Morphological Table of Alternative Scenarios for Ukraine's Development up to the Year 2003 3 страница

The final positions in the list of 36 are occupied by such countries as the Middle East and Persian Gulf countries - 28-31 places (2. 91-3. 07 points); France - 30-34 places, in December —24th place; Latin America countries - 31-36 places (2. 59-2. 97); Belarus' - 33-36 places, in June - 17th (2. 50-3. 18 points); Romania - 31-35 places, in June - 16th (2. 14-3. 23); the Asian and Pacific Ocean region countries - 34-36 places (2. 68-2. 85 points); Russia - 35-36 places, in June - 25th. (1. 56-3. 06 points).

Thus, according to the experts' estimations, relations between Ukraine and Russia are the worst in 1997, although in March and June Russia occupied first place among the four countries with which developing relations was the priority of Ukraine's foreign policy. In September it was 3rd. after the USA and Germany, in December 2nd. after the USA. On the other hand, however, relations with Russia had been comparatively intensively developed from June, 1997: in June it was in 2nd. place according to this index (52%), in September (35%) and in December (25%) it shared the 3rd. position with Canada, after Poland and the USA, although in March the experts stressed that it was last in this position (2%). Moreover, the estimation of the success of Ukrainian diplomacy in relations with Russia (2. 74 points in December, 1997) was higher than in September (2. 39 points) and in March (2. 07 points), though somewhat lower than in June. Certain differences in the experts' estimations were, surely, caused by a number of agreements signed between Ukraine and Russia at the end of May.
Alluding to these events, in June, 1997 it was suggested to the experts to estimate the extent of the correspondence to Ukraine's national interest of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 31 May 1997 and the agreements concerning the problems of the division of the Black Sea Fleet. According to the results of the poll, their average estimations ranged between " medium" and " low". Among the main defects of the Treaty on cooperation signed by L. Kuchma and B. Yeltsin the experts mentioned 1) its declarative character (41. 5%) and 2) the submission of Ukraine's strategic interests to Russia (29. 3%). 53. 7% of experts stressed the small extent of its effect on positive changes in bilateral relations; 19. 5% deemed the extent of this effect " zero", 22% - " medium" and only 4. 9% regarded it as " high". Among the main defects of the agreements on the Black Sea Fleet, most experts emphasized: 1) the preservation of the dislocation of foreign military force on the territory of Ukraine (63. 4%), 2) the preservation of the potential threat to Ukraine's territorial integrity (36. 6%), 3) non-correspondence to the orientation of Ukraine toward integration into European security structures (26. 8%). 36. 6% of experts noted that these agreements corresponded to Ukraine's national interest to a " medium" extent, 36. 6 - " low", 18. 4% - " zero" and only 8. 4% - " high". In December, 1997, in estimating the main foreign policy results of the year most experts (62. 5%) stressed the positive character of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 31 May 1997. On the other hand, according to the experts' estimations, the rating of Russia and the CIS countries as Ukraine's allies decreased almost twofold compared to March, 1997 (24% and 22% respectively), totaling in December, 1997 only 12%. However during 1997 Russia was constantly mentioned after the USA, Poland and Germany as a country Ukraine could rely on in the reformation of its Armed Forces, though this opinion was approximately twice rarer than in March of the same year.

In estimating the efforts of professional diplomats in the sphere of the realization of Ukraine's national interests in 1997, the experts ear-marked four most successful directions of cooperation. These are relations with Poland, the UN, NATO and the USA. According to the criterion of the success of Ukrainian diplomacy, the mentioned countries and international organization received, on a 5-point scale, the following marks: 3. 10-2. 95 in March; 4. 03-3. 50 in June; 3. 95-3. 46 in September (3. 29 for the USA); 4. 10-3. 60 in December. Moreover, compared with other states, a high evaluation was given to the success and effectiveness of relations with the Baltic states and Germany, especially in March and September: 2. 95 and 2. 93 in March respectively; 3. 28 and 3. 23 in June; 3. 68 and 3. 24 in September; 3. 45 and 3. 50 in December. The least effective directions, which had been estimated by the experts at " 3" during the year, were relations with the Northern European countries (from 2, 60 points in March to 2. 93 at the end of the year), the Middle East and Persian Gulf countries (from 2. 56 to 2. 73 points in March-September and 2. 61 in December), the Asian and Pacific region countries (2. 30-2. 63 points), the Central and South America countries (2. 41 in March; from 2. 13 in June to 2. 56 at the end of the year), relations with Russia (2. 07-2. 74 points, 3. 13 in June). It is necessary to indicate that since June, against the background of the flights and falls of other countries' ratings, a gradual growth of the general rating of Ukrainian diplomacy's effectiveness in all these directions was observed.

