- Today, cooperative work with Russia is considered to have not only military, but military-political grounds. The work concerns the use of our two missile attach stations near Mukachevo and Sevastopol in the interests of Russia’s nuclear forces and antimissile umbrella. Is this an indication that Ukraine is interested in upholding interests within the framework of the Tashkent pact?

    - There are many rumors and speculations about this topic. I’ll start with the Treaty with Russia on the use of missile attack warning stations and control of space signed by the former President of Ukraine on July 6, 1992. When the Union broke up, nuclear weapons were spread across four republics. Ukraine had both nuclear missiles and their management systems. The early warning stations are also an integral part of overall effectiveness of nuclear forces and the legal bases of these systems needed to be quickly determined in these uneasy conditions.

    When it was decided that Ukraine would become nuclear-weapons free state, and nuclear warheads were taken to Russia, the early warning stations were in operation and have continued to operate to the benefit of Russia. Therefore, from 1993-94 there have been active negotiations with Russians. It was agreed that for the period January 1, 1994 till January 1, 1996, when we still had warheads, Russia and Ukraine would equally finance the stations. The stations cost 1.5 million per year to maintain. The new agreement on the stations, which we was signed with Russia on February 28, 1997, and was, after the third attempt, ratified by the Duma last December and should be ratificated by the Verhovna Rada, states that all expenses for deliveries of spare parts to the stations and their repair will be financed by Russia. Ukraine is responsible only for personnel. However, we are currently discussing all the expenses that Ukraine needs to be compensated for.

    That means that Russia now pays Ukraine $ 1.5 million per year per station, or more correctly, owes Ukraine because there are significant arrears. At the same time for similar stations in Skunda, Russia paid Latvia $5 million every year. Why the difference?

    Russia rented Skunda as separate Russian military installation including the ground. There were Russian soldiers, security, etc. If we did not have nuclear warheads, we would have likely taken the same path and rented the stations.

    - There was no sense to bargain later?

    We could not meet the requirements, as the obligations of our early warning stations “is propped up” by the ABM Treaty, which the US and the USSR signed in1972.

    After the disintegration of the Union, Ukraine became a successor to the Treaty. The Treaty affirms that early warning systems can “be placed on the periphery of national territory”. If we had rented these stations, it would have indicated that Ukraine remained a part of the national territory of Russia and we would have automatically left the ABM Treaty, which limits countries’s opportunities to develop weapons capable of striking down intercontinental ballistic missiles. Participation in this Treaty allows us to be privy to information, which under other circumstances nobody would share with us – that is information on nuclear arsenal bases, locations of military satellites, threats of terrorist acts using missiles. This information is essential for us. Participation in the Treaty also allows Ukraine to influence the position of the superpowers, when it concerns development of antimissile defense systems, their improvement and modernization. In a sense, it opens prospects for supplying our defensive enterprises with contracts.

    - If our parliament does not ratify the contract with Russia on the early warning systems, what consequences will it have?

- It could be treated as infringement by Ukraine of the Agreement on Succession to the ABM Treaty. In this case, Russia and the US could blame Ukraine for the deterioration of the viability of international arrangements on antimissile defense.

    The Russian Air Force Commander not so long ago declared that there are plans to develop stations that would be capable of monitoring launches of adversaries’ missiles at strategic distances. This can definitely be treated as desire of Russia to decrease dependence on Ukraine in the long term, or, for example, Azerbaijan, with whom it is difficult for Russia to reach agreement and where is also placed one of the early warning stations. Does this mean that Ukraine will have to dismantle the stations at Mukachevo and Sevastopol?