In addition, Ukraine was second only to Russia in terms of the concentration of military-related industries in the Soviet Union. According to several estimates, in the 1980s approximately 20 percent of Soviet defense production came from Ukraine, and a high proportion of Ukraine`s industrial work force was employed within the military-industrial complex.99
After independence, Ukraine, like Russia, was faced with the daunting task of drastically reducing the number of military servicemen on its territory and converting much of its military production to civilian use. Just keeping track of all the military equipment in Ukraine has been difficult, and inevitably some of this equipment has fallen into the hands of various criminals--the infamous post-Soviet "mafia."
General discussions of military developments in the Commonwealth of Independent States usually focus on the Russian Armed Forces. To a certain extent this is natural, as on several occasions the Russian military has played a dramatic and sometimes bloody role in the domestic affairs of the Russian Federation. This includes the shelling of the Russian parliament in October 1993 and, most recently, the massive use of military force in Chechnya.
Military developments in Ukraine have attracted much less attention. The exceptions are the now increasingly irrelevant controversy over the fate of the nuclear weapons on Ukraine's territory, and the continuing dispute over the division of the Black Sea Fleet. However, the creation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was in itself a very significant and dramatic act. In addition, the military and other organs of coercion such as Ukraine's National Guard (internal security forces) can, depending on the circumstances, play an important role in stabilizing or destabilizing the situation in Ukraine.
Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty in July 1990 clearly stated that the republic had the right to establish its own armed forces;100 however, in the first 12 months following this declaration little was done to implement the declaration's clauses concerning the military. The first concrete steps to establish the foundations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) were taken following the abortive coup attempt of August 1991--on 24 August 1991the parliamentary opposition stressed Ukraine's helplessness when it was faced, during the coup, with the possible use of military force. On the same day the parliament resolved to create a Ukrainian defense ministry and place all military formations deployed on Ukraine's territory under its jurisdiction.101
In fall 1991 the Ukrainian parliament approved a package of draft laws on national defense, and by the end of December 1991 the legal basis for the UAF had been fully established. By the time the Soviet Union formally ceased to exist, in December 1991, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) came into being, Ukraine had already created the framework for its own military and was the very first state within the CIS to do so. An independent Russian army did not emerge until May 1992, after it became clear that Ukraine would refuse to engage in collective security arrangements.
This strong focus on quickly developing a Ukrainian military and a distinctive Ukrainian defense policy was part of the overall process of state-building in Ukraine. Given Ukraine's limited (and incomplete) experience of independent statehood in modern times, it was natural that a great deal of attention be devoted to the process of acquiring quickly the most visible and significant attributes of statehood. Because the defense of a state's territory through the establishment and maintenance of an independent military capability remains an important component of sovereignty in the international state system, this became a top priority in Ukraine.
It is easy to criticize this early emphasis on institutions, such as the military, that were to guarantee Ukraine's security and respond to challenges by the use of force. It is clear, for example, that far too little consideration was given to the economic and social aspects of security. However, the problem was not so much an overemphasis on the development of Ukraine's military, but more an underemphasis on the need for socioeconomic reform. In fact, it was inevitable that military issues would assume a very high profile in an independent Ukraine in late 1991, and the reason is simple. After the abortive August 1991 coup attempt, close to 800,000 confused and disoriented servicemen, with access to a large volume of military equipment, were physically located on Ukraine's territory. Many if not most of these personnel had little or no meaningful attachment to the territory on which they accidentally happened to find themselves after Ukraine declared independence, and thus had they not been rapidly subordinated through clear lines of authority to the Ukrainian government, they could have posed a significant threat to Ukraine's sovereignty or, at a minimum, could have caused considerable disruption in Ukraine.
It is surprising that the initial stages in the formation of the UAF were so remarkably peaceful. This was partly because the strength of the drive for Ukraine's independence and its leadership's determination to establish the UAF kept Moscow politicians as well as the old Soviet military command off balance throughout the fall of 1991 and the first few months of 1992. Thus they were unable to respond quickly and effectively to developments in Ukraine.
