INTERVIEW: Naval officer offers observations on fleet's recent history and current status
by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau
PART I
KYIV - As Ukraine approaches the 10th anniversary of its declaration of independence from Moscow in August 1991, books are appearing in Kyiv commemorating and analyzing various aspects of that event. Among them is Anatolii Danilov's first book, "The Ukrainian Flotilla: Near the Well of Rebirth," which documents the events that occurred in Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet just before and after that momentous occasion in the life of Ukraine.
Capt. 1st Class Danilov, who was responsible for the formation of the first Ukrainian Navy Television and Radio Center in Sevastopol in the early 1990s, chronicles the political intrigue and the social climate in Kyiv and Sevastopol during those days and months. Today Capt. Danilov is assistant director of the Nakhimov Naval Institute of Sevastopol.
The book, written in the Ukrainian language, is the first tome of a history of the Ukrainian navy that Capt. Danilov is preparing. The second tome is due out in time for the jubilee celebrations of Ukrainian independence in August.
In the following edited interview, conducted in Kyiv in mid-February, the naval officer, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the Verkhovna Rada in March 1998 on the Ukrainian National Rukh ticket, gives his views on Ukrainian-Russian relations - with the focus on Sevastopol, home port to both the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Ukrainian navy. Capt. Danilov also comments on recent agreements on mutual cooperation signed by the Ukrainian and Russian ministries of defense.
Q: Today, how are relations between the Ukrainian navy and the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol?
A: I believe that today relations are stable. After all, it has been nearly four years since the division of the Black Sea Fleet. No matter what the situation, the most important aspect of this issue is that the split in fact took place. I, as a front-line representative of the Ukrainian navy higher command, remember well when the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet categorically was against the division.
This situation existed for nearly four years, from about April 1992 to May 1996, when the accord finally was signed - a far-reaching treaty between Ukraine and Russia by the two prime ministers, at the time Pavlo Lazarenko and Viktor Chernomyrdin, on the division of the Black Sea Fleet.
Positive changes have taken place since then, although I want to emphasize here that the split itself did not take place either proportionally or in the end, evenly. Even then much was written in the press that Ukraine was losing a lot with the division.
Well, you can't change history. The ships we received were old, although it is true that the fleet, or at least about 95 percent of the vessels in it, were at the end of their life expectancy. But Ukraine, as strange as it may seem, received the oldest of the ships. Of course, for us this wasn't the most pleasant of experiences.
In the last years, as a result of the active work of our Commander of Naval Forces Admiral Mykhailo Yezhel toward peaceful and constructive relations with the Black Sea Fleet, we have held joint exercises under the name Channel of Peace 1999 and Channel of Peace 2000, and are planning Channel of Peace exercises for this year as well.
But I have to admit there remains a certain amount of internal tension [between the two navies]. It is not felt at the highest levels but at the middle echelons, between commanders of ships, among staff commanders, let's say. This is the most basic level of command, the spine of command.
And the reason for this is because the Russians sense that we are, nonetheless, the hosts here, and that their future, regardless of what is officially said, does not lie in Sevastopol. They understand this.
It may take 20 or 25 years, but Ukraine is an independent country and the perspective for the future will not be in favor of Russia. If they care for their Black Sea Fleet they will have to decide the question of where their main military port will be, whether it is Novorosiisk, or Anapa, or Sochi. That's their problem.
Relations in general are normal, however. We live together with our families. We don't have Ukrainian "reservations" and Russian reservations. Relations are constructive. We have no right to exaggerate the situation; relations are normal at all levels.
Leonid Danylovych Kuchma has determined a course that makes Russia a strategic partner. But, as an officer and a citizen of Ukraine, I must emphasize that all aspects of our relations must develop on an equal basis, so that at no time will the state interests of Ukraine be defamed, debased or in any way disregarded. This is not only my attitude, but I believe that of all the officers, of my colleagues and brothers, as well as of a majority of ordinary citizens.
Q: To what extent does a feeling exist among the sailors and officers in Sevastopol that it would have been better not to have divided the fleet? Understand here that I refer to the fleet, not to the two countries.
A: Even if a social survey were to be taken on the basis of that question, I don't believe you would get an objective answer because the issue is so sensitive with all sorts of subtleties. As far as I can say, however - and I believe I know the situation in Sevastopol and among the military personnel, and those within our institute - I think that practically 100 percent know and recognize that independent Ukraine exists, and that it must have the attributes associated with independence, including the armed forces.
