging signals are not an introduction, and even since the Bucharest summit, such assurances have repeatedly been heard regarding Ukraine. In practice, the situation does not fundamentally change, because the Ukrainian state persistently develops cooperation with NATO, and the Alliance provides support through various mechanisms, including the so-called trust funds.

In principle, is it possible to say that during the era of Viktor Yanukovych's presidency, Kyiv aspired to participate in "Eurasian" economic and military structures?

This statement is true, considering that starting in 2010, the then president took significant steps aimed at changing guidelines and priorities in the foreign policy and security spheres. We should not forget about Ukraine's non-aligned status, which was officially established during Yanukovych's presidency. Significant steps were taken to weaken the security and defense sector. The processes of reducing the army and weakening its defense capability have begun. Processes at the level of military commanders and not only were not entirely positive.

It is Yanukovych who can be considered the most pro-Russian president compared to his predecessors. We should not forget about the appointment of Russian citizens to senior government positions with violations, etc.

In your opinion, why did the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine fail in the second half of the 2000s, when the Russian Federation was clearly not so aggressive?

The Russian Federation actively opposed the European integration of Ukraine, despite the fact that it actively cooperated with NATO. The majority of Russian politicians and experts actively talked about a significant threat to the Russian Federation, in the event that Ukraine becomes a member of NATO. That is why the Kremlin, trying to actively involve Kyiv in its integration projects and alliances, resisted or even hindered the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine. On the one hand, it is worth mentioning Putin's Munich speech with its rather difficult rhetoric, and on the other hand, the "Evian proposals" of D. Medvedev (5 principles of the new treaty on European security).

At the same time, at the diplomatic level, the Russian Federation pursued a policy aimed not only and not so much at opposing Ukraine's entry into NATO, but by demonstrating its desire to preserve not only the status of a leader in the post-Soviet space, but also its priority right to influence within these borders.

In fact, through the so-called "friends of Moscow", the relevant theses were conveyed to the members of the Alliance. That is why certain states supporting Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations did not want to conflict with Moscow and did not see the feasibility of Kyiv joining NATO. Although it should be noted that the most favorable conditions that existed in the 2000s were not used by the European community for Ukraine's accession.

To what extent, in your opinion, does the current government use intellectual resources in its political planning? Right here - what benefit does the taxpayer have, in particular, from the existence of the same NISD?

I am sure that the current government uses available intellectual resources at a sufficient level. At the same time, the potential of analytical structures has not been exhausted.

It is worth mentioning that until 2010 there were competing analytical structures. We are talking about the fact that the NSDC of Ukraine had two complementary structures: the National Institute of International Security Problems (the director was the First Deputy Secretary of the NSDC) and the Institute of National Security. At the same time, NISD existed under the President's Administration. In certain issues, the positions of these analytical structures did not always coincide, but the corresponding competition was useful.

I am not sure that taxpayers directly received any profit from the activity of analytical structures. Rather, it is worth talking about the focus of NISD on those people who make decisions. Although a significant number of materials, publications, monographs can be not only useful, but also interesting to a certain number of citizens.

In my opinion, the activity of state analytical structures is focused mainly on stakeholders, and not on the average citizen, who should not be politicized.

How successful do you think the reform is? law enforcement agencies?

The consequences of any reforms are rather difficult to see right away, because partly the opposition of the so-called "representatives of the old system" is quite strong. At the same time, we should not forget that the majority of reformers do not always understand the essence of the reforms, their specifics, and also do not have the necessary experience and understanding of the system's operation.

Significant steps aimed at reforms have been taken and are being carried out, but it is still too early to talk about the completion of the reforms.

Is it realistic to combine the fulfillment of EU and NATO requirements in the field of transparency and human rights with the realities of wartime?

The issue of transparency and human rights in the activities of security sector structures is quite difficult. This is due to the fact that in the fact of an undeclared state of war with the Russian Federation, transparency can harm the activities of the relevant structures. In addition, it is worth mentioning that even in such a democratic state as the USA, in the conditions of the "global war on terrorism", there were restrictions on human rights and transparency there is not unconditional.

Where there is a question of national security, in most cases, the question of transparency does not arise. Practically all the structures of the political and economic bloc have been integrated almost painlessly, but the structures of the security sector have remained closed and separate until now.

And the last thing: salaries in the state apparatus - in its various branches - objectively increased. Where does corruption come from? Perhaps the idea that the high salaries of the updated officials will reduce the incentive for abuse - in Ukraine, for some reason, turned out to be wrong?

Wages in public service bodies have objectively increased, but at the same time inflation has also increased. At the same time, raising wages is essential, but not key, in the fight against corruption for many reasons.

Not only the mentality is important, but also the existence of the so-called "tolerance to corruption", which exists in most not only post-Soviet countries. It is about the fact that citizens do not consider certain actions and deeds to be manifestations of corruption.

The fact that the holding of any competitions is connected with the presence of "reshals" at various levels is also of significant importance. And it is not only about tender purchases. The "Prozorro" system did not become a panacea. Do not forget personnel issues and competitions.

Public publicity in the matter of many appointments did not end with practically nothing. In part, personnel issues are resolved according to the same rules that existed before - loyalty is paramount, not professionalism. That is why there are quite common situations when future candidates were first determined, and then competitions were held in order to legalize them, thereby turning the principles of competitive selection into a farce. Do not forget about the conditions of competitive selection, which were prescribed for specific persons. It is for this reason that persons without professional education and the necessary experience were appointed to certain positions.

The issue of fighting corruption has become too politicized. Instead, professional anti-corruptionists appeared who not only and not so much fight this shameful phenomenon, but earn various political and financial dividends from it. We are talking about the development of grant funds or the implementation of often targeted actions for specific persons. Probably, certain anti-corruption officers are in the service of party structures.

One can agree with a number of experts who emphasize that even external aid is not something that does not help, but quite often harms. We are talking about the fact that the advisory structures are more likely to absorb the funds, rather than achieve the set specific goal, and the system of control over the relevant funds cannot be considered effective. Donors are process-oriented rather than goal-oriented.

A fairly decent salary is a safeguard, but not a panacea. Corruption exists in almost all countries of the world, only its manifestations and consequences are different. Another thing is that in European states, economic, and therefore corruption, issues partly do not have a statute of limitations, which is an additional safeguard, but does not guarantee that a civil servant will not use the opportunities available to him for his own, especially one-time, colossal enrichment. The recent corruption scandals in most European countries are a clear indication of this.

talked Maxim Mikhailenko

Russian version on "Phrases"