Between August 1991 and prior to the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States in December 1991, the central military and political elites of the Soviet Union strongly condemned all discussions on dividing the Soviet Armed Forces (SAF). It was proposed that the governments of the republics be given a greater role in the formulation and implementation of defense policy and that the SAF be restructured. However, the establishment of independent national armies was firmly opposed,102 and in fact, SAF representatives continued to emphasize the need for a highly unified defense structure for several months following the establishment of the CIS, arguing that only such a structure could ensure the security of member states.103
However, the peaceful initial phase of the military transition in Ukraine cannot be attributed solely to confusion in Moscow. It was also the result of the quiet but persistent work of a small, energetic group of officers and civilians headed by Col. Gen. Kostiantyn Morozov, Ukraine's first Minister of Defense. Although this team was provided with limited resources and facilities, it tackled its goals in a serious and energetic fashion, and the results, at least initially, were generally positive.104
The peaceful initial period of military transition was also because of the absence of concerted domestic opposition to the creation of the UAF. The various conservative forces in Ukraine opposed to the disintegration of the USSR and the demise of the SAF were greatly disoriented by developments following the August 1991 coup attempt and were unable to put up any coherent opposition to these processes. In addition, all nationalist and national-democratic forces in Ukraine were united in supporting the rapid creation of the UAF, and gave this goal their whole-hearted support in spite of numerous disagreements on other issues.
In its work, Morozov's team was also greatly aided by the Union of Officers of Ukraine (UOU). This organization was created in July 1991 on the basis of various groups and committees that had begun to advocate the creation of a Ukrainian Armed Forces as early as 1989 and gradually coalesced under the umbrella of the national-democratic "Rukh" organization. Following the failed coup attempt of August 1991 the UOU benefitted from the euphoria accompanying the drive for independence and gained considerable prestige and stature. A number of its activists quickly rose to senior positions in the UAF, playing a significant role in providing a cohesive "core" of officers committed to the formation and consolidation of the UAF, and promoting patriotism within its ranks.105 UOU activities were generally supported by Defence Minister Morozov, who even advocated involving the UOU in identifying and removing corrupt officers.106
This official support for what was in effect a military pressure group is far from what would normally be considered a desirable pattern of civil-military relations. However, the situation in the newly independent Ukraine was hardly normal, and the UOU provided crucial assistance to Defence Minister Morozov in implementing government policies during a critical phase in the development of UAF. In fact, during Morozov's term in office, the UOU was partly coopted by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry and probably served as a conduit for the expression of certain views, held by some senior personnel in this ministry, that could not otherwise be openly enunciated.
However, reality soon set in, and Ukraine's growing socioecoomic problems inevitably had a major impact on the military. For example, the Ukrainian authorities greatly underestimated the cost of maintaining a large and powerful military, and a significant proportion of the state budget was consumed by military-related expenditures.107 Ukraine continued to carry a very heavy military burden at a time when its economy was declining dramatically.
In spite of these growing resource constraints, the process of establishing the budget for the UAF was chaotic, and there is no evidence that Ukraine's leaders attempted to conduct even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis of military-related expenditures. In fact, on several occasions Ukraine's second Minister of Defence, Col. Gen. Radetsky, complained that the UAF had existed for over 2 years without a budget.108
The slow pace of economic reform in Ukraine also had a negative impact on the conversion process within Ukraine's large military-industrial complex, which has also been administered in a rather chaotic fashion. According to one source, conversion was not carried out "in accordance with a systematic program, but as a result of a spontaneous reduction in the production of military technology and weapons." Additional complications included a drastic reduction in orders for military goods from Russia, the low wages of workers in the machine building and military-industrial complexes, and very limited Western investment in Ukraine's fully state-controlled defense industries.109
The possibility of Western investment in Ukraine's defense industries and its conversion programs has increased now that nuclear disarmament measures are proceeding, and Ukraine has pledged to abide by recognized treaties to limit ballistic and nuclear missile proliferation.110 However, until recently such investment was hampered by the slow pace of economic reform in Ukraine.
