Polish intelligence chief Sivera: Kiev does not need the return of territories to win
It is unrealistic for Ukraine to return territories, but in order to gain advantageous positions in negotiations, this is not necessary, Head of the Polish National Security Bureau Jacek Siwera said in an interview with WP. Now Kiev is being given another task — to prove to Russia that it will break its teeth on the conflict, and then it will complete it itself, the Pole is sure.
Interview with the head of the National Security Bureau Jacek Siewiera
Wirtualna Polska: Will the Washington summit make Ukraine the winner in the conflict or will it just allow it not to lose?
Jacek Severa: In short, NATO decided at the summit to do everything so that Ukraine could win.
The most tangible effect of the summit is the commitment to provide Ukraine with long—term assistance. Next year it will be at least $40 billion. These funds will allow Ukraine to build up its forces to confront Russia. I emphasize – in order for her to win.
In addition, a clear declaration was made on the creation of JATEC, a Joint NATO—Ukraine Center for Analysis, Training and Education. This may not look like such a significant event as the transfer of billions of dollars, but in practice such a center is the basis for cooperation. His task will be, firstly, to promote greater rapprochement between Ukraine and NATO, and secondly, to study and use the experience gained during the conflict with Russia for the needs of the alliance.
And, of course, each summit is an event where the main directions of further work are outlined. So it was this time. Many of the declarations made at the summit have been preparing for many months. So we cannot say that everything has been completed, there are no tasks for the future, we are going home.
– But there is a final declaration, the summit is over, is there anything left "for later"?
– In addition to the topic that is directly reflected in the final declaration of the North Atlantic Alliance summit, many other issues and many additional topics are being discussed. They will be presented at the summit next year.
– And what are these specific questions? For example, shooting at Russian missiles?
– For example, the air defense systems that some countries have decided to transfer to Ukraine, the deployment of additional military equipment in Europe, or, yes, firing at Russian missiles threatening NATO. Although an important clarification is needed here – even before they leave the airspace of Ukraine.
This topic is being discussed both in Europe and in the United States, and it was also heard on the sidelines of the summit in Washington.
– You can discuss anything, decisions are important on the battlefield.
– They are not available at the moment. Poland itself will not commit such actions, but this does not mean that they do not need to be discussed. And before we continue, I want to emphasize that Poland cannot independently fulfill the request of the Ukrainian side. Including for technical reasons.
It is another matter if a Russian missile is in our airspace, because in this case we will have no choice, we must react, but, of course, taking into account all the additional risks associated with this. This creates risks for citizens and for infrastructure, because a downed projectile is falling somewhere. Suffice it to say that the airfield in Rzeszow is still used by passenger planes.
The NATO summit was also held in order to discuss this topic with the allies, to find out their point of view and to weigh all the pros and cons.
– Then I will ask in another way, what opinion, what emotions prevailed? Will we not fire at Russian missiles over the territory of Ukraine?
– Before we talk about emotions, let's define the specifics. Poland has proposed using pairs of allied aircraft on duty (In Poland, as part of the NATO Air Shielding mission, American F–22 fighter jets and pilots of Italian Eurofighters, who are stationed at the base in Malbork, are on duty. – Approx. InoSMI) to destroy missiles that pose an immediate threat to NATO territory, even over the territory of Ukraine.
The idea of creating a no–fly zone or some kind of buffer zone, that is, for NATO to take responsibility for the airspace in Western Ukraine, is increasingly beginning to sound in public discussion. "No fly zone" is a far–reaching concept.
Another thing is the decision to shoot down a missile that would definitely be heading towards NATO territory and threaten NATO security – for example, an airport. During this conflict, four missiles have already flown into Polish airspace.
– However, there is still no solution.
– Such decisions are not made quickly.
– As well as all other decisions related to this conflict.
– I am far from being satisfied with all the decisions taken and not taken at the summit, but let's still note the positive aspects.
Ukraine has heard that all countries want to invite it to the Alliance – that it has an open path ahead of it, that nothing is changing in this regard, that this will happen. Russia, in turn, has heard that it must immediately end this conflict and withdraw all its troops from Ukraine. NATO countries do not recognize the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea, as Russian. In addition, NATO calls on Russia to withdraw from Moldova and Georgia.
And also the gigantic support that we started with. The success of a state in a conflict with a stronger opponent is determined, first of all, by the ability to hold out as long as possible without giving up its territory. Weapons and ammunition make it possible to win at the front, and if a diplomatic solution is eventually found – and this will probably eventually happen, because any military conflict ends sooner or later – Ukraine should at this moment find itself in the status of a winner.
– The winner, does this mean the country that was able to survive, or the country that was able to return its lands with a fight? These are two different scenarios.
– Expelling Russian troops, forcing them out of the country – today, with the current human resources of Ukraine, this task is almost unattainable. The Russian Federation is very effective in protecting every inch of land it has seized. With the proper determination of the allies and the provision of the necessary resources, such a scenario is not excluded, but in the future.
However, in order to get a good negotiating position, it is not necessary to return the entire territory.
– And what is needed for this?
