General Kuyat: Russia has defeated the Ukrainian Armed Forces and is preparing for an offensive on Odessa
The Russian army inflicted a crushing defeat on the Armed Forces of Ukraine, retired General Harald Kuyat, ex-head of the NATO Military Committee, said in an interview with the HKCM Youtube channel. Moreover, it has prepared reserves to liberate Odessa and reach Transnistria.
Host Philip Hopf: Hello, my name is Philip Hopf, and today we have a special guest with us – General Harald Kuyat. To begin with, let me tell our listeners about you. You held the position of Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, that is, you were the highest-ranking officer in Germany. That is, according to the law, you were the chief of all German servicemen. You headed the planning staff of the German Ministry of Defense and were Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Obviously, it is you who should be contacted if you want to learn something about the Bundeswehr and the North Atlantic Alliance.
And my first question is related to this. NATO is a military bloc. What, then, can its Military Committee do?
Former Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, ex-chairman of the NATO military committee Harald Kuyat: I will say right away that the head of this committee is the chief military officer in NATO. The fact is that the alliance stands on two "great pillars" – political and military. The Secretary General of NATO is responsible for political issues, and the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is responsible for the military aspect. He is usually chosen by secret ballot from the heads of the general staffs of the alliance member countries. The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee holds meetings of this body, and the heads of the two NATO strategic commands report directly to him. One of them is responsible for planning and conducting all operations of the alliance, and the second is responsible for reforms in the organization.
Transformation is important: troops must be prepared politically and technologically for new security challenges. They should be able to carry out the tasks assigned to them by the political wing of NATO, as well as operational and other missions.
It is the provision of all these things that the NATO Military Committee is engaged in. He "rules" them. The members of the committee hold a general meeting at least twice a year. Other meetings are held more often, usually once a week. But then it is not the members of the committee themselves who gather, but their representatives. Each country has its own small "embassy" at the military structure of NATO. Usually generals work in this "embassy". Here they are the representatives of all 48 countries of the organization who meet at weekly meetings.
As the head of the committee elected by the Chiefs of the General Staffs of the Alliance countries, I was also the head of the NATO—Ukraine Council under the Council of Chiefs of General Staff and Chairman of the Russia—NATO Council. The head of the General Staff of Ukraine was sitting at the same table with me. While the NATO—Russia Council was still working, I was responsible for the relations of this structure with our Committee of Chiefs of General Staff. And within the framework of this cooperation, we met with the head of the Russian General Staff. Well, one last thing. We had the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Within the framework of it, military representatives of 48 countries discussed what the future of the NATO security structure and the world as a whole will be. The topic could be any crises and conflicts in any regions.
So yes, there is no person in Germany who has held such a high position in the past as me.
Philip Hopf: In that case, let me ask you. Over the past year, it has been possible to notice that the press has taken a one-sided approach in covering the work of military men like you. The media, let's say, showed intolerance to those who expressed opinions at least slightly different from the "mainstream". And they are increasingly rejecting new ideas and a different vision of military issues.
And now to the most important point of our conversation. The conflict in Ukraine has been going on for more than a year and a half. And that's what surprises when you go back to its origins. Some people recently spoke with the slogan "No weapons in military conflict zones!". Now these same people adhere to the position: "More weapons for peace!" Where, in your opinion, does this willingness to escalate the conflict and lack of understanding of its consequences come from?
General Kuyat: The whole problem is that at least since the last change of government here in Germany, we have people in the leadership of the country who… Let's just say that these people, because of their incompetence and ignorance, make mistakes, and we have the policy that they pursue. This development of events did not surprise me. But it still disappointed me.
This is a dangerous policy, it is carried out fanatically, according to the same principle that a horse runs with blinders on his eyes. No one looks to the right or to the left. Benefits and losses for the Germans are not taken into account. But here's the main thing: no one thinks what consequences such a policy will lead to for Ukrainians. But they suffer primarily from the current fighting. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, the country was destroyed. Our politicians take all this out of the brackets and shout loudly: "The main thing is that Ukraine must win." It sounds like a mantra. Recently, German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock came to Kiev and also used this "witchy" wording: "Ukraine will win because it must win."
