Patrick Turner, Senior NATO Representative to Ukraine

Ukrinform has a long history of communication with officials from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at various levels, and last week, Senior NATO Representative to Ukraine Patrick Turner came to our office to give his first interview to the Ukrainian mass media since his appointment this summer. The diplomat spoke about the strengthening of the Representation, his own role and goals in the new position, and commented on why it would be good to have Ukraine as an Ally. The conversation dwelled on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the assistance NATO provides to ensure that Ukraine prevails. We also touched upon the Kremlin's hybrid attacks targeting Allies. Separately, we spoke about Russia’s nuclear saber rattling and how the Alliance sees it. In general, the conversation helped us see that the new chief of the NATO Representation to Ukraine is focused on tackling challenges and achieving results. We also saw that Mr Turner realizes the great power of words, certainly combined with action. And this is exactly what Ukraine wants to see from its Western partners at times of war.

PERSONNEL NUMBERS IN THE REPRESENTATION HAVE TRIPLED

- What changes in the structure, personnel numbers, and functions of the NATO Representation in Ukraine are expected in connection with the Alliance's decision to strengthen the body?

- NATO has had a presence in Ukraine for 26 years, with a NATO Information and Documentation Center and a NATO Liaison Office (NLO), and I have many colleagues who have worked with the NATO Office for many years. So, this is not a new presenсe. What we are now doing is significantly increasing the number of personnel at the NATO Representation to Ukraine and expanding the scope of its activities.

During this year, these numbers have effectively tripled and they will further increase over the next year. So, there is a larger footprint, and with a bigger mandate. We will represent locally more elements of the NATO-Ukraine partnership agenda. The Office will expand into some areas that it has not traditionally covered.

In representing NATO here in Ukraine, I would say we have two principal objectives. The first is to ensure that NATO’s relationship with Ukraine is as strong as possible so that we can help Ukraine to prevail. And the second is to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to NATO membership

Practically, this means supporting the various elements of the package agreed by Allies in Washington for Ukraine. Such as the efforts of the new NATO command, which is being set up in Wiesbaden, Germany -- NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU); as well as the Annual National Programme (ANP) and the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHEN A SENIOR REPRESENTATIVE IS DEPLOYED IN KYIV

- That’s actually sort of symbolic that you now have a smaller version of NATO Headquarters here, in Ukraine. When you arrived to take up the new post here in Kyiv, the Representation announced that you, as its new head, would take the helm of NATO's interaction with the Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv, provide political advice and promote practical support within the framework of NATO-Ukraine cooperation. Could you dwell on the specific areas your political advice will cover?

- This is the first time that we have in Kyiv somebody called a Senior Representative and the first time there’s been an appointment of somebody at the level of an Assistant Secretary General. I was an Assistant Secretary General at NATO Headquarters for seven years, from 2015 to 2022, as head of the Operations Division and later as head of the Defence Policy and Planning Division. So, the appointment of somebody at a senior level is a signal of intent by NATO and a desire to have a stronger day-to-day on-the-ground relationship at senior levels with Ukrainian colleagues rather than relying just on visits and phone calls as the main means of cooperation.

I would say my function is to advise on any and all aspects of the NATO-Ukraine relationship with quite a few different parts of the Ukrainian government. This advice could be in relation to the two objectives that I mentioned – the irreversible path to NATO membership, and helping Ukraine to prevail on the battlefield and to get into the best possible position to negotiate a just political solution to the current conflict.

Apart from providing equipment and training, this involves a very wide range of issues such as interoperability, reform of the security structures, building defence industry, innovation, assisting veterans and so on.

UKRAINE AND ITS ARMED FORCES ARE GOOD FOR NATO

- Speaking of our path to NATO, a widespread opinion in Ukraine that our Armed Forces are practically ready for NATO membership as they already employ weapons provide by Allies and undergo training under the leadership of instructors from NATO member states, while our civilian bodies are yet to "catch up " with the military. Would you agree with this sort of assessment?

