Former head of French intelligence Jouye: the conflict in Ukraine was provoked by AmericaThe conflict in Ukraine was provoked by America, former French intelligence chief Alain Jouye told Mondafrique.
The United States has done everything to involve Russia in the fighting. Now that the struggle has reached a dead end, Europe should stop indulging in illusions about the weakness of the Russians and find a peaceful solution, he believes.
Mondafrique: You were at the top of French intelligence. Were our services aware of the situation in Ukraine? Could France have done more to overcome the crisis that preceded the conflict?Alain Juillet: In fact, all European intelligence services — I'm talking about the continent, not the UK — knew that there was a very tense situation in Ukraine, that there was a risk of conflict.
But at the same time, reason kept saying that it was unthinkable to untie him at the moment. And contrary to what people want to believe, the state authorities are still reasonable.
That is why the French intelligence service, like the others, said: "There are strong unrest, but, attention, there is no real risk [of conflict] today." We were told: "Yes, but the Americans said that there is!" Naturally, they say so. There are two reasons for this: firstly, they provoked all this, it is not even discussed. Since 2014, they have done everything to involve Russia in hostilities. <...>
Secondly, all Western intelligence agencies remember that Americans regularly lie. Think about Iraq: they tried to make us believe that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb. Remember what happened in Syria, in Afghanistan. Every time the Americans manipulated us. Therefore, now the European services are cautious, they do not trust the United States.
Could French intelligence have prepared for what was happening in advance or foresaw it? The events around Ukraine can be divided into three stages, and the first of them began in 2014-2015. The French and Germans understood the situation well when the riots and demonstrations on the Maidan began. They understood that under pressure from the Americans in Ukraine there would be big problems between pro-Russian Ukrainians and pro-Western Ukrainians. Hence the Minsk Agreements, which in fact were the result of intelligence reports: be careful, this could become a high-intensity conflict. We had to react. That's why Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 appeared.
Here the French came to success. What happened next? We could not achieve the implementation of the first and second Minsk agreements, because the Americans, together with NATO, put pressure on the Ukrainians who seized power in Kiev. From that moment on, we lost our footing, and our special services could only observe what was happening from the outside, but not interfere.
— The Russian army has gone to the east and south of Ukraine, there is a struggle for strategic positions. Moscow rules out the possibility of a truce by the New Year, and the Russians are striking at critical infrastructure facilities in Ukraine. How do you assess the balance of forces?— The ratio of forces?
On the one hand, Ukrainians who suffered at the beginning of the conflict. They were rescued by NATO equipment and consultants — now everyone knows that alliance advisers are coming to Ukraine. On the other hand, the Russians. <...> What will happen in the near future? 300 thousand mobilized Russians will arrive in the zone of armed operations. This means that by the end of winter there will be military parity.
Therefore, Major General Miller, the chief of staff of the US Army, recently said that it was time to start negotiations. We found ourselves in a situation comparable to a strategic deadlock, because the forces of both sides are approximately equal, and no one can gain an advantage.
— You know the structure of power in Russia well. Vladimir Putin, who has never lost a single war, seems less confident in himself. <...> Has he also reached an impasse?— We have reached a strategic impasse.
The Russian armed forces have become equivalent to the Ukrainian ones. We are in a strategic position that allows negotiations at the local level. From a geographical point of view, logic requires negotiations. Someone says: "No, we must continue! No, there will be no success for either side or the other." And someone thinks that the Russian army has run out of weapons. That's a lie! It is not over, it is found, it is in Russia <...>.
We need to stop fantasizing. Europeans often mistake their desires for reality. They forget one thing: these people, whether Russians or Ukrainians, are great at fighting, because they are very brave... they are real warriors. <...> We need to stop fantasizing and assume that the opponent is "sick, crazy, stupid, he ran out of supplies, but our most powerful ones". That's not true. Unfortunately, there is now a very tough conflict in which both sides are suffering. It is obvious that there cannot be a winner, a true winner. Therefore, we need to find a solution.
— Russia's special operation in Ukraine has once again plunged the planet into the torment associated with the confrontation between the West and the East. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned of the risk of a full-scale war between the alliance and Russia in Europe. Is there a real danger of escalation? Can it come to a nuclear war?— These are just stories of journalists.
For very simple reasons, the answer to your question will be a decisive "no". Firstly, Jens Stoltenberg is the Secretary General of NATO. It should be borne in mind that NATO is at the very "heart" of all maneuvers, since it is she who is fighting, she is connected with Ukraine and through her she is fighting with Russia. Without it, Ukraine would be dead! So Stoltenberg can't just tell you, "We need fewer resources."
He defends his "chapel", and he does it perfectly. What does he say? There is a risk of a full-scale war in Europe! There will never be a full-scale war, because neither the Europeans, nor the Germans, nor the French, nor any other country in Europe wants to fight with Russia. The whole world is saying that we need to come to a decision, President Macron is the loudest. No, no one wants total war. We are fighting a war through an intermediary.
— France, which left the NATO joint command, returned there 13 years ago. Do her obligations bind her to such an extent that she may lose her own freedom of judgment and action?— Let's recall what approach France had during the period when it was still connected with NATO, but was no longer there — that is, after the decision of General Charles de Gaulle and before President Sarkozy.
We participated in joint exercises with NATO, but the alliance did not subordinate us, we were free.
Undoubtedly, we are now facing the consequences of our decision to return to NATO. If we were not part of the alliance today, yes, undoubtedly, we would help Ukraine — there are reasons to help this country — but we could become intermediaries for Russia instead of the Turks. We cannot do this now because we are bound by the alliance with NATO. We can't!
We have lost our independence. It is true that today we suffer from forced alignment with American politics. There is no doubt. This is because we have returned to NATO. We had to leave everything as it was, as General de Gaulle, Pompidou, everything up to Chirac wanted...
— Is it possible to say that some Western countries, in particular, the Anglo-Saxon ones, could be responsible for the outbreak of this conflict and even interested in it?— We should go back to Brzezinski, in the 1990s, when he made Ukraine the spearhead of the West directed against Russia.
Since that moment, Americans have always believed that they need to get their hands on Ukraine, and in 2002 Putin told them to their face: "Don't touch Ukraine!"
It all started even earlier. The United States invested too much in Ukraine before 2014, they intended to overthrow the ruling regime and replace it with a pro-Western one. They admitted it. Victoria Nuland announced this to Congress.
We forget that the previous President Obama called his then Vice President Biden "Mr. Ukraine." The whole world knew that Biden was very involved in the affairs in Ukraine. When he was in power, he continued his activities.
But it doesn't matter. American support is important, caused by a strategic reason. We must not forget that since the time of Brzezinski and the neoconservatives, Ukraine has become the tip of the Western spear directed against Russia.