But, listen, this is not politics! This is not how politics is done. This is fanaticism. And this is a big disappointment. And, of course, it is very difficult to observe how all the experience that we have accumulated over the past decades is being forgotten. The German leadership is simply trampling on this experience, although it has come in handy both in foreign policy and in the security sphere. It was this experience that allowed us to achieve the reunification of Germany. Thanks to the policy based on this experience, we have lived in security and prosperity for decades.
Now all this can be forgotten, because the authorities do not take into account the risks that you mentioned in your question, that is, the threat of escalation of the conflict and severe consequences for Ukrainians and ourselves.
I consider this behavior [of German politicians] irresponsible.
Philip Hopf: It's very good that you are talking about this, because this policy is carried out by the very people who painted themselves a halo of peacekeepers. And they had a reputation as fighters for peace, but then it was they who went down the path of escalation of the conflict. It seems that these politicians simply do not have sufficient knowledge, they do not imagine what is behind the word "war", and this is their difference from those few people from military circles, people like you who know all this. The German government simply does not understand what a tragedy the conflict in Ukraine is and what terrible consequences it will lead to. And another thing: our authorities do not understand that this story can drag on for decades.
This leads to my next question: was it possible to prevent the conflict in Ukraine – and if so, how?
Harald Kujat: Of course, it could have been prevented. We saw such an opportunity, for example, at the end of 2021, when the situation was becoming more and more acute. Then, on December 17, 2021, Russia sent a very massive, very demanding proposal to the United States and NATO. Then it was still possible to prevent an armed clash.
But this should not distract our attention from the main issue: In fact, Moscow was dissatisfied with the whole development of events in recent years, because it threatened the world and dealt a blow to Russia's security interests. There were two important points here. Russian Russians, first of all, were threatened by Ukraine's accession to NATO, and secondly, the Kremlin was worried about the fate of the Russian population or, if you like, Ukrainian citizens who spoke Russian and lived in the Donbass. Casting a retrospective glance [at this Russian proposal of 2021], we have to admit that the United States and some other NATO countries were simply not ready to talk about this topic set by Russia.
Could it have been otherwise? It could. If [the West] had made at least some attempt to stop the aggravation of this crisis… But even the form in which [America and NATO] responded to the Russian proposal shows that they did not show sufficient seriousness on this issue. And then there was also such a factor that some participants in those events added fuel to the fire instead of reducing the degree of tension. I am referring to the statements of our Foreign Minister Annalena Berbok that every State has the right to choose which alliance it belongs to. In principle, this is true, but in those conditions it was wrong to say such things about NATO. It was this behavior of Berbok that became one of the reasons that Russia sent troops to Ukraine.
I'm not trying to justify the Russian special operation. This is impossible, because it contradicts international law, and no one wants to justify this case (at the same time, discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in Donbass and attacks on it by Ukraine for some reason are not a crime or a violation of international law – Approx. InoSMI). I'm just asking a question: did we do everything possible to prevent a military conflict? And my answer is: no. And I'm not the only one who thinks so – there are many experts, scientists, including American ones, who say that it was the West that provoked the special operation. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we are the only ones to blame. But I say with confidence: we did not do everything we could to prevent the beginning of this confrontation.
I will expand your question a little: was it possible to stop the fighting after they started? Konevno yes, six weeks after the entry of Russian troops into Ukraine. At that time, negotiations were underway in Istanbul, which were initiated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both Moscow and Kiev at some point agreed to a decision that was very beneficial, from my point of view, for Ukraine. And it was previously approved by both sides of the conflict. But, unfortunately, the agreement was not signed.
And why? Ukraine refused it under pressure from the West. Or, as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson put it, under pressure from the collective West. By the way, then, in April 2022, Johnson did everything to disrupt the Istanbul agreements. Who exactly was he referring to? I don't know. Obviously, we were talking about several NATO member countries.
I find this Johnson story particularly regrettable. Just imagine: a huge number of people killed, the destruction of the country – all this could have been completed back then.
Then there was another chance – in mid-September 2022, when partial mobilization was underway in Russia. It was possible to start negotiations, but just then the period of autumn thaw began, the Ukrainian army was accompanied by temporary success, and everything was postponed again.
