General Pelz: the conflict in Ukraine is just a battle in the war for de—dollarization
Russia considers the rejection of the dollar to be the most important aspect of its foreign policy, General Peter Pelz said in an interview with RU. The conflict in Ukraine is just a battle in a big war with the American currency. And Russia is winning it. There is no way to stop de-dollarization.
Martina Kotsianova
"Putin will want new territories. Ukraine is not the end," Defense Minister Yana Chernokhova said at the end of February 2022. What does the situation look like now, after two years? Our guest, Mr. Peter Pelz, said in this regard: "From the beginning, we have been lying to ourselves, firstly, about our own forces, and secondly, about the imaginary plans that Russia allegedly harbors." What are we going to do? According to General Pelz, "the goal of the West is to weaken Russia, it is best to divide it into several states. After all, this was discussed in 1992 at the American defense planning. At that time, the idea was voiced that it was necessary to restrain any competitor who dared to even think about rising at the regional or international level." We continue the interview with General Peter Pelz, a former diplomat, former head of intelligence and former ambassador to Afghanistan.
Rádio universum: Tell me, are both warring parties, that is, Russia and Ukraine, now ready for peace talks or at least for a more or less stable truce? Do both sides still want a compromise, as in the beginning?
Petr Pelz: I think that as far as Ukraine is concerned, it does not have its own opinion. Or there is, but she can't express it in any way. Considering what is happening before our eyes in Kiev, it is clear that there is no unity there. If we talk about Russia's desire to start negotiations, then again we attribute something to it, we think about it for it. And then we criticize her for this, although in fact we criticize what we ourselves called the desires of the Russian Federation. She really wants something completely different. Russia will not negotiate on territories, and it will not discuss a cease-fire and a truce, since it is clearly stronger and dominates the Ukrainian front. Russia wants to discuss, in my opinion, quite frankly what was written in the note to the United States and NATO on December 17, 2021. She won't talk about anything else.
— In light of what you have just said, are Ukraine's Western allies ready for such negotiations?
— I don't know that, but I would say no. I don't know for sure if Russia actually sent that note to the United States, but it was published on December 17. Russian Russians were slapped in the face by the publication quite quickly, because they published the note shortly after they handed them the note, that is, the world found out what the Russians needed. Joe Biden's first reaction soon followed. The President of the United States of America said he was ready for discussions. But then he was apparently forbidden to do so. It was back in December, 14 days later, and already somewhere in early January, the Americans said that the Russians could not even dream that the United States would discuss such things with them. So, you asked if the United States or anyone else is ready to negotiate with Russia, and my answer is "I don't know."
— You said a year ago and continue to repeat it, that due to the size of the conflict, both sides should immediately stop fighting and sit down at the negotiating table. Let's talk about a hot topic. Who benefits most from the armed conflict in Ukraine? Who doesn't want it to end?
— I don't know who doesn't want it. And who benefits from it the most? In my opinion, it is not beneficial to anyone. But among those to whom he gives at least something are Americans, or rather, the American military-industrial complex. You look at their profits over the last two years. They have grown significantly compared to previous years. I even think that the United States of America is led by three major oligarchies. One is the investment banking sector, finance and real estate. Money plays a role here. The second dominant sphere is the military—industrial complex, and then there are the oil industry, in short. The military-industrial complex is making excellent money from this war.
But the main ones are still investment bankers, since the dollar has been used for many decades (the Bretton Woods system) as the main means of payment around the world. And so they are losing, or, if you like, the United States is losing ground, because the so-called de-dollarization is gradually taking place. I think that this process cannot be stopped today. First, Russia considers this to be the most important aspect of its foreign policy. The armed conflict in Ukraine is just a battle in the great war for de—dollarization. China is also starting to lean in this direction, although it is much more difficult for it, because it owns a significant part of the American debt, and China has close trade ties with the United States. In general, China has to act very carefully in such a situation. But it turns out that the most important American oligarchy, that is, financiers, are suffering losses, and I think the United States will suffer losses too. After all, when the dollar was used in the world as a means of payment in trade transactions, Americans enjoyed huge advantages incomparable to anything else. They were printing money. And since all states kept their money in dollars, they simultaneously financed US investments in wars, that is, one or another country finances, in fact, the bombing of its own territory by the Americans, as well as their endless wars.