I have to say that I absolutely don't hear or see anything in the mass media about some loudmouth non-patriots or people obsessed with the idea of a single fleet. Yes, that was the case earlier. It existed and it will be in my second book on the subject. [Leonid] Kravchuk and [Boris] Yeltsin discussed the possibility of a joint command. Yes, a joint command. Then the idea was ruminated upon fully. It was debated on the pages of newspapers and in public meetings. Today the idea of a single Ukrainian-Russian fleet is not even heard.
Q: Would you agree that the treaty signed between Ukraine's Minister of Defense Oleksander Kuzmuk and Russia's Minster of Defense Ihor Sergeyev in January is a normal bilateral treaty for further military cooperation in 2001?
A: As you know, Ukraine supports normal and equal bilateral relations with all countries of the world. This goes for Germany, Western Europe, the United States, but I'll get to them later. Our president, Leonid Kuchma, has designated Russia our strategic partner and, therefore, what our defense ministers are doing [supports that policy], as was the case when Minister Sergeyev was in Kyiv from January 17 to 20 of this year, at which time a treaty was signed that designates joint command/control over the movement of ships into and out of Sevastopol.
I just want to state that if it is within the realm of normal, civilized relations, then everything is fine; but if it is again a case where Ukraine's navy will be debased and made to play a secondary role, that is not normal.
But in my opinion, and I am not about to play politics here, Sevastopol belongs to us. Sevastopol is a Ukrainian city, it is the main base of the Ukrainian navy and the only master can be Ukraine, the command staff of the Ukrainian navy.
The Russians may take offense. If they do, that is their problem. But that is the only possibility; it is complete nonsense to accept that two masters can exist, even taking international norms into consideration. If there are two masters, then in reality no master exists.
As for relations between the two navies, let them remain as they are. You undoubtedly are aware that the rescue operation of the steamship Pamiat Mercuria, in which many people perished, involved rescue teams of both the Ukrainian navy and the Black Sea Fleet. That is a normal situation.
But, I underscore, let no one forget or misinterpret the fact that there is a Ukrainian state, we are its representatives and we are the masters of our land. This is most vital.
Q: Will the common Russian-Ukrainian command/control over navigation around Sevastopol Bay give Russia de facto additional powers in the area?
A: Given the fact that the treaty is a done deal, I can only hope that the interests of our navy will in no way be compromised. It is not a secret that during these nine years - it will be nine years in April since the president signed the order creating the Ukrainian naval forces - the Black Sea Fleet still carries pre-eminence among the people. Sure, it does have its heroic history, which especially the elderly, those who fought and those who lived there, cannot forget. The attitude that the Black Sea Fleet is number one dominates.
Let me give you an example. When parades take place [in and around Sevastopol], the parade units of the Black Sea Fleet go first, and then the parade units of the Ukrainian navy - this on the territory of Ukraine, mind you. People wonder: Why is that so? Don't think they don't - sailors, plebes, guests and Ukrainians in general.
Fine, we did it once; they were our guests after all. But after they have lived here for years, they are no longer guests. Tradition, respect for national interests, laws, and simple common sense and self-respect demand that the situation be changed. But that has not yet happened, unfortunately.
This is not a straightforward situation, but it is what I believe needs to be changed. Let it happen gradually, calmly, but firmly forward. The authority and image of our Ukrainian navy in the Crimean-Sevastopol region must be raised.
Q: Is there a danger to Ukraine in cooperation with Russia on the joint development of new defense technologies? Could this negatively impact the development of Ukraine's armed forces in some way?
A: This is a very delicate question. Many countries are working on new technologies, new weapons systems, including Ukraine, for example the new [T-82] tank. And we definitely need new ships and other military technology.
I read some of the treaty signed between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. It includes common training and exchanges, and visits of high-level military officials. There is even mention of exchanges of basic supplies, such as supplies of footwear, for example.
But when it comes to general defense, this is a question of national security. There cannot be identical rockets, identical missiles in two neighboring countries. In the end, each country must have something that is uniquely its own because, after all, this is defense.
Let's take this example: You put five locks on your door and I put five locks on mine. I give you my keys and you give me your keys. Now tell me, does that give us security? As long as we maintain friendly relations everything is fine, but if something happens? As I said, it is a very delicate situation.
I think that Ukraine must take care to ensure that the security of Ukraine remains with Ukrainians and, first of all, the armed forces of Ukraine.
PART I
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, March 18, 2001, No. 11, Vol. LXIX
| Home Page |