- NATO Allies, and me personally, we are all incredibly impressed by the performance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, their courage on the battlefield and what they have achieved in very tough conditions, as well as the strength, determination, and resilience of the Ukrainian people.

Ukraine is setting an example for us all. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been doing things and facing challenges that our Armed Forces have not faced, and Ukraine has been innovating in ways that we have not done. There are many, many lessons to be learned. So, we have at least as much to learn from the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other parts of the Ukrainian system, as we have to teach them. So this should be, and indeed is, a two-way relationship. Ukraine and its Armed Forces are good for NATO; and NATO is good for Ukraine.

That is why Allies have agreed to establish a NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC) in Poland, in order to identify and apply lessons from Russia’s war against Ukraine and to increase the ability of Ukraine’s Armed Forces to operate effectively alongside Allied forces.

I would not want to get into the levels of readiness of different parts of the Ukrainian system. I have already talked about the Armed Forces, and we also work very closely with many other parts of the Ukrainian government. They are critical to prevailing on the battlefield and moving ahead on the path to NATO. They have done a great deal of work in support of those objectives, but of course there is plenty more to do, and work that we need to do together.

- Apart from achieving victory in the war, what do you think currently stands between Ukraine and NATO?

- NATO sets as a minimum three conditions for countries that want to join, which are set out in Article 10 of the Washington Treaty. Firstly, that they're a European state. Secondly, that they can contribute to the security of Euro-Atlantic area. And thirdly that they can further the principles of the Washington Treaty. NATO has never admitted countries in the middle of a major war. So, some level of resolution to the war is likely to be required. And there has to be agreement among Allies that conditions are met and that the moment is right for membership. Also, there are always things that we want to do with a country in the run-up to membership, whether it's interoperability, reform, or something else; and we are working on those.

NATO leaders signalled at the Washington Summit in July that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, and they reaffirmed that we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance, when Allies agree and conditions are met. So the Alliance is saying Ukraine will become a member of NATO.  

At the Washington Summit, the language was there would be a “short, well-lit bridge to NATO membership.” So that’s the objective. In the meantime, as it has been made crystal clear by NATO’s Secretary General Rutte recently, including during his visit to Kyiv, on his third day at the helm of NATO, Allies are fully committed to continue providing military support to Ukraine. This is vital for Ukraine’s stability and ability to stay in the fight; and it is key to our own security.

IT IS UP TO EACH ALLY TO DECIDE HOW THE CAPABILITIES IT PROVIDES ARE USED BY UKRAINE

- So as long as we're waging war, we remain on that path to NATO, but to undermine Russia’s offensive capabilities, Ukraine has been persistently seeking permission from Western powers to allow deep strikes on military targets inside Russia. We are already launching such strikes using domestically produced weapons but the required scale of attacks is much wider. The issue has remained largely unresolved so far due fears of escalation that some partners feel. What is your take on this?

- Firstly, according to international law, Ukraine absolutely has the right, as part of its right to defend itself enshrined in the UN Charter, to strike military targets beyond its borders, targets which are enabling attacks into Ukraine. Ukraine already exercises that right both with capabilities provided by NATO Allies and also with its own weapons. But obviously, it is up to each Ally to decide how the capabilities it provides are used by Ukraine. Progress on the battlefield is not going to depend on one particular system, one particular capability, or one particular permission.

Our overall intent is to make sure that Ukraine gets into the best possible position on the battlefield, and that's why the big set of decisions was taken at the Washington Summit.

That’s why Allies are providing EUR 40 billion of military assistance this year, and why that is a baseline going forwards. That's why we've got NSATU. That’s why Allies regularly announce new decisions on the supply of various weapon systems and munitions. Just recently, the U.S announced another $8 billion of assistance.

WE HAVE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE MORE AND FASTER

- We’ve already seen and heard Mark Rutte speak on Ukraine and reiterate support for our country. In what direction in your opinion will cooperation between NATO and Ukraine develop and how intense can it be, including on supplies of certain defence capabilities like air defence systems and missiles? Perhaps you could break some news on the upcoming plans?