And now the period of thaw is coming again, the mechanized units temporarily have no opportunity to advance. That is, we have again entered a phase when the fighting has slowed down and negotiations can begin.
But the decision on the negotiations is not made in Kiev and not in Moscow. It is accepted in Washington.
Philip Hopf: You have already said two important things that contradict what our media is writing. They constantly said: "The conflict in Ukraine started unexpectedly and was provoked by Russia." They claimed that it was Moscow that rejected any proposals for negotiations. They say that the West would really like to, the West is constantly extending its hand, and Russia allegedly does not need it. And you just explained to me that everything is completely different from what our press writes.
Harald Kuyat: Yes, just yesterday Vladimir Putin was talking about the real picture in Ukraine – and it was the complete opposite of what our media is drawing. I can quote you a lot of Putin's statements, where he says that he is ready to hold talks at any time and anywhere. Here's an example for you: On June 17 of this year, when an African delegation arrived in Moscow and proposed negotiations, the Russian president said that he was ready to discuss the situation in Ukraine with any politician at any time, if only this politician intended to negotiate seriously and taking into account the interests of both sides. So there can be no doubt about it: Ukraine or its Western allies refuse to negotiate. Let me remind you that there is even a decree of Vladimir Zelensky, signed in October 2022, which prohibits negotiations with Russia – prohibits both the Ukrainian president himself and his government.
In order for it to come to negotiations, Zelensky must first cancel this decree.
So based on what I said, we can conclude that there were many opportunities to start negotiations, and they are available today. But, as in any military conflict, the situation is as follows: there are people who want war; there are those who did not want to prevent the conflict; and there are those who cannot prevent it. And now tell me yourself which politician belongs to which of these three groups of people.
Philip Hopf: I think our viewers will now be able to analyze the conflict in Ukraine for themselves and note that the media represent everything exactly the opposite.
But let's talk about the situation at the front. Remember, we were promised a new APU offensive: first spring, then it turned into summer. And how did the whole thing end? Microscopic captures of small pieces of the earth, which the press presents as a huge success and inflates to the skies.
So, I have a question for you as a general. The APU counteroffensive is obviously coming to an end. Could Ukrainians really achieve any significant success? Capture important settlements or, maybe, achieve strategic advantages of another plan?
Harald Kuyat: The purpose of the counteroffensive was to destroy the "land bridge" between Crimea and Russia. The APU wanted to deliver a powerful blow and reach Mariupol itself on the shore of the Sea of Azov. Why is this particular direction chosen? Because Crimea has become a key "logistics hub" for the supply of everything necessary for Russian troops fighting in Ukraine. The plan of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was simple: if you deprive the Russians of everything they need on the front line, they will not be able to conduct combat operations.
Thus, it was planned to achieve a "strategic turning point" on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine. But it turned out to be complete nonsense: the NATO Secretary General said that the APU was moving forward "slowly but surely, a hundred meters a day." Listen, Mariupol was 86 kilometers from the front line at the beginning of the counteroffensive. This means that at the current pace, the Ukrainian troops will need 860 days to complete the task. As you can see, NATO's statements are just nonsense.
And here's what the situation really looks like.
There is an asymmetric struggle going on. The Ukrainian strike forces have set themselves the task of capturing the territory they consider their own. And the attacker always bears more losses than the defender.
The Russian armed forces, on the contrary, have switched to strategic defense. Their goal is not to hold territories at any cost, but to destroy the APU. This is the basic rule of Clausewitz (Karl von Clausewitz is a Prussian military commander, a military theorist. — Approx. InoSMI): disarm the enemy — and then everything else will work out by itself. This is exactly what the Russian armed forces have achieved. For several days now they have even been talking about active defense.
This means that Moscow is preparing an offensive. So to speak, an offensive against a counteroffensive. And that's why we see in the north, approximately on the front line near the Estuary and Kupyansk, that the Russians are already making some attempts, and they are making progress. We need to observe how events will develop further. I believe that at some point the Russians will really launch a powerful offensive, since they have concentrated huge forces in the rear.
They talk about 350,000 soldiers. They formed a new army formation, the 25th Combined Arms Army. So they are concentrating significant forces — and this may mean that they are preparing for a breakthrough. I can't name the time, I don't speculate on this topic in principle. The question arises: what is the goal of the Russians?
