UKRAINE’S ARMED FORCES LEAD THE WAY IN THE CIS

Ukraine took another key step toward closer relations with NATO with the disclosure of their intention to upgrade military communications to NATO standards. Major-General Volodymyr Rudyk, deputy chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, stated that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense intends to replace the current, outdated analogue communications system with a new, modernized digital system as funds become available.

Both the timescale and detail of the plans to upgrade the communications system suggest the serious intention to progress towards NATO interoperability within key formations. Such efforts would build on Ukraine’s recent peace-support experience in Iraq, and allow for a more diverse and dynamic role in future Western-led military operations.

In order to achieve these ambitious goals, scientific and technical programs for developing and updating the current Unified Automated Control System (NTP-16) and the Unified Automated Communications System (NTP-17) need to be prioritized. This is inhibited by the lack of funding for these programs, making the task of reforming their present system of automated control more challenging. In fact, the program for developing weapons and military hardware involved allocating 37.7 million hryvnias ($7.47 million) to research and development on NTP-16 and NTP-17 in 2005, but only less than 7 million hryvnias are available.

Rudyk recognizes that the shortfall in the military budget presents a general complication for those seeking genuine military reform. However, the communications systems currently utilized by the Ukrainian armed forces is essentially the same used throughout the former Soviet Union. In Ukraine’s case these systems have not been updated since their introduction in the 1960s-80s. There are almost no digital control systems available to manage Ukrainian armed forces in the field, and Rudyk readily identifies such deficiencies as a priority for the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine’s experience in Iraq has directly affected Ukrainian military thinking. Controlling subunits inside peacekeeping contingents involves using low-power radio communications, trunking communications, wire communications equipment, as well as radio-relay and tropospheric stations. Ukrainian peace support personnel serving in Iraq have also been exposed to the use of computer communications equipment.

Successful reform in this key area will depend upon the ability of Ukraine’s domestic defense industries to supply these updated systems. Several companies are scrambling to meet these needs, including the Diprozvyazok open joint-stock company in Kyiv, the state-owned Radiozvyazok (radio communications) design bureau in Sevastopol, and the Impuls scientific and technical complex in Kyiv. Each of these companies is hampered by inadequate state funding, presenting the problem of a technology gap widening still further as the armed forces are left behind in favor of foreign exports. If Ukraine’s armed forces are to make a successful transition in this area, they will need foreign military assistance. To date, such external funding has come mainly from the United States in the form of Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which has resulted in the supply of 85 Singar digital radios and five Harris radios.

Indeed, the United States bears a significant share of the financial burden almost exclusively among NATO members, running the program to supply the Promina multifunctional telecommunications system in order to build an integrated digital communications network for the Ukrainian armed forces. This program is estimated to cost around $12 million and is scheduled to last until 2011.

At a political level, given the recent pro-Western political developments within Ukraine, there is a great deal of support for reorienting the armed forces towards the West and eventual NATO membership, though the task is immense and will involve the commitment of donor countries in order to secure its success. After attending the Victory Day parade in Moscow, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko led the solemn remembrance service in Kyiv, in a sense highlighting Ukraine’s past and present interdependence on Russian security and military traditions. Yushchenko knows that breaking with these traditions will be costly and difficult.

Ukraine’s interests in Central Asia are also of geopolitical significance for the Alliance: in particular its energy interests and growing contacts within the regime in Turkmenistan. Prior to the Victory Day celebrations Oleksiy Ivchenko, chairman of Naftohaz Ukrayiny (Oil and Gas of Ukraine), O. Chyzhov, the recently appointed head of the Interbudmontazh (international construction and assembly) joint-stock association, and Roman Halikov, deputy director-general of the state enterprise Ukroboronservis (defense industry), visited Turkmenistan to explore deeper bilateral military cooperation ties. Kyiv may well present a post-Soviet inroad into the Caucasus and Central Asia for the United States and the Alliance, which may hope to utilize Kyiv’s knowledge and expertise in handling such regimes.

However, if the recent statements of President George W. Bush regarding the U.S. commitment to promoting democracy within the former Soviet Union are to be considered as a marker for future U.S. foreign policy in these regions, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense may calculate that it will be granted preferential assistance in its efforts to conduct successful reform. But its reform efforts will fail unless properly supported by Kyiv and backed by adequate domestic funding. Ukraine could become a beacon of change within the former Soviet Union, to which the militaries of the Caucasus and Central Asia may look for assistance and advice. The experiment itself however, could depend on the American taxpayer.

(Defense-Express Magazine, April 26; Neytralnyy Turkmenistan, May 4; Ukrainian Channel 1 TV, May 9)