- Both at the Washington Summit and since then, we agreed to do a significant list of things together. At the very top of the list drawn in Washington was the commitment by Allies collectively to provide this year a minimum of EUR 40 billion worth of military assistance. Then, as I mentioned, we agreed to establish a NATO command in Wiesbaden, Germany to coordinate the provision of equipment and training to Ukraine, which should become fully operational in the coming months. Within that, there's a very wide range of particular capabilities, equipment, and priorities.

At the Washington Summit, amongst other priorities, Allies promised to provide a particular number of air defence systems. We are tracking that very closely, and I'm sure that and other commitments in key priority areas will be reviewed at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels, which Defense Minister Umerov will attend, within the framework of a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council. As we know, the Ramstein meeting had to be rescheduled. The parties will be reviewing where we are on the air defence systems, and other priorities.

But I'm afraid I'm not going to preview what Allies might unveil in the coming days and weeks. Your President has visited a set of Allied capitals last week, talking to key individual Allies, and it is in their hands what assistance they can provide. The Secretary General has made it very clear that, firstly, we need to deliver on what's promised but, secondly, we need to do more, do it faster if we can, and that will be one of the aims of our new command in Weisbaden, which we are setting up.

THERE IS NOT A SERIOUS RISK NOW OF NUCLEAR ESCALATION BY RUSSIA

- On the other side of this medal, there's the Kremlin which once again resorts to nuclear sabre rattling. We've sort of got used to it because those threats have been voiced way too often. Some see this as Moscow's weakness, some – as brazenness or even lunatic behaviour. I believe NATO is thoroughly monitoring any changes of Russia's nuclear posture but how does the Alliance perceive this sort of intimidation attempts, especially at this time of big war?

- As you say, there’s been a lot of Russian nuclear saber rattling for quite a long time. First, to be very clear, NATO’s current assessment is that there is not a serious risk now of some kind of nuclear escalation by Russia. Second, of course, as you say, we do keep under review the reality and Russia’s nuclear doctrine. But in terms of that reality, we don't see signs of preparation for a different, seriously different Russian nuclear posture.

But it's also the case that NATO exists to defend and deter. We do have all the capabilities necessary to defend Allies from all threats. This is an area where rhetoric is exceedingly unhelpful so we're not going to engage in it and we will continue being calm and measured and take the decisions we need to keep on supporting Ukraine.

Allies have consistently conveyed the message to Moscow that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

- … And meanwhile run your scheduled nuclear exercises.

 - Yes, this used to be within my responsibilities in NATO. We keep up a responsible regular cycle of exercises to ensure that we have an effective and capable NATO nuclear deterrent. In fact, on 14 October, NATO kicked off its routine annual nuclear exercise, called “Steadfast Noon,” with more than 60 aircraft taking part in training flights over western Europe. This exercise will run for two weeks. It will not feature any live weapons. As Secretary General Rutte said, “Steadfast Noon is an important test of the Alliance's nuclear deterrent and sends a clear message to any adversary that NATO will protect and defend all Allies.”

RUSSIA IS STEADILY CHALLENGING DEMOCRACIES

- While we have a hot war going in in Ukraine, what about the hybrid war Russia is waging all across the world to influence people’s minds. And we all understand how average people's opinions eventually have influence on decision makers in the West. We've been seeing extensive attempts by Russia to use their agents of influence, sponsored radical forces all across the West to sow divisions and shift public opinions, including on continued support to Ukraine. What is NATO doing or planning to do more to repel those malign attempts in this domain?

- A bit of historical context here. Russia noticeably increased its use of hybrid tactics in NATO countries after 2014 as part of its attempt to pressurize Western countries after illegally annexing Crimea and invading the Donbas. I still think that was a bad mistake because probably back then, there were some parts of Europe which did not immediately see a serious Russian threat to them. But when another country – whether it's Russia or somebody else (like China which has also done some unwanted meddling in other countries) – starts interfering in various ways in other countries, seeking to undermine them, that eventually alerts those targeted countries to the fact that Russia is a problem for them as well, not just for the nations bordering Russia or just for Ukraine.