As for relations with the CIS as a whole, with European structures (the EU, etc. ) and with international financial institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD), in June, 1997 a noticeable growth in the positive estimation of Ukrainian diplomats' activities in these directions, compared with March, was observed. The situation grew worse in September and improved somewhat in December, 1997. The experts' estimations of Ukrainian diplomats' activities in these directions stood at less than " 3" points in March and September and essentially grew in June and December, exceeding " 3". Such a curve, though with other figures, could be seen in several directions, in particular in relations with Russia, the USA, NATO and the UN.

The growth of the positive impression of governmental diplomacy in relations with international financial institutions seemed most paradoxical, especially taking into account the actual crisis in relations between the Government of Ukraine and the IMF during 1997. First of all this concerned the stoppage of crediting under the Stand-by Program due to the Verkhovna Rada's having failed to adopt the budget for 1997 in a timely fashion. Second, this concerned the refusal of the IMF Board of Directors to grant Ukraine financial assistance under the EFF Program. Third, this concerned an actual blocking of loans under Stand-by in the second half of 1997 due to non-fulfillment by Ukraine of obligations concerning economic liberalization and entrepreneurship deregulation set forth in the Memorandum on Cooperation between the Government of Ukraine and the IMF.

In turn, the effectiveness of the Verkhovna Rada's Committee for Foreign Affairs and Links with the CIS was estimated as " low", as were the activities of the VR Committee for Defense and State Security, although the experts considered that the work of these Committees had become better to some extent, compared with March, 1997.

At the same time, it is necessary to note that although the activities of the two Committees had no essential public response, it was the Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Affairs and Relations with the CIS that had to defend Ukraine's interests at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of European with respect to the abolition of capital punishment. This issue was, in particular, accomplished with incorrectness or even the absence of any correct and true information from executive power bodies concerning the real situation of exercising death sentences in Ukraine. As a result, a danger of the stoppage of Ukraine's participation in the activities of PACE and other agencies of the Council of Europe appeared.

Among the countries with which the development of relations would be desirable for Ukraine, four states are constantly mentioned - Russia, the USA, Germany, and Poland. In December, 1997 Russia (78%) occupied second place after the USA (80%), and in March, 1998 - in a vice versa fashion, the USA (72%) follows Russia (80%). However the changes are not significant. Germany and Poland gained accordingly, 62% and 41% in March 1998, and 73% and 50% in December 1997. According to the experts, other countries do not play such a significant role for Ukraine. Adhering to the recognized priorities (or vice versa - determining priorities according to this index) Ukraine in January-March, 1998 developed relations with the very four mentioned countries most successfully and intensively. First place in this regard is occupied by Poland (58%), second - by Russia (46%), third by the USA (33%) and Germany (33%). At the end of 1997 the USA (58%) was first, Poland was second (53%), Russia and Canada - third (25%), Germany and Georgia - fourth (23%). Lately, Korea came closer to these countries according to the success and intensity of relations (24%) (AutoZAZ-DAEWOO business! ); Canada was not mentioned in March, 1998 while Georgia and the Baltic states occupied the fifth position (12%). Other countries either failed to gain more than 8%, or were not mentioned at all.

In general, the estimation of bilateral relations between Ukraine and other states has worsened in March, 1998 compared to December, 1997. This negative trend has not affected Georgia, Azerbaijan, China, the Republic of Korea and Romania. In regard to Moldova, the Central Asian countries and especially Belarus' and Russia, estimations became even higher. Thus, the first " three" of the countries with which Ukraine has the best relations, other than with the USA, as before includes Poland - 4. 03 points, and at a noticeable distance - Georgia 3. 89 points (fourth in December, 1997) and Canada - 3. 72 points (second in December) (according to a 5-point scale). These are followed by the Baltic states, Germany, Moldova, (having renewed its 6th. position from the 20th. ), and the Republic of Korea, the role of which is constantly growing (it is in 7th. place instead of 13th. in December and 26th. in March, 1997) - 3. 58-3. 55 points. The three " outsiders", include the Middle East and Persian Gulf countries (34th. place instead of 28th. in December 1997), the countries of Latin America (35th. instead of 31st. in December), and Iran (36th. instead of 33rd. in December) - 2. 64-2. 45 points.