As Ukraine's economy declined, the standard of living of its military personnel deteriorated, leading to growing dissatisfaction in the ranks of the UAF. A rapid decline in the prestige of military service and a considerable increase in the number of cases of draft evasion and desertion followed in 1992-93.111 These problems were particularly severe in western Ukraine and the Kiev area, in spite of the high levels of national consciousness in these regions.112
Complaints increased concerning the lack of appropriate housing for officers and their families, low salaries for officers, and a deterioration in the level and quality of social services for military professionals.113 Deteriorating living conditions encouraged corruption within the UAF, which paralleled the growth of corruption in society at large and became so widespread that it contributed significantly to the diminishing prestige of service in the armed forces. As a result, many young and enterprising officers left the UAF in 1992-93.114
In addition, many of the flaws inherent in the rapid pace of the restructuring of the UAF became increasingly apparent in 1993. For example, a major controversy emerged when a decision was made in 1992 to reduce the large number of specialized military educational institutions in Ukraine and to rationalize their operations.115 Other controversies surrounded the decision to liquidate the Kiev military district (subordinating its military personnel to the Odessa military district) and create a unified Aerial Defense Troops structure by amalgamating the Air Force and Air Defense Troops in Ukraine.116
The self-interest of those negatively affected by these changes was behind much of the opposition to these and other reform measures. However, the reform process was also hampered by a lack of resources to carry out expensive reforms and by the small number of nongovernmental research institutions ("think tanks") in Ukraine that could provide informed and critical commentary on military and military-related issues.117
Certain political problems also emerged. In the fall of 1992 criticism of Defense Minister Morozov in the Ukrainian parliament became increasingly vociferous. The criticism that Gen. Morozov had done little to reduce corruption in the UAF was contrived, for he had, in fact, mounted a vigorous campaign to combat such corruption, albeit with relatively little success due to circumstances largely beyond his control. However, there were also accusations that the UAF were becoming highly politicized. In particular, Col. Gen. Morozov was strongly criticized for encouraging and supporting the activity of the UOU.118
Some of this criticism was justified, since Defense Minister Morozov had clearly cooperated with the UOU from the very beginning of his term of office. However, this cooperation can largely be explained by the enormity of the task of creating a cohesive Ukrainian military on the basis of officers who were largely of non-Ukrainian ethnic background, and in many cases had little or no genuine commitment to defending Ukraine's territory. Although some of the officers who were least interested in serving in the UAF soon left its ranks, legitimate doubts remained concerning the loyalty of many who continued to serve in the Ukrainian military.
The UOU was therefore seen as assisting Ukraine's Ministry of Defense (MOD) in "Ukrainizing" the UAF--that is, promoting measures such as the greater use of the Ukrainian language and the introduction of Ukrainian military traditions in the UAF. In addition, members of the UOU were to help expose the theft and sale of military hardware and other forms of corruption and abuse in the UAF. Still, although the UOU made an important contribution to the construction of the UAF, its activity introduced a glaring anomaly into the development of civil-military relations in Ukraine. Officials within the Ukrainian MOD attempted to unofficially supervise and steer the activities of the UOU, but such supervision was not always possible or effective.119 Thus it was inevitable that as Ukraine's MOD became more firmly established, the ambiguous role of the UOU as an officially approved military pressure group was increasingly seen in some circles as a liability.