More recently, we've seen a more aggressive, more active, and more overt Russian use of hybrid tactics, including sabotage, cyberattacks, instrumentalizing migration, attacking critical national infrastructure, threatening undersea infrastructure, and so on. The effect of this is that they steadily challenge, country by country, a set of democracies, which wish Russia no ill at all. But Russia keeps challenging, interfering, and engaging in illegal activity in those countries, including unwanted espionage.

So, again, as in the nuclear domain, NATO is going to remain calm, consistent, and clear. NATO has agreed a set of potential measures that Allies can draw on in the face of these attacks. This might be intelligence sharing, this might sometimes be merely exposing those attacks, talking openly about them, shaming those responsible. Also, there are protective measures in the cyber domain or underwater infrastructure, as well as on the further restriction of Russian intelligence operatives. Some measures might be taken collectively or by Allies individually. But if countries launch deliberate attacks in our countries then they have to pay a price, and this goes for Russia and any other actors involved. Russia’s campaign will not deter us from supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to protect our territories and populations against any kind of hostile actions. We also welcome the EU’s new sanctions targeting hybrid threats, announced last week.

IF SOME COUNTRY POSES THREATS TO OUR SECURITY, WE ARE WELL PREPARED TO ACT

- Russian propaganda media, reacting to your appointment as Head of the NATO Representation in Ukraine, referred to you as "a representative of NATO’s ultra-Russophobic radical wing." How do you see such an assessment?

- I wouldn’t like to get into responding to that characterization. NATO's principal job is to defend allies, to deter and defend, and we will do that irrespective of the source of threats. Russia has launched a massive, unprovoked, illegal sustained aggression against a European country, the largest aggression on the European continent since World War 2. In so doing it has made it very clear that it constitutes a threat not just to Ukraine, but to Europe, so we have to deal with that. At the same time, I don't have colleagues who are Russo-phobic. If you take the word “phobic”, it means “afraid of”, but we're not afraid of Russia. We're not afraid of the countries which might pose threats to us, and NATO bears no ill will towards other countries. We're a defensive Alliance. But if some country poses threats to our security, we are well prepared to act.

WORDS COMBINED WITH ACTIONS ARE HUGELY POWERFUL

- And now a bit of a personal question. Your late father, Graham Turner, was a highly acclaimed journalist. Never being a pen for hire, he has become the interviewer and friend of politicians, industrialists, intellectuals, religious leaders, and even royals... Did his professional legacy inspire and perhaps lead you in any way throughout your own career?

- That is a great question. My father died in June. I can say he was passionate about Ukraine succeeding and prevailing. He was passionate about ending this aggression, passionate about making sure that there can be no continuation of Russian aggression. We’ve seen phases, starting in 2014, progressing beyond, and certainly escalating from 2022 onwards. For the sake of Ukraine for Europe, for the trans-Atlantic community and for the world, it needs to stop. In the last part of my father’s life, that was his main concern, and the two of us certainly shared that. With all of the experience of the things he wrote about, all of the people he talked to, he was an optimist and he believed that people, and therefore countries, can choose to change, choose to go from not doing the right thing to doing the right thing. I'd say we've seen quite a lot of that happening in NATO over the last 10 years.

He saw his job as a mission. And I see my job as a mission. He was the person I most admired, apart from, perhaps, his father. He was an extraordinary man, a great writer. And I love words, I love journalists. I think actions matter most, but words are so important. I think of Churchill in World War 2, who was focused on actions, but was also a genius user of words. Words without actions are meaningless. But if you combine actions and words, then that is hugely powerful. So I think that's what is needed for times like these.

Ievgen Matiushenko, Kyiv

Photo: Oleksandr Klymenko