By the way, the extent of the harm done to Ukraine's interests by its refusal to deliver turbines to Iran (Bushier) in exchange for the USA's consent to admit Ukraine to MTCR, was estimated by the experts as high - 32. 4%, medium - 38. 2%; low - 26. 5%, zero - 2. 9%.

Russia and Belarus', which were in last place in December 1997, in March, 1998 occupy the 23rd. (3. 16 points) and 26th. (3. 05 points) positions respectively. Let us recall that the growth in Russia's rating is taking place along with the general decrease of the estimation of the level of Ukraine's bilateral relations with other countries, and with the stagnation of these relations. The conditional character of this improvement can be confirmed by the delay in the ratification of the Ukrainian-Russian Treaty by the State Duma and by skeptical experts' attitudes toward the most important occurrence - the signing of the Program of Economic Cooperation for 1998-2007 by the Presidents of the RF and Ukraine in February, 1998. Only one expert considers that this program is able to provide for the national interests of Ukraine to a great extent, 11. 8% - to a medium extent, 64. 7% - to a low extent, 20. 6% - to zero extent.

On the other hand, the experts also estimated the activities of Ukrainian diplomacy in the international arena lower in March, 1998 than in December, 1997; the estimations almost being at the level of March, 1997, as an average, 0. 33 points lower than in December 1997. This especially concerns the USA, NATO and international financial institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD), the estimation of which has decreased by 0. 58-0. 72 points, the countries of Western Europe as a whole - by 0. 41 points, while in other directions - by 0. 1-0. 3 points. The only exception in March, 1998 is the direction of relations with Russia, the estimation of which has almost not changed since December 1997 against the background of general stagnation, and essentially improved since March, 1997 (from 2. 07 to 2. 72 points). However, in this situation Ukrainian diplomacy is most highly estimated in the directions of relations with the UN (3. 92 points) and Poland (3. 66 points), which are followed by relations with Germany, the Baltic states, European structures and NATO - 3. 27-3. 13 points; with the Central-Eastern European countries - 3. 08 points. In other directions the activities of diplomacy are estimated at lower than 3 points, in particular with the USA (2. 72 points); the lowest estimation is given to relations with international financial institutions (2. 49 points). This means that these institutions' attempts to " push" L. Kuchma's Administration and V. Pustovoitenko's Government toward reforms and to punish for " wrong behavior" are regarded as the failure of diplomats in the corresponding direction. It is unlikely to be fair.
In turn, the estimation of the effectiveness of the work of the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Relations with the CIS of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has also decreased in March, 1998 compared to December, 1997 now ranging between " low" and " zero" , being closer to " low".

Thus, according to a complex of indices, Poland has the best relations with Ukraine. In March, 1998 it is the leader among the countries which first of all are regarded by the experts as Ukraine's allies (57. 9%) and occupies the third position after the USA and Germany among the countries Ukraine could rely on in the process of the reformation of its Armed Forces. The status of Poland has not essentially changed compared to the previous year, unlike the USA, with which relations suffered a certain worsening, according to the experts' estimations. Therefore, the rating of the USA as an ally has decreased - from 51. 2% in December 1997 to 39. 6 in March, 1998 (the 2nd. position after Poland). However, the experts think that the USA maintains the leading position among the countries Ukraine can count on in the reformation of its Armed Forces.

Furthermore, among the main allies of Ukraine the experts mentioned in March, 1998 are the Council of Europe (31. 6%), Germany (26. 3%, 4th. place; but in military building and AF reformation - 2nd. place after the USA - 36. 8%), the Baltic states (23. 7%, 5th. place), OSCE (21. 1%, 6th. ) and Russia (21. 1%, 6th.; but in military building and AF reformation - 4th. after the USA, Germany and Poland - 15. 8%). NATO and the CIS as allies share the 7th. position (13. 3% each), while the EU occupies the 8th. position (7. 9%). Compared to December 1997, the rating of the countries-allies did not essentially change in March, 1998, with the exception of NATO and the Baltic states, their estimations having decreased.