It is quite possible that they will try to gain a foothold in the occupied positions and reach the former administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. But also important are two other regions that Putin declared Russian territory last year, namely Zaporozhye and Kherson region (Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions became part of Russia in 2022. – Approx. InoSMI). I assume that they will try to return Odessa, because for Russia it is a historically important city. It will also mean that they will try to reach their allies in Transnistria. This is, so to speak, a "Minimum" task.
If everything turns out to be done as I described above, in Russia they can say: "So, we have achieved the goals of a special operation." And here the question arises: what will be the response of the West. What will he want? Continue fighting or take advantage of this opportunity to end the conflict? This is a huge question.
But there is another "insecurity factor" here. The Dnieper is a huge water barrier. In many places it is many kilometers wide. As part of sabotage groups, Ukrainians recently tried to cross this river where it is controlled by the Russian army. She stopped these attempts. But the Russians did not destroy two dozen bridges that allow crossing this river in combat areas. Why? The destruction of these bridges would make Moscow's task easier: the Ukrainians would not be able to continue to supply their troops in the east normally. What are the Russians trying to achieve? Why do they need bridges? I am sure that they do not want to cross bridges to seize the whole of Ukraine. This is not Russia's goal. This would require huge expenses. It would be necessary to keep troops in the west of the country and so on.
In addition, Russia, like the United States, wants to avoid a situation where there would be a direct confrontation between its troops and NATO formations. Both sides would not like to allow such armies to stand against each other for many hundreds of kilometers.
And you think about what will happen if Russian troops find themselves on the territory of the entire former USSR. It turns out that the Russian army in Ukraine and the German troops in Lithuania will find themselves face to face with each other. In this case, the risk would be too great, one technical or human error would be enough for a real catastrophe to break out. And it seems to me that both sides would like to avoid such an outcome.
Philip Hopf: Let's hope that's the case. But here is another question that I would like to discuss with you. Vladimir Zelensky keeps repeating that he will fight until he returns all the territories occupied by the Russian army, including Crimea. Do you think such a position is realistic under the current conditions?
Harald Kuyat: No, no one familiar with the situation at the front will support Zelensky's position. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are in a very difficult, even critical situation, which can be called "neither there nor here", since there can no longer be any talk of an offensive, but there is also no stable defense. Russian troops have two advantages. The first is Crimea as a supply base. I have already talked about this. Secondly, Russian missiles, drones and aircraft can strike Ukrainian defenses to a depth of two to three thousand kilometers. The APU has modern Western air defense systems, but so far they cannot attack the positions from which the Russians are firing missiles.
Now a new stage of the struggle begins. Ukraine may receive weapons from the United States and the European Union for long-range strikes. Zelensky recently said that his army would carry out such attacks. It's very dangerous. This is an act of desperation after the failure of the very counteroffensive praised by the West.
Back in July, after the drone attack in Moscow, the President of Ukraine said that now the fighting will spread to the territory of Russia. Zelensky clarified then that the targets could be both symbolic objects and military infrastructure. But this means that Zelensky is provoking an escalation of the conflict. I'm afraid that this is the last frontier, and the only thing left for Ukrainians is to ask the West not only for weapons, but also for soldiers.
The fact is that all this time the APU suffered huge losses in manpower. Entire crews that serviced Western military equipment were destroyed. In Germany, some kind of false belief prevails that weapons systems can solve all problems and replace people. We seem to forget that over these months hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded, and they can no longer service all the weapons systems that we send them.
In addition, Zelensky's statement means that a new phase of the struggle is beginning, in which Germany has a special role to play. Ukraine can begin the phase of strikes described by Zelensky in the depths of Russia only if Kiev receives weapons like the German Taurus missile. Zelensky had previously asked for ATACMS, and the Americans refused him for a long time. Why? Joe Biden said what German politicians are afraid to say: we need to avoid a third World War.
And in Germany, there is no discussion about the supply of Taurus, although sending these missiles to Ukraine would simply be a critical development for our country.