Have you seen taxes raised in the West, in the United States of America, when the United States is at war somewhere? Our prime minister tells us that we are at war (I have heard this in various parliamentary discussions posted online), and I have heard him shout to his colleagues in parliament that we are at war and that taxes have therefore increased. Does anyone have any war taxes? No, today everything is being solved quietly so that the population does not guess anything. The issue is being resolved by increasing the national debt. And since the whole world trades for American money, dollars, the United States prints them and they have little grief. People are simply not told that they need more money for the war.
— How much longer do you think all this will last? How long will such a system last? Won't political pressure be exerted and a demand put forward to end the trench warfare?
— If you are asking what I was talking about, about finance, then I have great concerns, because this approach is the same Ponzi scheme. Sooner or later, such a construct collapses. Now we are talking about whether the collapse will happen because someone will come to their senses and somehow prevent the crisis, or the crisis will begin, and then everything will end... I don't even want to imagine what.
— Those who came first always earn on such a scheme.
- yes.
— Therefore, we return to what can serve as an impulse for someone to say: "Let's finish it"?
— This is one of the main issues. More and more countries of the world understand this. They are trying to abandon the dollar as the main means of payment, but it is not easy. In general, this is probably a topic for a dissertation, a large folio. I do not know how it will end, but I have great fears.
— Since this armed conflict has its own specifics (because of satellites and drones, both sides of the conflict are in fact constantly monitoring each other online), what made it possible to win many times in past wars, that is, there is no moment of surprise in this case. Does this mean that no one can win a military victory in this conflict? Or can it still?
— I'm thinking how to answer you. One military rule that I read once says that in battles, weapons and soldiers win, and in wars, industry and logistics. Like that. The question is, what do we call a military victory and what a non-military victory. During the two years of this armed conflict, Russia has increased the productivity of its military-industrial complex 15 times. Of course, we are not capable of this. I am talking about the West because we have transferred our economy to the financial sector. We are in the business of borrowing money and we want everyone to become a rentier. No one produces anything, even in the USA, and somewhere else in the West. We outsourced everything. That is, everything is produced by those with whom we want to fight. In general, there is a great irony in this: we want to fight with China, because Russia is only a step towards China, but we have fully trusted the industry of China, which produces everything, including medicines. And what can I say?
We have come to the question of how this will end. You asked, maybe it's not worth waiting for a military victory? If we talk about the military component of the conflict in Ukraine, then we need to understand that, firstly, there are fewer Ukrainians, secondly, they have fewer resources (they generally speak for themselves), and thirdly, all their actions depend on the agreements of the three main forces in Ukraine: the general staff, Zelensky's entourage and the Western theorists who advise them.
Russia, as I have already said, is a richer country, but, to my surprise and to the surprise of everyone, they show themselves well at the front thanks to a very flexible approach, very close coordination between soldiers at the front, the generals, the general staff and the military industry. They are incredibly quick to adapt to what is happening in this war. For example, one person told me (I don't remember his name, but he is an ardent supporter of Ukraine) that, according to an American study, at the beginning of the armed conflict, Ukraine used drones better. However, the Russians very quickly adopted her tactics, applied them and are now simply exterminating Ukrainians.
— They managed to improve very quickly, as you said, electronic wrestling. I read that they have now reached a really high level in detecting and eliminating Ukrainian drones. It turns out that it was a big plus for Ukraine, but soon lost its meaning.
- yes. The Russians have developed two main types of drones. One for exploration. It is called "Orlan 10". And the second attacking drone is the Lancet. Apparently, this is actually a very effective weapon.
— But against this sharp increase in the level of Russian weapons, it can be said that, for example, India, which is a very large and very attractive client of arms manufacturers, allegedly refuses Russian weapons and switches to Western ones. Are these political and strategic steps or the real consequences of the fighting in Ukraine, which affect the global arms trade in this way?