Germany (85%), Russia (75%), Poland (70%) and the USA (68%) remain in June, 1998 the countries, with which the development of relations is a priority for Ukraine. The order of their ranking has altered compared to March, 1998, but, taking into account the difference in percentage, it is not significant. In March, Russia occupied first place (78%), followed by the USA (72%), Germany (62%) and Poland (41%). In addition, in March the experts mentioned Turkey, China and the Middle East countries. In June, Turkey and Azerbaijan were mentioned. The indices of Turkey have been increasing from the beginning of the 1998. It has found itself among the four countries relations with which have lately been developed most intensively. These also comprise Poland (89%), the USA (41%) and Germany (38%). Russia, which occupied 4th. place, ceded it to Turkey (24%) and shared 5th. place with Argentina (22%). Let us recall that in January-March the development of relations with Poland was most successful (58%), followed by Russia (46%), the USA (33%), Germany (33%) and the Republic of Korea (24%).
Remaining among the countries with which Ukraine has to develop relations in the first place, Russia lost its rating to a considerable extent during April-June, 1998. In June, an aggravation of relations with Russia according to the whole complex of indices was registered, while in January-March a certain improvement was observed. According to the state of bilateral relations, Russia declined from 23rd. to 34th. place (of 36). At the same time, relations with Belarus' also worsened: according to estimation, this country occupies 33rd. place (26th. in March). Accordingly, the success of Ukrainian diplomacy in the direction of the development relations with Russia, against the background of a general increase of the estimation of the effects of the efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are not estimated better than before (they are second from last - 2. 68 points according to a 5-point scale). Furthermore, the importance of Russia as an ally decreased - from 21. 1% (6th. position among other countries and alignments in March, 1998) to 13. 2% (8th. position). From the beginning of 1998, the importance of Russia as a country Ukraine can rely on during the reformation of its Armed Forces has been decreasing - 12. 2% (the last among those mentioned by the experts), after the USA, Poland, Germany and Great Britain.

According to the experts' estimations, Ukraine consistently has the best relations with Poland. It is in first place among countries according to the intensity and success of the development of relations and in the first " four" priority countries, the relations with which should be developed in the first place. The estimation of the state of bilateral relations with Poland increased and reached the level of September, 1997 when it was highest - 4. 28 points (according to a 5-point scale). As an ally, since March, 1998, Poland also has been in first place 71. 1% (57. 9% in March). Only as a country on which Ukraine could rely during the reformation of its Armed Forces, is it in second place - 36. 6% (34. 2% in March), a bit lagging behind the USA - 48. 8% (65. 8% in March). In accordance with these indices, Ukrainian diplomacy deserved the highest estimation owing to the development of relations with Poland - 4 points (the level of last June was highest - 4. 03 points); this March - 2nd. place (3. 66 points), after the UNO (4. 10). However, taking into consideration the fact that " the dance requires two partners", one should not ascribe all positive results in Ukrainian-Polish relations on the account of Ukrainian diplomacy. On the other hand, one should not underestimate the efforts of diplomats working in the most problematic or conflictive directions.

The first " five" countries, having received the highest estimation in the state of bilateral relations with Ukraine - Poland, the USA, the Baltic states, Canada, Georgia - shifted positions somewhat. In March, this occurred because of the USA's moving down from 3rd. place (3. 90) to 13th. (3. 42). Then, the first " five" comprised: Poland (4. 03), Georgia (3. 89), Canada (3. 72), the Baltic states (3. 58), Germany (3. 56). However in June, 1998 the USA regained its positions and is now in 2nd. place (3. 82) after Poland (4. 28). A similar picture of a certain worsening of relations with the USA and then - the regaining of the traditional level was registered in other indices: the estimation of the USA as an ally decreased from 51. 2% (the end of 1997) to 39. 5% in March, 1998 and increased to 65. 8% in June, - as a result the USA was 2nd. according to this index, after Poland. These processes were in positive correlation to the estimations of efforts of Ukrainian diplomacy in this direction, which sharply decreased in March, 1998 compared to December, 1997 (from 3. 60 to 2. 95 points) and increased again in June (3. 42 points).