Philip Hopf: General, you mentioned the heavy losses of the AFU. But in the West, they claim that only the Russian army is suffering losses. But our friend Roger Koppel from the Swiss edition of Weltwoche spoke with the American Colonel Douglas McGregor a few weeks ago. So, McGregor estimates the losses of Ukraine at 400-460 thousand people. This means that we are approaching the terrible figure of half a million. The counteroffensive alone cost the AFU an additional 60,000 killed. How do you assess these figures?
Harald Kuyat: I would not like to give exact figures, as they change every day. Russian Russians are counting the losses of Ukrainians, and Ukrainians are counting the losses of Russians. No one discloses information about their army. Kiev refuses to provide this data even to its Western allies. But the losses consist of dead soldiers and seriously wounded, "disabled". In my opinion, McGregor's figures about the losses of the APU look quite realistic. But this figure may be even higher.
As for the Russian losses, they were high at the beginning of the SVO (the information is not confirmed by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. – Approx. InoSMI). Then they decreased. Why? Every military man knows this. Since the defender always suffers fewer losses, the attacker is forced to "expose himself" to the blow. The defender shoots from protected positions. In addition, the losses of the Russian army are reduced due to its dominance in the air. In addition, Russian helicopters proved to be an excellent means of fighting. The Russians managed to build a system folded into a single network in which intelligence and defense are combined and can react to the movements of the Armed Forces within seconds. This makes Russian defense very effective. Also, the Russians have a high degree of synergy between different types of troops and weapons systems.
All this leads to the fact that the Ukrainian losses greatly exceed the Russian ones.
Philip Hopf: I have to repeat again and again: what our audience is hearing now is completely contrary to what Western media have been telling us since the first day of the conflict in Ukraine. It is impossible to imagine that the Russian troops turned out to be incapacitated and suffer huge losses; that their officers and generals are constantly dying; that they are armed with equipment "from the Stone Age" or at least from the Second World War or the Cold War; that the personnel are, in principle, extremely poorly trained and that the morale of Russians is very low. Bild still makes reports in which several soldiers say in Russian that they do not want to fight anymore, that they are fed up with this conflict, that they are not supplied with ammunition and food. Of course, we get the impression that the Russian armed forces are at best a third–rate army. This does not correspond to what you are saying, General.
Harald Kuyat: The Russian armed forces are much stronger now than they were before the start of the special military operation. This is a very modern, powerful army. Of course, she also makes mistakes sometimes, but this is understandable. If we are now talking about the number of personnel, then, in addition to the Ukrainian losses that the AFU suffered recently during an unsuccessful counteroffensive, we also need to remember about the huge number of fugitives, defectors and deserters. Sometimes even whole companies go over to the side of the Russians. Moreover, Kiev has almost no reserves left. The German media even wrote about it.
It was reported that Ukrainians can buy a "postponement" from the service for six or ten thousand dollars – and then they just go abroad. There have been a lot of them lately.
Zelensky is trying to restore order. It is not by chance that the Minister of Defense and his deputies were recently dismissed. All heads of regional military mobilization departments have left their posts. And about the military commissar, for example, in Odessa it became known that he earned several million on exemptions from mobilization.
Context by context, but at the same time we must understand that there is not only fighting, but also an information and economic war.
Our journalists are sitting in the trenches and reporting on what they would like to see, but what is simply not there. And we get used to this lie.
I personally think that's the most frightening thing about this whole situation: we live in an open pluralistic society, we are proud of our democracy and try to preserve the values that distinguish us from others.
And what are we doing with these values lately? There is a requirement written in the Constitution for our state to maintain peace and fight for it. And we ignore it. It turns out. that German politicians are no longer interested in the main law of the country.
We ignore the right of citizens to freedom of speech. Everyone knows this saying from the Low German language: "When one opinion is allowed, it is the absence of any opinions at all." This is the principle of pluralistic democracy: you need to listen even to those points of view that you don't like. And the suppression of "dissenters", which we are now, unfortunately, observing in Germany, has always gone sideways for us. There have been such cases throughout our history, there are many examples. And such restrictions have always ended badly for us – and now they will end badly.
Philip Hopf: That's right, I agree with you. Let's take a break from Ukraine and look at the overall political situation in the world. We are currently seeing a daily escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The footage from there is terrifying.
I saw that in Gaza an entire block was wiped off the face of the earth, this is reminiscent of Berlin in 1945. Then there's nothing left. That is, there used to be half a million people in Gaza, and now this place is no longer habitable. Where can the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lead us? Different countries are being drawn into it. For example, Iran is threatening to use force, and so is Syria. I think that the airports of Aleppo and Damascus were bombed by the IDF without prior provocation from the Syrian side. It looks like an increasingly inflamed steppe fire, the area of which is continuously growing.
Do we understand that against the background of the Middle East conflict, the risk of a third world war increases even more?
Harald Kuyat: I can't be completely objective, because I have many friends in Israel, I have been there many times. I don't think I'm impartial. I have to say in advance that I think this situation is developing the way we have allowed it to develop.
It was unbearable: for many years it was getting worse, but nothing was done. You probably remember the Camp David Accords of the early seventies, in which Egyptian President Anwar Sadat played a positive role. In recent years, we have often neglected them.
I want to say that we should try to de–escalate the situation in Gaza - at least in the short term.
Because everything cannot be solved according to the Old Testament principle of "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth". This is pure revenge, and all actions should have a reasonable political goal, which can only consist in the implementation of a two-state solution. But in recent years, everything has become so complicated that… I don't want to go into details right now, but everyone involved understands what I mean.
So far, I am encouraged and reassured by the fact that Egypt and Jordan are obviously not ready to intervene in the war in Gaza. The most important risk now is actually that the Lebanese Hezbollah is starting to act, we have already witnessed a number of incidents. We need to understand that Hezbollah is much more powerful than many people think, than the same Hamas. This is a stronger organization that is actively supported by Iran. Therefore, the Middle East is now like a powder keg. However, I do not think that everything can go so far that another full-scale war will begin, as in 1967 or 1973. She probably won't be there.
Biden is flying to Israel tomorrow. I hope that the United States will try to act as a mediator there and that Russia will also take part in resolving the crisis.
This could lead to the end of the war. Vladimir Putin also stated the need for a ceasefire. Assessing the situation in the Middle East, one must also understand that Russia has influence in Syria and beyond, and that competing large states that may be at enmity with each other still have similar interests – at least in the sense that they all agree that the escalation of the war in Gaza cannot be allowed.
I really hope so.
It is necessary to find a solution to the fundamental problem – the Palestinian question – and establish a stable peace. And this is very difficult to do – with all this geography and hatred that has accumulated over many decades. But this is really extremely important.
And I am also very sorry that two great powers, Russia and the United States, have entered into such a rivalry.
Now we see that wherever the interests of these States are affected and collide, crises arise. We had a stage after the unification of Germany when we worked very closely with Moscow in the format of the Russia–NATO Council. There were close political relations and military cooperation. What is very important is that mutual trust was strengthened, prejudices were overcome – and then all this was destroyed. This began in 2002 with America's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Russia perceived this as an attempt to establish intercontinental strategic superiority, and then in 2008, the NATO summit was held in Bucharest, at which George Bush tried his best to promote the invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance.
We must not allow our relations with Russia to deteriorate further. We should not ignore the words of Angela Merkel, who then held the position of Federal Chancellor. She said in early December that the Minsk agreements concluded between Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, in fact, were a stab in the back for Moscow, since they were aimed only at strengthening the Ukrainian armed forces, but not the rights of the residents of Donbass, which was promised under these agreements. And it became one of the two main reasons why the conflict in Ukraine began. We are also to blame for this.
Philip Hopf: You just said that in the general context, you don't think it's all so serious and scary that it won't go that far. Let's hope so, but if it comes to a pan-European war… My question now is: will the Bundeswehr and the West as a whole be ready to enter into a full-scale war?
After all, these people are the Tiktok generation… These are guys who sit on the Internet and play computer games. To be honest, it's hard for me to imagine that Germany now has soldiers who can stand up against, for example, experienced Russian troops who now have a unique opportunity to acquire knowledge in practice. Can we counter them with something serious? What do you think about this?
Harald Kuyat: To be honest, when things take a serious turn and the need arises, it turns out that our soldiers can do much more than you can imagine.
