Ambassador of Ukraine to NATO: "Things that were impossible yesterday are becoming possible"

The sixth "Ramstein format" meeting brought Ukraine a lot of positive news: Spain promised to transfer four HAWK air defense launchers, the United States – HAWK and advanced HawkEye systems (the number is being specified), NATO – hundreds of drone jamming devices, and the Netherlands – missiles to strengthen air and missile defense.

But there is another, no less important achievement, Ukrainian diplomats say – the transition to systematic cooperation. Namely, NATO started talking about a ten-year plan to re-equip the Ukrainian army.

"Now we are talking about the long game. We are looking for answers to questions that will be relevant after the war," summed up the results of the meeting in Brussels Ambassador of Ukraine to NATO Natalia Galibarenko.

hromadske talked to the Ukrainian ambassador about the prospects of obtaining weapons, on which partners had so far imposed a political taboo, about the reaction of partners to Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure and NATO's readiness to respond to the Kremlin's nuclear threats.

"Now we are talking about the long game"

Most of our conversation, of course, will be devoted to "Ramstein". What wish list did Ukraine come to its partners with?

The issue of air defense comes to the fore, because it was one of the priorities of the first months of the war, when massive bombing began. But at the time, in NATO and in most NATO countries, it was a taboo topic. They did not want to talk about closing the Ukrainian skies under various pretexts, such as lack of appropriate systems, their enormous price, lack of specialists in Ukraine to maintain them. There were a lot of different arguments. Now there is actually a breakthrough – and the first German IRIS-T system has already crossed the border. What was impossible before is now possible. We have somewhat optimized our, as you said, wish list, taking this into account. In addition, the question was raised about how to better counteract, for example, the threat of Iranian drones. That is, we also made certain proposals in order not to expend HIMARS to shoot down these scooters that fly in the Ukrainian sky. This is optimization taking into account the challenges we face.

Do NATO members have intelligence about Iran's capabilities in drones and their sale to Russia?

In this matter, our intelligence services were better armed with information, and it was we who conveyed our data on what this contract is and what we can expect in terms of the supply of drones.

So 2,400 drones is the end? Will there be more deliveries?

This is at least the contract that both sides have signed now, and it is clear that Iran will not deliver the entire amount tomorrow. The question will be about step-by-step deliveries. There is another task for us. We know the picture, we need to find some means that will help us to effectively counteract it.

You mentioned Germany. Why do you think Germany made this breakthrough when it comes to air defense? After all, this country is known for its slowness...

In the case of Germany, I generally see a more positive picture than sometimes portrayed. Because there was a huge breakthrough for this country. Given the Second World War and the moral burden that this country has been carrying for many years after the war, for them, in principle, to make a decision to provide military assistance is simply a breakthrough of all taboos. And the fact that we have received Panzerhaubitze, and the fact that now the IRIS-T system is being supplied, and the fact that thanks to the financial assistance of Germany, Ukraine has received Zuzana howitzers (manufactured by a Slovak company – ed.) – this is a huge breakthrough that Germany is now making for our country. This, in my opinion, is a huge step on the part of Germany, and we want to continue to work on this positive.

What is the main conclusion you have made for yourself after the meeting in the Ramstein format? What should we expect within a month?

My impression may be subjective, but what I am fond of is the understanding of the Ramstein participants, first of all, of course, the Americans, of the need for a systematic approach. War creates chaos, it is very difficult to find some order in it. But together with our partners, we talked, for example, about long-term approaches to training of the Ukrainian military, understanding that even after the end of the war, air defense issues will not disappear. Ukraine still has to put these systems in service, train people, switch to NATO weapons standards, etc. And our partners are ready to work on this. When we met at the very beginning, we, of course, talked only about short-term needs: to supply this, to find that. Instead, now we are talking about the long game.

The Americans talked about providing HAWK and HawkEye air defense systems. Do you understand how many and on what scale they can provide these systems?

The figures have not been announced yet, because it also depends on the availability of systems. In addition, our partners and allies very often not only share with us what they have in service, they use financial opportunities to purchase the necessary weapons. And this is already reaching third countries. That is, sometimes it takes time, but in fact, if you get what you need, it justifies itself.

And who is ready to sell us air defense systems?

(Laughs) I will not say.

hromadske journalist Diana Butsko with Ukraine's Ambassador to NATO Natalia Galibarenko
Photo: hromadske

"Things that were impossible yesterday are becoming possible"

The sixth "Ramstein format" meeting focused on air defence. Did you raise the issue of other weapons?

There were different issues. There were air defense, and ammunition, and heavy artillery, there were a lot of things, taking into account the needs of our army. And in particular, we talked about preparations for the winter. Yes, it is not weapons, but it is an issue that is about to come up: winter clothing, tents, heaters and diesel generators. In particular, we proceed from the fact that our soldiers must be protected in the trenches in order to fight, and only then we can talk about the effectiveness of the Armed Forces in general. So, these issues were also on the agenda. Many countries have already given relevant promises, and now we will work on their implementation.

Do you see any shift in the American position on long-range missiles in the future?