In the summer of 1998, the " five" leaders shifted position, as Canada moved from 3rd. (3. 72) to 10th. (3. 61) place. It is one of the few countries, with which the estimations of bilateral relations worsened to a certain extent. Other than Canada, according to the experts' estimations, a certain stagnation in relations with Georgia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, China, Bulgaria, Armenia, the Central-Asian countries, Belarus' and Russia exists. The estimations of the condition of bilateral relations with other countries increased.

Thus, in June, 1998 the first " five" comprise the following countries: Poland (4. 28 points), the USA (3. 82), the Baltic states (3. 76), Israel (3. 76) and Georgia (3. 71). The rating of the Baltic countries also decreased somewhat in March, 1998 (from 3. 85 to 3. 58 points) and increased in June, which was reflected in the estimations of the work of Ukrainian diplomacy in relations with them. As allies of Ukraine, in June the Baltic countries remained in 5th. place - after Poland, the USA, NATO and Germany (21. 1% of the experts consider the Baltic countries to be our allies).

The next " five", according to the experts' estimations of the state of bilateral relations, in the summer of 1998 comprised Azerbaijan, the Republic of Korea, Germany, Hungary, Canada (3. 68-3. 61 points). They do not lag essentially behind the first " five" countries. In March, 1998 the second " five" comprised Moldova, the Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan, Israel, and the Benelux countries (3. 56-3. 46 points).

In June, 1998, the final positions were occupied by Belarus', Russia, the countries of the Asian-Pacific region, Iran (2. 80-2. 53 points); in March, the group of " outsiders" comprised the Middle East and Persian Gulf countries, and those of Latin America and Iran (2. 64-2. 45 points).

The estimations of the success of the realization of Ukraine's national interest in the international arena by Ukrainian diplomacy, as well of the intensity and success of the development of bilateral relations with other countries sharply decreased in March (on average, to 2. 87 points), but increased in June (to 3. 08 points), excepting certain directions. The experts' estimations decreased or remained the same in regard to the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the following directions: in relations with Russia; the countries of the Asian-Pacific region; the UNO; European structures (the EU, etc. ). In June, 1998 our diplomacy received the highest estimations for the development of relations with Poland (4. 0 points), the UNO (3. 67 points), NATO (3. 54 points), Germany (3. 44 points) the USA (3. 42 points), the Baltic countries (3. 33 points). The comparatively lowest (but higher than in March) estimations were given to the directions of relations with the countries of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, the countries of Latin America and the Asian-Pacific region (2. 71-2. 51 points; 2. 57-2. 38 points in March ). This time, diplomacy in relations with international financial structures (the IMF, the World Bank, the EBRD) occupied a place in the group of outsiders (2. 68 points; 2. 72 points in March).

As mentioned before, Ukrainian allies of the first-rank in the summer of 1998 still include: Poland - 71. 1% of the experts (57. 9% in March) and the USA - 65. 8% (- 39. 5% in March). The Council of Europe, which was in 3rd. place in March (31. 6%), changed positions with NATO (34. 2%) which was in 7th. place in March (13. 2%). Among important allies, the experts still mention Germany (28. 9%, 26. 3% in March), the Baltic countries (21. 1%, 23. 7% in March) and OSCE (21. 1%, 21. 1% in March). In military affairs, as before, the experts consider that Ukraine could rely on cooperation with the USA (48. 8%; 65. 8% in March), Poland (36. 6%; 34. 2% in March) and Germany (26. 8%; 36. 8% in March). However in June, 1998 the percentage of those thinking that Ukraine has no allies at all became twice greater than in March - 31. 7% (compared to 15. 8% in March).