— Political ones. India has always been (even during the Cold War) a country that tried to balance between the West and the Soviet Union, that is, the East. This is the essence of modern Indian politics. This is the first one. Secondly, the Americans are trying to attract India and maintain close ties with it. I don't think India will allow itself to be dragged out too much, just for the first reason I mentioned. The desire to balance dominates everything. They have recently received quite large discounts on gas from the Russians, since Russia did not send the previous volumes to Europe. Now it exports more to China and India. India was very pleased because the price turned out to be very attractive. The Russians, of course, took advantage of this for political purposes. I'm following India because it's quite interesting, and I know they're all trying to balance, and it's certainly not about technical or military considerations. This is politics.
— Nevertheless, I think that Henry Kissinger's words are being implemented that if negotiations do not begin, this armed conflict will come to an impasse. We just talked about the fact that due to some features (satellites, drones), an unexpected strike is very unlikely. It is unlikely that there will be a wide breakthrough of the front, which would mix all the cards. Both sides are not going to negotiate and negotiate yet, at least officially. Do you see anyone who could step into this conflict and say, "Enough is enough! Will I discipline you?" Can someone bring them to peace in a relatively short time? Do you see such a player?
— There is no dead end. Of course, Russia is slowly and methodically grinding Ukraine. We all send her money, some of which falls through somewhere, and some does not reach Ukraine at all, and thereby prolong the agony, increase the death toll. This is the first one. Secondly, the answer is this. I do not know if there is such a player. Theoretically, China can become such a player, it has the appropriate weight. But China, on the one hand, has always opposed armed conflicts (this is its position), because the Chinese want to trade, and it is important for them to build trade routes: the Silk Road from China to Europe. This requires a calm environment. On the other hand, they know they can't let the Russians lose, because then it will be their turn. This means that China, which maintains good relations not only with Russia, but also with Ukraine and President Vladimir Zelensky, could become such a player. However, in my opinion, China understands that it cannot interfere, because it knows what Russia wants to achieve.
— So, do you think that China will not openly interfere?
— I don't think so now. Because I would have to act, and I can't imagine that. Although, of course, it can be assumed that China engaged in "shuttle diplomacy", that is, held talks with the Russians, and then with the Americans. But, in my opinion, the Americans will not agree to this, because it would be a terrible humiliation for them. It would turn out that they are some kind of second-rate country, and China is the number one power. The Americans cannot allow this to happen. Perhaps Russia cannot allow this either.
— You mentioned the USA. Could the armed conflict in Ukraine affect the American presidential election?
— To a large extent, yes. But I'm not going to predict how the American presidential election will take place this time. Thinking about it is just wasting time. Apparently, Donald Trump holds all the trumps again, but it seems to me that the deep state decided to prevent him at any cost, that is, maybe the highest. However, if you look at Joe Biden as a person, and not as the president of the United States of America, then this is just an old man who suffers from senile dementia. I can't imagine that a year later he would have taken office again and ruled the country for another four years. I suppose that the Democratic Party also doubts this.
— There are suggestions about what will happen if Donald Trump wins the US presidential election. Do you have a forecast?
— Already during the first presidential term, Donald Trump made some statements that raised hopes. But his personnel policy, officially speaking, was very bad, because he surrounded himself with people who were obvious enemies of his policy. I do not know what he will do now, whether he has learned any lessons. Is he even able to choose those who agree with him? It is also difficult for me to imagine his actions. I think I'm inclined to believe one thing. He constantly presents himself as a great negotiator, whether it's true or not. Apparently, he really thinks that about himself and is sincerely going to meet with the Russians, with President Putin. This seems to me to be true. But I don't know if they'll let him.
— Let's imagine that the armed conflict has ended, ended with a truce or peace. Do you suppose that in this case both military leaders, Vladimir Zelensky and Vladimir Putin, would remain in their posts and continue to lead their countries as before?