Additional controversy was provoked by the work of the Social-Psychological Service (SPS) of the UAF, the successor in certain respects of the Main Political Administration, which had coordinated all political socialization activities in the old SAF. The first head of the SPS, Volodymyr Muliava, was, for example, accused of dictatorial tendencies and artificially speeding up the "Ukrainization" of the Ukrainian military. However, Muliava and his supporters never denied that the work of the SPS was highly political. They simply argued that such politicization was fully justified, since its aim was to offset the impact of many years of pro-Soviet propaganda in the SAF. The political socialization effort in the SAF had been highly critical of even the most innocent expressions of so-called Ukrainian "bourgeois nationalism" and of all military traditions which could be linked to the drive for Ukraine's independence. Thus the work of the SPS was seen as helping to guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine by raising the patriotic consciousness of conscripts and officers.
These aims were not unreasonable, and much of the criticism directed at Muliava came from officers who were resistant to any changes in military practices. However, Muliava alienated a number of officers who felt that he was promoting a rather parochial form of patriotism in the UAF. In addition, he appeared to be intolerant of criticism and attacked many of his critics in an intemperate fashion. Further, the work of the SPS was often conducted, at the local level, by the same political instructors who had been responsible for the Marxist-Leninist indoctrination effort in the old SAF. Some of these instructors had difficulty "restructuring" their work, and its quality left a great deal to be desired.120
Another development that has hampered the normal development of civil-military relations in Ukraine is the activity of paramilitary groups. Such groups have remained largely on the margins of Ukrainian politics, and their significance has often been exaggerated.121 However, there is one significant paramilitary group in Ukraine called UNSO--the Ukrainian People's Self Defense Forces. This organization is the military wing of the right-wing or Ukrainian National Assembly, and it has been very flexible in its tactics. Thus although the Ukrainian parliament has prohibited the formation of all unofficial paramilitary detachments, and some UNSO members have been arrested, the Ukrainian government has failed to establish firm control over the UNSO and it continues to conduct its activities in a relatively open fashion.122
The UNSO sees itself as complementing the work of the armed forces and militia, and it has supported elements in the UAF who are dissatisfied with their wages and living conditions.123 It has also tried to gain support among representatives of the military-industrial complex, and has tried to establish certain links with the UOU.124 Until the second half of 1993, the state authorities appeared to tolerate the UNSO, possibly because it provided a certain counterweight to the activity of Russian chauvinist organizations in Ukraine. However, recent attempts to restrict UNSO's activities have been complicated by the unsettled political situation in Ukraine, and may be further complicated by the recent election of three members of the UNA to the new Ukrainian parliament.125
The initial phase in the development of the UAF ended in October 1993, when Defense Minister Morozov offered his resignation after facing increasing opposition in the Ukrainian parliament and openly disagreeing with the position taken by Ukraine's President Kravchuk during the Russian-Ukrainian Massandra summit in Crimea in September 1993.126 He was replaced by Colonel General Vitalii Radetsky, formerly the commander of the Odessa Military District.
It appears that President Kravchuk perceived Radetsky as more flexible than Morozov, more capable of getting the approval of conservative parliamentarians for certain military reforms, and better suited to help rationalize the production of Ukraine's military-industrial complex. In fact, parliament approved Ukraine's military doctrine less than 2 weeks after Radetsky took office, and he devoted a great deal of attention to military "hardware" issues.127 For example, several discussions between representatives of the ministries of defense of Ukraine and Russia on the joint planning and preparation of defense production took place in late 1993 and early 1994.128
At the same time, Radetsky made it clear that the process of "Ukrainizing" the UAF would be slowed down and that he disapproved of military involvement in politics, thus discouraging the activities of the UOU in the UAF.129 He also quickly moved to restructure the controversial SPS. Muliava was reassigned to other duties, and the SPS was renamed the Main Administration for Educational and Social-Psychological Work.130 However, this organization, whose personnel have had to undergo another "re-orientation" in their work, has continued to lose credibility and has proven incapable of stemming the renewed growth of so-called "informal" practices such as hazing in the UAF,131 an activity that has pitted servicemen from one area of Ukraine against those from another along ethnic or linguistic lines.132
In addition, in 1993-94 the military came under increasing budgetary pressure because of Ukraine's continuing economic decline, for even the highest priority sectors are greatly suffering because of the severity of the country's economic crisis. Surveys have shown that the great majority of officers in the UAF are unhappy with the conditions of their service, which has led to the growth of independent trade union activities in the UAF.133
In addition to expressing grievances concerning low pay, inferior living conditions, and poor social security provisions, officers have frequently complained about a deterioration in the military's combat capabilities, since financial constraints have restricted opportunities for training and for the development and purchase of new weapons systems.134 Another commonly expressed grievance is the continuation of widespread corrupt activities in the senior ranks of the top-heavy military.135
In spite of the many problems faced by the Ukrainian military, it is still trusted by a large part of the population, and its "rating" in various opinion polls is quite high, although it has declined in the last year. In fact, according to one poll taken in 1994, the only other major social institution with a similarly high rating was the church.136 However, this is less an indication of the military's widespread popularity and more a reflection of very low levels of public trust in most other public institutions, with the major exception of the presidency, especially under Kuchma.