Positions are basically changing over these seven months. Things that were impossible yesterday are becoming possible. And what we heard earlier that there would be no certain deliveries – this position is also changing. I remember our partners saying that if they, for example, had started training Ukrainian pilots earlier, we would have had specialists by the third-fourth-fifth month of the war. But then it was politically taboo. Now we are breaking the patterns again, because – once again – we succeed because of the success of our Armed Forces. When our partners saw that their investments, so to speak, bring such results as our successful counteroffensive, it prompted many of them to increase the pace of assistance to Ukraine, because it has an effect. After all, the huge, "haughty", the most powerful Russian army in the world turned out to be not so scary and powerful as NATO perceived before.

Should we expect news about fighter jets and tanks?

I think it will happen. I will quote the Minister (Oleksii Reznikov – ed.), who uttered a rather interesting phrase: "Colleagues, the time will come, and you will offer everything yourselves". You know, we are approaching that moment, we have actually come to it, when we are already being offered by them, because they see what the situation is, they see the threats from Russia, they understand who is in the foreground, who protects them from an absolutely unpredictable northern neighbor.

There are no illusions about the Russians in the headquarters

Judging even from public statements, we can conclude that Western partners were shocked by the strikes that Russia has made in recent days. What did they tell you in private conversations?

They were amazed by the massive scale of the strikes, because 87 missiles were launched in one day, and they hit the center of Kyiv... And then, as always, Russian propaganda wrote that they allegedly hit military units and decision-making centers...

This time, they even openly said that they hit the infrastructure.

In principle, there are no illusions about the Russians here at the headquarters. All illusions have long since faded after what became known about Bucha, Irpin, and then Izyum. Nobody is deluded anymore. The only question is that our colleagues had information that the corresponding strikes were being prepared much earlier. But then the Russians, as always, had the nerve to accuse us as if it was revenge for the Kerch Bridge or some other attacks. Although our partners knew full well that the decision was made much earlier than the attack on the Kerch Bridge. But this is very much in the style of the Russians.

Putin is raising the stakes, even nuclear threats are in the air. In conversations with our partners, do you have an understanding of what the reaction might be? Have you discussed any plans with them?

Now no one in NATO is talking about a specific response, what it can be physically. It is more about the fact that NATO is taking measures to ensure that the Russian side knows what these consequences may be. That is, they are acting preventively, especially our American partners, so that the Russians know what the response will be. NATO now believes that despite Putin's threats, the likelihood of a nuclear strike is insignificant, that is, our allies do not see practical preparations, do not see movements characteristic of the preparation for a nuclear strike. Therefore, they are acting somewhere in this paradigm. They have conveyed their signal that this is absolutely unacceptable. Also, NATO, I know, interacted with the leaders of other major powers, who also conveyed this signal to Putin, including the Chinese leader. So now the ball is in Russia's court, but still there is an understanding in NATO that, despite all his savagery, Putin is not completely crazy to take such a step.

Is it possible that Western intelligence will not notice that the order will be given?

I don't think so, because within the framework of nuclear programs and everything else, as far as I know from our partners, the Americans have literally a complete picture of what is happening: any movements that will begin will not go unnoticed. That is why this is the position of the NATO Secretary General, who said that they remain on guard, but do not see practical preparations for a nuclear strike.

hromadske journalist Diana Butsko with Ukrainian Ambassador to NATO Natalia Galibarenko
Photo: hromadske

There is no political consensus in NATO on Ukraine's membership

And finally, I want to ask about the prospects of NATO membership. President Zelenskyy announced the application for NATO membership, and the American media wrote that it was a surprise for the Americans. Have Ukrainians discussed the application with their partners?

We discussed various options, not only the application, and these consultations continued even during a very active phase of the war, for example in the spring or before the summer pause, in NATO. We discussed different options, how we move forward, because we cannot ignore the question of the future of our relationship. Let's be honest, it has been 14 years since 2008 when Ukraine received the membership promise. And during 14 years, cooperation has been developing, but I believe that our allies have not responded to the commitment they made in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit. Therefore, we have made this decision. I want to emphasize that it was aimed, in particular, at the domestic audience. The President actually answered Ukrainians in the same way. About 76% of the population, according to the latest opinion polls, are for Ukraine's accession to NATO. The President has made it clear that he does not support neutral status, he will not bargain for our future – and so we are applying. Our friends, particularly within NATO, are very happy about this, because Ukraine, according to them, has put the cards on the table. And now there will be a discussion within NATO on how to respond to this application. Now you will not dismiss it and say: "Maybe Ukraine does not need membership? Maybe it is discussing something else?". Now everything is clear, everything is determined. I am grateful to NATO. Let's see how the process will pan out.

Stoltenberg's statement afterwards was quite restrained. He said what he always says about open doors. What is the point of the application if the door is actually open, but we are not invited there yet?

I did not expect anything else from the Secretary General. After all, he is not authorized to assess our application. This is a decision of 30 member states. Only when there is a political consensus, the Secretary General will come out and say: "We invite Ukraine to join the Alliance". Now there is no political consensus. What is political consensus? It means that every country out of 30 should unanimously support Ukraine's membership.

Now this is not the case, so the Secretary General is acting within his mandate. He came out and told the well-known position of the Alliance that we have the right to do it, that we have prospects in accordance with the decision of the Bucharest Summit, but we need to work on political consensus.