Accordingly, the extent to which Ukraine has to rely on its allies in the realization of its foreign-policy goals, as the experts estimate, continues to decrease, approaching a " low" level. The experts think that Ukraine became more dependent on various states and alignments in April-June, this dependence ranging between " high" and " medium" levels, closer to the " medium" level (in December, 1997 a certain decrease in this dependence was registered, but failed to become a trend), and that Ukraine will to an ever greater extent have to obey their dictates and expectations, even if this is in conflict with its national interests. The international situation of Ukraine is characterized, on the one hand, with a process of a certain " vacuumization" from the point of view of its staying outside of integration processes in the modern world, and on the other hand, by the increase of its dependence on other states, as not all of them are regarded as reliable allies.
The Status and Desirable Directions
of Cooperation Between Ukraine and NATO

The results of the experts' polls testify to the presence of a firm pro-NATO orientation among the Ukrainian experts (political establishment). The situation has remained almost unchanged during 1997 regardless of the many events that transpired in concerned spheres. Since March, 1997 the adherents of " Ukraine's joining NATO independently from other countries" constitute about one half of the experts, with insignificant variations (between 46. 3% and 51. 2%). According to the data, in September and December their number was higher than in March and June. If one also takes into account the adherents of " joining NATO together with CIS countries", who constitute 5-7%, in general it could be said that in 1997 the orientation toward joining NATO dominated among the experts (54. 7% in March; 35. 4% in June; 55. 2% in September; 58. 5% in December).

Overall, according to the experts, the rate of the process of Ukraine's westward integration - into NATO, the EU, etc. gradually decreased from March, 1997. In December, 1997 the mentioned process began to increase, and the level of its intensity was closer to " medium" than " low".

In turn, a similar situation is observed with respect to the estimation of the success of Ukrainian diplomacy in the realization of Ukraine's national interest in the international arena in relations with NATO. After a considerable increase of the average score in this direction in June - from 2. 95 to 3. 60 points according to a 5-point scale (an overall increase in the estimations of all directions was registered in June), in September the estimation began to decrease - to 3. 46 points, while in December, 1997 it increased again, reaching 3. 71 points. Compared with other directions, Ukrainian diplomacy receives a high estimation in relations with NATO, the highest in June after Poland; in March - after Poland and the USA; in September - after Poland, the UN and the Baltic countries; in December - after the UN and Poland.

These results coincide with the estimation of NATO as an ally Ukraine can rely on. Increasing twofold in June, 1997 (47. 4% of the experts, compared with 24. 4% in March, 1997). The estimation decreases twofold in September (26. 8%) and increases again in December (34. 1%). Overall, during 1997 NATO occupied the 4th. position among the countries and international alignments mentioned by the experts as Ukraine's allies next to the USA, Poland and the Baltic states.

The fact that in December, 1997 none of the experts indicated that " cooperation with NATO is not necessary at all" testifies to the improvement of relations with NATO. Only 10-12% of the experts expressed such an opinion earlier.
The reasons for the improvement of the experts' attitude to NATO and the whole complex of relations between Ukraine and the Alliance consisted first of all in the launching of the phase of practical cooperation in Autumn, 1997, and in the activities of NATO's Information Center in Ukraine in the sphere of public relations. We could also stress the role of the determinant of international and European security, which was reflected first of all in a rather noticeable influence on the settlement and harmonization of interstate relations in CEE. It is difficult to forecast the further role of this factor for certain, but at the initial, preparatory stage of NATO's eastward enlargement, which commenced after the Madrid summit in July, 1997, the Alliance is obviously playing an essential stabilizing role, which objectively corresponds to Ukraine's national interest.

The first sitting of the joint UKRAINE-NATO Commission at the level of ministers for foreign affairs took place in Brussels on January, 16, 1998. The Commission examined the status of the implementation of the Charter and approved the Working Plan for the Implementation of the Charter on Distinctive Partnership between Ukraine and the North-Atlantic Alliance for 1998. The official purpose of the Commission consists of the implementation of the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, signed in Madrid on July, 9, 1997. The Commission works on the issues of cooperation in the spheres of European security, military cooperation, common peace-making operations, nuclear disarmament, the coordination of the military doctrines of Ukraine and NATO, and also conducts common seminars on the military and economic security of Ukraine. At the sitting of the Commission, the Ukrainian Minister for Emergency and the Protection of the Population from the Consequences of the Chornobyl Disaster, Valeriy Kalchenko, and Secretary-General of NATO, J. Solana, signed the Memorandum on Understanding in the Sphere of Planning in Civil Emergency and Readiness to Disasters between the Ministry of Emergencies of Ukraine and NATO.