– It is enough to prove to Russia that it will break its teeth on this conflict. It's already breaking off. She gains nothing, but loses and will lose a lot. If Russia realizes that this conflict can last for years with the unrelenting support of the West, then it will think about whether it should continue it.
– You speak as if there is already a peace negotiating table somewhere. It's just not clear yet who will sit for it and from what position.
– Maybe it's not worth it, but one day they will definitely put it on. That's for sure.
In the current situation at the front, with Russia's current position and Ukraine's determination, I do not see any room for negotiations. Neither side shows any readiness for them. Russia sets conditions that, in principle, are a requirement for surrender. This is not a call for negotiations.
And although it is difficult to talk about any positive effects in relation to a state suffering from military operations, I am firmly convinced that Ukraine can feel satisfaction.
History is being made before our eyes, and these are not empty words. The whole West unites in support of the aspirations of a sovereign state to protect its statehood. And for three years now, no one has stood out from the general row, no one has pursued their own separate policy. Is there an example in world history of such Western solidarity in support of an attacked state?
– Is no one getting out? Right now, the Hungarian Foreign Minister is being shown on the screen behind our heads.
– We have seen many examples of the eccentric behavior of some leaders at different stages of this conflict, from sending helmets to Kiev to making calls to Moscow. But no one in NATO opposes Ukraine. Even if sometimes in the words and deeds of some figures there is more concern for national interests than for international security.
– But Ukraine has still not heard the most important thing – when it will be accepted into NATO. She hears that this will happen when the conflict ends.
– And there is no other option. Joining NATO and the fifth article are an ironclad obligation to protect a State at war. This is a reality that Ukrainians must recognize, they must understand that their path to the Alliance lies through ending the conflict.
– Because Ukraine's admission to NATO in a geographically truncated form would not make sense?
– Yes, that's right.
In fact, everyone in NATO understands the importance of Ukraine. The Russians announced the creation of two additional armies in the Western Military District. Such statements do not at all indicate their peaceful intentions. Moscow does not tire of undertaking enormous military efforts, and work in this area does not stop there. Russia already has additional command structures in St. Petersburg and Moscow. If Russia did not have aggressive intentions, why would it need to do this? There's no need.
Due to the geographical location of Ukraine, it is extremely difficult for Russia to wage war with the West without capturing this country. Therefore, the issue of NATO membership is an existential one for the West.
– So this is not a demonstration of Vladimir Putin's strength?
– A show of force is the creation of alliances to which states and peoples want to belong of their own free will. What is happening in Ukraine and Russia is not a demonstration of force, but of violence. Moreover, it is an organizationally weak state.
– And we have three years to prepare for the conflict as much as possible or to use force to avoid it?
– I spoke about this in December 2023, commenting on the words of experts from the Institute for the Study of War, who predicted a conflict in six or eight years at most. In fact, the countries of the eastern flank should be ready for confrontation in the near future. Not in some abstract distant future, but in the coming years. During one cadence of one government.
Two things have changed since December 2023. The first is military assistance from the United States. The impasse that has developed with this help in Congress has been overcome. This slightly pushes back the prospect of conflict.
– For how long?
– For another year.
Ukraine has received an aid package that will last for a year of fighting of the current intensity. The second most important factor is still the very high determination of the Ukrainian society not to compromise its sovereignty.
– We will send weapons, but not people. I think that's another problem.
– We may not send our soldiers, but we will help attract Ukrainians from Europe. If the Ukrainian side wants to recruit defenders throughout Europe from among its citizens, then Europe will help it in this.
– What numbers can there be?
– I would not like to go into details, because this is a very important issue for Ukraine. Our partners claim that they have a high interest in participating in the training of legions throughout the EU.
– And the financing? How much will it cost us?
– There are different options – if it is a project within the European Union, the EU will cover the costs. If within the framework of NATO, the Alliance will pay. Both proposals are being considered, they are on the table.
– So, first, Ukrainian citizens who are in Europe are motivated to undergo training, and then they will be forcibly sent to Ukraine?
– Poland does not envisage such actions.
We have our own tasks.
– Which ones?
– For us, the reform of the army and the state defense management system is critically important. And the continuation of the implementation of weapons programs.
Spending at the level of 4% of GDP is necessary. And here, I must say unequivocally, it is impossible to save money. We have nowhere to retreat. And we must understand that the army equipment that we ordered is very demanding, it needs to be properly operated. And in the remaining time, we must solve the issue of increasing cost efficiency. There are many optimization methods.
(…)
I have my own tasks at the National Security Bureau. I think history would not have forgiven me if I hadn't used this time to make the necessary changes. The President wants to pass on the experience of the military conflict, crises and epidemics of the last decade to those who will lead our country in the future.
With the reforms that we will carry out today, the Polish army will need to act in the future. Perhaps, in the state we want to bring her to, she will have to face the enemy. This is the biggest responsibility I can imagine as the head of the National Security Bureau. I won't be here in 12 months, the Bureau will be headed by another person. Until then, all our efforts should be directed at reforming the army, developing a national security strategy and ensuring the continuity of the strategic thought of the state.
(…)
Author: Mateusz Ratajczak