In spite of the activities of the UOU, the Ukrainian military generally appears to be less politicized than the Russian military, One reason is that the Ukrainian military has not been used to help deal with domestic opposition to the current central political authorities. None of the major actors on the Ukrainian political scene owes major debts to, or has tried to curry special favor with, the military. In addition, the vigorous role which the Russian military has played in certain neighboring countries (e.g., Tadzhikistan, Georgia, Moldova) has contributed a great deal to its growing politicization. In contrast, the UAF have not seen service abroad, with the exception of contingents of peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslavia.
There are few indications that military officers in Ukraine are prepared to directly intervene in the political process. The main exceptions consist of some officers serving in the Black Sea Fleet, and certain officers who have engaged in protests to publicize their deteriorating living standards. The major threat to the stability of civil-military relations in Ukraine appears to be discontent among military servicemen stemming from their deteriorating socioeconomic status and uncertainty about the future. For example, funding shortages have restricted the number of military officers who can be retrained to enter civilian occupations, in spite of continuing plans to drastically reduce the size of the UAF.137 However, a number of Western institutions have provided some funding for such programs, although one can hear numerous anecdotes in Kiev concerning the effectiveness of attempts to retrain military officers to work as managers and businessmen.
The Ukrainian press has continued to carry numerous reports of poorly heated barracks, of military personnel ashamed to appear in public because of their thread-bare uniforms, and so on.138 If the state of the Ukrainian economy does not improve, and the socioeconomic concerns of military officers are not addressed in a satisfactory fashion, the relative calm that characterizes civil-military relations in Ukraine to date (at least outside of Crimea) could be seriously threatened.139
The trends in civil-military relations in Ukraine after Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine's new president, took office in the summer of 1994 have generally been positive, since the pattern of civil-military relations in Ukraine is becoming more similar to the pattern taken for granted in most liberal democracies. Most significantly, there is a possibility now that the economy can be stabilized and that over time one will see an end to rapidly declining living standards, the major cause of dissatisfaction in the UAF. It is also important to note that Ukraine's third defense minister, Valerii Shmarov, is the first civilian to occupy this post. Shmarov's appointment was treated with some dismay by Ukraine's defense establishment, which is totally dominated by military professionals, but it did not encounter any significant resistance.
Ukraine is moving decisively to cut back further on the size of its bloated defense forces, and impose more discipline on the chaotic process of budgetary planning for the armed forces and the country as a whole. In addition, a concerted drive to deal with the debilitating and demoralizing effects of corrupt activities within the armed forces has paralleled a similar drive in society at large. If the momentum generated by these developments is maintained, and is accompanied by further reform measures, one can expect a gradual stabilization of civil-military relations in Ukraine in the next few years. Given the situation in which Ukraine found itself in late 1991, it is hardly surprising that the process of building the Ukrainian Armed Forces was complex and often contradictory. What is surprising is that it was not even more complex and contradictory.
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |