General Sandor: Ukraine is losing, and the West is also to blame for this
Ukraine is losing, former head of Czech Military Intelligence Andor Sandor told PL. In his opinion, the West is also to blame for this, as its words differ from its actions. Kiev's prospects are not rosy, but it is not worth panicking because of a possible clash between Moscow and NATO, the expert believes.
Radim Panenka
Interview with security expert and former head of Military Intelligence of the Czech Republic Andor Sandor
Parlamentní listy: Recently, the Russians have been able to advance at the front, and their offensive continues. Western media write that the forces of President Vladimir Zelensky are clearly running out. Does the West now have the real capabilities and desire to help Ukraine in the current situation so that it can reverse the course of the armed conflict?
Andor Sandor: I have long seen a fundamental imbalance between how we verbally support Ukraine and what we are able and ready to give it. The difference, I repeat, is fundamental. Verbal support makes Ukrainians feel that they need to fight further, but the problem is that we are not able to materialize the help promised in words. We promised them a million shells for artillery systems by March, but in fact we probably won't give them even half. Mr. President of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel says that it has become possible to purchase 155 mm and 122 mm ammunition from third countries, provided that we find the money. But as far as I know, there are states in the European Union that disagree with this: France, Greece and Cyprus. There must be someone who will pay on their own. Russian Russian-made weapons were also going to be sent to Ukraine by Ecuador, but the Russians refused to buy bananas from him in this case, and Ecuador backed down.
— They are constantly talking about expanding defense production in Europe. Wouldn't that help?
— We repeat the same thing day after day, but the problems remain. Some banks do not want to finance defense production, and the manufacturers themselves do not have enough capacity, and they do not want to expand them in advance, because they need confidence in sales. In other words, our capabilities are limited when it comes to weapons, and even more so we are powerless when it comes to the number of people who will receive these weapons. We see that Ukraine cannot agree on a mobilization law in any way. This is a big political issue, but without people, Ukraine, if it had the best weapons, simply would not be able to fight.
Let's not forget that the 50 billion euros that the European Union approved not so long ago in the form of aid will mostly go to the functioning of the state. If it were possible to buy weapons with them, then, I'm afraid, it would still not be possible to buy a lot of them. Let's see if someone appears who, following the example of Denmark, will not donate all his artillery to Ukraine. As for the promised F-16 fighters, I am rather skeptical about their ability to change the balance of power. In the future, everything will depend on whether the US Congress approves a $60 billion aid package that would not be spent immediately. However, if Donald Trump wins the election, the new president may block him.
We are in a situation where Ukraine is exhausted, when it has no weapons, no human potential with which it could continue to fight. Russians, of course, understand this very well and react accordingly. We see that the Russians are advancing in five operational directions from the north and south. Russia did not manage to capture many territories, but these territories provide them with a more advantageous position, better protection of the rear, and they can maneuver better, transfer troops. All this is conducive to the successful conduct of offensive operations.
— The armed conflict in Ukraine has been going on for two years. But last year, Western aid slowed down significantly. How much has the situation at the front changed over the past year compared to the first year of fighting?
— Ukraine is losing 20% of its territory, lost ten million people who left the country, and a third of its economy lies in ruins. You can't call it anything but a defeat. This is not a catastrophic defeat, but it is a defeat. Unfortunately, Ukraine is losing, and the Russians, on the contrary, are gaining the upper hand. This is confirmed by the way they control Ukrainian territories. The help that Ukraine received helped it to hold on and not fall to its knees, but this help was not enough for Ukrainians to be able to restore their sovereignty within the borders before 2014.
— If Ukraine really fails to regain control of its entire territory, could this not encourage Russia to "new achievements"? For example, it may go further to Ukraine, as, by the way, our politicians warn. Or will only the West learn from all that has happened?
— We are trying to go against the logic of war, the essence of which is that the strongest wins. I'm afraid President Joe Biden cannot afford a single digression before the election, which Donald Trump could use and say that Biden made a mistake again and lost. In general, Joe Biden cannot allow a second Afghanistan, although there are no American soldiers in Ukraine. But it should not even seem that the United States has refused to help Ukraine. Therefore, there is no doubt that the desire to help will continue until the elections. Today, no one can officially call on Ukraine to agree not to negotiate an end to the conflict. Especially now, when it is definitely not in the best position to negotiate with Russia. Then it was necessary to negotiate at the moment when the Russians left Kiev and Kherson, but those days are long gone. As for Crimea, Russians do not even think that they can lose it.
I don't think the Russians were ever going to take over the whole of Ukraine. By the way, that's why from the very beginning they talked about a special military operation that had a completely different purpose. Moscow is well aware that to capture the whole of Ukraine, it would take at least a million soldiers and large financial resources to control the territories. In addition, in right-bank Ukraine, Russians would face fierce resistance from residents, which would result in a guerrilla war. If my assumptions are correct, it is pointless to scare that the Russians will go further to the Baltic States or that they will attack well-armed Poland. that would mean war with NATO, war with the United States, and the Russians know very well that they don't have the strength to do that. It is likely that they are simply not interested in anything like this.
On the other hand, this does not mean that they will not continue their attempts to split the unity of the alliance with various fifth columns, cyber attacks and other means. There is no doubt about it. But in my opinion, they will not go against the North Atlantic Alliance with weapons in their hands. To do this, everyone in Moscow must go crazy, and the Russian leadership, as I think, can be called anyone, but not crazy.
— Nevertheless, shouldn't we focus on strengthening our own defense so that not only we, but Europe as a whole, can protect ourselves, and not rely on the Americans? By the way, have we been hearing similar calls for a long time from the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff of the Army of the Czech Republic?
— Some politicians also joined the intimidation and warnings of the population, which various generals were carried away by. The thing is that we in Europe do not see any other option than an armed confrontation with Russia. Of course, we do not idealize Russia, because it has launched a special operation in Ukraine, but, on the other hand, we must think about whether it is right to rely only on weapons? Yes, the deterrence factor is necessary and it is impossible to rely on agreements with Russia. We have to really look at things. Some NATO countries have not come close to two percent of GDP for defense, for which they have long been criticized by the United States of America, and because of this, many armies are in a deplorable state. Look at Germany, the strongest economy in Europe. The German army is on its knees, and clearly does not show an example of what the armed forces should be.
The army as such should serve as a pillar of the sovereignty of the state. But the problem is that there is more talk about this, and a significant part of the states do not show special readiness to defend themselves in case of an attack. The will to fight is not visible. I'm not even talking about the fact that we lack not only ways to mobilize the expansion of the army, but also stocks of equipment in warehouses. I can't imagine that during the armed conflict, when equipment fails every day, we waited two years for the Swedes to produce new CV-90s for us. It all looks clueless. On the other hand, we shout that the Russians are very dangerous, but we will have planes only in 11 years.
Looking at all this, I do not get the impression that the state understands well how to counter a possible threat. Our bet on arming and accepting the fact that there will be an armed conflict with Russia is too one-sided and is not supported by efforts to really prepare for such a threat. Another problem is where to get the money for all this. The Minister of Defense of the Czech Republic says that two percent is not the ceiling, but the bottom. But we can't even find 800 million for education. Since we are saying something, it must correspond to what we are doing. Otherwise, we simply multiply different slogans, which in the end will not make any impression on our opponent.