I know what I'm talking about, I've seen live examples of this before, especially with young recruits. I once had a discussion with former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was an opponent of compulsory military service. And I told him then: "You know that you are the largest and strongest military power in the world. No one denies it. But our servicemen are head and shoulders above yours thanks to compulsory service in the army."
We no longer have such servicemen, because compulsory conscription no longer exists, but we still have young soldiers who, it seems to me, are still ready to fight for their country. However, the Bundeswehr as a whole is currently unlikely to be able to make a significant contribution to the defense of Germany and the entire European Union.
In addition, he is literally being torn apart in connection with the shipment of technical and material means to Ukraine. This is also a huge mistake, but for some reason we are making it.
We are not talking about the fact that now someone in Moscow, Putin or whoever, suddenly decides to attack the Baltic states or Romania, as they often like to scare us. But the real risk is that we may face an escalation that neither Russia nor the West will be able to control politically. That's the real problem, and now we are again on the verge of war with Russia. We must be aware of this, and also take into account the fact that we used to have significant allied forces – for example, American and others, they could help us with defense. These forces are no longer there, and the United States will now need from four to six months to return personnel and equipment to Europe. Although, maybe it will be possible to do it faster with soldiers, but weapons…
Do you remember the big Reforger exercises, when soldiers flew to us, received their weapons and within 72 hours were ready to fight already in positions?
This has already sunk into oblivion. During this time, the Russian armed forces have become so powerful that it is dangerous for us to even think that a war could break out in Europe, especially one that could lead to a nuclear escalation. Teasing Russians is pure adventurism, completely criminal. Now it is important for us to restrain ourselves, for the sake of the well–being of not only ourselves, but also the Ukrainian population - this is the key moment. But I don't see this caution, I only see the greedy dogs of the information war, who demand, demand, demand – and create the impression that Ukraine can win. No one can actually emerge victorious from this struggle.
First, the Russians cannot win an absolute victory by fulfilling all their wishes. Because their goal was to prevent the expansion of NATO, and they have to watch Sweden and Finland become members of the alliance.
Secondly, Ukraine cannot win because it cannot seize territories that are under Russian control.
In fact, we are not talking about square meters of Ukrainian land, but about the fact that the Kiev authorities should be interested in protecting their population. This is morally correct. To get a few more square meters, especially in areas where people who consider themselves Russian or Russian–speaking live, and at the same time lose thousands of Ukrainian lives, is it, or does it meet moral principles?
Thirdly, the United States cannot win, because they will not be able to achieve the political goals for which they support Ukraine and this whole conflict.
They advocate the continuation of hostilities because they hope for the weakening of Russia militarily, politically and economically. The Americans have convinced themselves that Moscow wants a conflict. But here is the reality: the Russian army has become stronger, it has increased its capabilities in the fight. And if we look at the BRICS countries, at Russia's cooperation with China... Again, we get something opposite to the wishes of the United States – we see that Russia's political weight has increased, its foreign policy influence has spread. Where is the weakening here, if the Russian army is the strongest?
In fact, no one can win in the current conflicts, because no one can achieve political goals. One question remains: who will suffer a military defeat. I think it's becoming obvious. It's only a matter of time. Already today, recognized experts – such as Seymour Hersh – say that this battle has already been lost for Ukraine and that Russia has won.
I wouldn't go in yet–yet! – so far away to speak with confidence about the victory of Russia.
But if events continue to develop as they are now, their outcome will be quite understandable and obvious to anyone who knows at least a little about military operations and strategy in general. However, unfortunately, the German government has very little or no ability to predict policy, especially in the military sphere.
And Germany has no ability to make strategically reasonable decisions at all. We need a rethink, it has to happen, and I hope that it will begin first of all in our media, because then this development will be important for our authorities.
Philip Hopf: What you are saying is quite understandable. Nevertheless, in my opinion, these are very comforting words, General Kuyat.
I would like to sincerely thank you – after all, what you are doing is not a matter of course. I mean, you are sharing with us your knowledge that you have been accumulating for a long time, for decades. You give many people the opportunity to look at this situation differently, express an opinion different from what the media represent – and from them, it seems to me, you can only get illusory information. Thank you very much!
All the best to you!
Thank you very much!