— Vladimir Putin, of course, yes. I don't know what will happen to Zelensky. Of course, he has earned a lot of money, and a considerable part of this money is stored in American banks. So the Americans can easily (if Vladimir Zelensky survives) restrict his access to this money, which he considers his own. But most importantly, in the situation in which Ukraine finds itself, I cannot imagine that the transition to peaceful life was coordinated by the same person who ruled the country, successfully or not, during the war. During the Second World War, Winston Churchill proved himself to be a very successful military prime minister, but as soon as peace reigned, another was chosen.
— By the way, at a meeting of the UN Security Council, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia is ready to negotiate peace, but not about keeping the current Kiev regime in power. Do you think it was about Zelensky personally?
— Of course, I do not know exactly what Lavrov meant, but, in my opinion, he meant one of the two goals that were the purpose of the special military operation, that is, demilitarization and denazification. I think that's the point, and not the figure of Vladimir Zelensky.
— But denazification is somehow too generalized.
— For an ignorant person, this is a vague term, but it follows from the documents of the Nuremberg trials, which talked about denazification. It is curious that Russians (and Putin is a lawyer who studied international law) have always, even during the Soviet Union, been very careful that their trips abroad were somehow legally justified. And both of these concepts, denazification and demilitarization, were borrowed from the documents of the Nuremberg Trials, that is, approved by all the victorious countries in World War II.
— But the question is what does this mean for Ukraine.
- yes. We can guess whether the most radical groups in Kiev can be considered Nazis or integral nationalists. Some people will just call them patriots. But in Russia, they believe that they cannot rule in Kiev.
— Is it possible to expect that when the armed conflict ends or when more or less acceptable relations prevail between these countries, the counting of the dead, maimed, and material damage will begin, at such a moment there will be enough people who will ask: "Who is to blame? Was it worth it?" Will people evaluate their leaders as before? Or will their own people get even with one of them, or maybe both?
— Russia is likely to emerge victorious from this armed conflict. At least in the eyes of the Russians. Therefore, I think there will be no condemnation of Putin from the Russians. Ukrainians, of course, will have a different point of view. They will evaluate Vladimir Zelensky's figure and his role in this conflict in a different way. I often say that there are at least three Ukrainians: the Russian-speaking east, the west (Poles are more likely there) and the center, which I would call genuine Ukrainians who know Russian, but see themselves both in Europe and in Russia. They sympathize with Europe, but they have nothing against Russia. And all these three elements came into conflict. But how these three (at least, or maybe more) groups will evaluate not only the figure of Vladimir Zelensky, but also the political leadership in general, politicians in Kiev, that group of people who caused the death of half a million Ukrainians and the suffering of thousands of wounded, maimed and so on, it is difficult for me to imagine.
— It turns out, as in the chronicles: the war is over, and the evil that it sowed is alive.
— That's exactly it. This is almost always the case.
— Many of your theories and predictions have come true. Many have come to life. Still, I'm going to ask you again, even though we talked about it throughout the interview. When will it all end and how?
"That's exactly what I don't know. I guess what the Russian intentions are. And from a military-strategic point of view, they consist in the destruction of the strategic reserves of the Ukrainian army, primarily manpower, weapons, ammunition, weapons systems. Secondly, the systematic destruction of supply routes through which weapons from the West enter Ukraine. All this will be done gradually, methodically, so that there are as few losses as possible. It's important for them to minimize losses, but they don't care how long it takes. That is, I cannot give an exact answer to your question.
— And how will it end?
— And I can't tell you what.
— Let's hope that at least it will be over soon.
— Let's hope so.
— And yet, your words that you want an end to the armed conflict will cause rage among many. Do you understand this as a general?
— No, I understand this not as a general, but as a person. They believe that Russia has unprovoked attacked a good democratic state and is trying to destroy, break and seize it by military force in the spirit of its imperial policy. But all this is not so, and we have already talked about it, giving the figures. Russia wanted to protect the Russian-speaking population in the east, otherwise it would have sent many more soldiers to Ukraine. And it all started with the violent overthrow of the elected president. This needs to be repeated over and over again. He was overthrown by force, and some citizens said they did not want to live in such a state.
— Thank you for your assessment of the situation, for your observations as a person with extensive military experience. Thank you very much.
