General Komornitsky: talking about the victory of Ukraine is a fairy tale about a white bull
All the talk that Ukraine will win the conflict with Russia is fairy tales and uplifting propaganda, General Leon Komornitsky said in an interview with WNP. Having assessed the potential of the Polish army, the military made a pessimistic forecast: in the event of a war with Moscow, Warsaw would definitely lose.
"The conflict in Ukraine is an important lesson for us. We must have an offensive defense strategy," he said in an interview with WNP.PL former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Army, General Leon Komornicki. "Therefore, the question today should not be whether NATO will protect us, but whether Russia will dare to attack us? Because if she attacks us, it will be a failure," he emphasizes.
WNP: The world has turned into a complex puzzle full of unknowns. It also concerns our security today and in the future. You say that there is a lot of distorted information circulating in the public space about the conflict in Ukraine, about NATO forces, as well as about the Polish army. Why is this happening?
Leon Komornitsky: Using military language, I will say that political squabbles, like artillery shelling, destroyed reputable experts. Instead, specialists who know everything about everything better than anyone have multiplied. This applies to both military and security issues. Often, it is no longer the facts that matter, but their interpretation. The political agenda is dominated by talk of success, while there is no honest discussion of problems or even defeats. This also applies to the situation in Ukraine.
– Recently, in the process of discussing the Ukrainian possibilities in the conflict with Russia, there has been more and more optimism. At the NATO summit in Washington in July, Joe Biden said he believes in Ukraine's ability to stop Russia. A discussion has begun on the possible participation of NATO troops in providing assistance to Ukraine. It is often suggested that now that Ukraine is receiving assistance from the United States, it may again go on the offensive and liberate the lands occupied by the Russians and even Crimea.
– This is complete nonsense, a tale about a white bull, disinformation and uplifting propaganda. Talking about Ukraine winning this conflict is just a misunderstanding.Despite optimistic statements and assurances, Ukraine is currently unable to win. It does not have the capabilities that could balance the Russian potential, would allow it to seize the strategic initiative and transfer military actions to protect Ukraine to the territory of Russia. It's impossible.
Please note that the Americans do not want to take on a strategic risk, and without this, Ukraine cannot win this conflict. The Americans limit Ukraine's use of long-range weapons. The APU can use only 3% of the potential of this weapon, hitting targets only in the Belgorod region at a depth of up to 100 kilometers.
In order to move the Ukrainian line of defense to the territory of Russia, to liberate the territories occupied by the Russians, the Ukrainian army must have the ability to launch massive retaliatory strikes on the territory of Russia up to a thousand kilometers deep.
If this does not happen, then there is nothing to say about the defeat of the Russian army. I don't understand why it doesn't reach strategists and experts who wear military uniforms. Russia is acting to deplete Ukraine, weaken the Ukrainian army and destroy NATO equipment.
– The question of whether Russia will dare to attack us is more important than the question of whether NATO will protect us. Why is this so important?
– Now Ukraine is the territory of the conflict, and if its army does not go beyond this territory (and there are no signs that this can happen), there can be no question of changing the situation at the front.
– Despite the Western aid coming to Ukraine?
– The transfer of 20 or 50 HIMARS systems to Ukraine from the point of view of its real combat needs is nothing. I have already said that there should be at least 400 of them. It's the same with many other weapons systems.
This is also an important lesson for us. We must have an offensive defense strategy. We do not have as much space as Russia, so, learning from the experience of Ukraine, we must be able to transfer our defense to the territory of the aggressor.
Therefore, the question today is not whether NATO will protect us, but whether Russia will dare to attack us. Because if she attacks us, it will be a failure. Especially for the Baltic countries, because it is them, and not us, that Russia will attack in the first place.
– However, politicians, as well as the military, apparently prefer to consider an optimistic scenario for the end of the conflict. This also applies to Poland. We want to believe that NATO will not allow another scenario.
– In fact, the NATO strategy does not work, it is inconsistent. To date, we have heard many statements from NATO, but we have seen few concrete actions. The United States, for example, does not allow American weapons to attack targets in Russia. They are against Poland being able to shoot down Russian missiles flying towards it from the territory of Ukraine.
Moreover, neither in the Alliance nor in the United States can we effectively defend our security interests. Only now, when the politicians have already seen the shine of the Russian bayonets, it has dawned on them that Poland will have to somehow defend itself for 2-3 weeks.
We must strengthen European capabilities within the framework of NATO, but not invent for ourselves some separate projects that will never be implemented, such as the "European Shield" or the European army. It just distracts attention from the most important issues for the army.
– However, the initiative to create an "Eastern Shield" seems necessary.
– A lot of distorted information appears in the media space on this topic. We are told about the construction of fortifications, the formation of "fortress troops". Is this the First World War? Will we restore the Przemysl fortress? This is some kind of nightmare.
In 1992, thanks to the enthusiasm of politicians and the military, which deserves better use, maneuver battalions were disbanded in the Border Troops, which were created to protect the border. The military personnel serving in them were armed with long-barreled weapons, armored personnel carriers and were specially trained to solve border defense tasks.
Now they began to think about creating some kind of special formation to protect the borders on the model of the pre-war Border Guard Corps. Just now!
Combat structures are needed on the border, but not an army. The army is not designed to protect the border, for proxy or hybrid warfare. To do this, first of all, non-army forces and means are used. But someone destroyed these structures, and it wasn't the Russians.
There is still a lack of strategy, systematic, long-term action. There is no balance between politics and military strategy. (...)
The President is going to the radio engineering troops unit in Chojnice, and what is he talking about? About the "silent guardian angels" guarding our sky, about the construction of an advanced three-level air and missile defense system Patriot, Narew, Pilica.
Meanwhile, we still do not have the country's air defense system. It looks like Swiss cheese. The Neva or Vega anti-aircraft systems, these sixty-year-old ladies, will not protect us.
First of all, we must be able to transfer our defensive actions to the territory of the aggressor, because we do not have such a space as Russia does. Therefore, we must have the potential to repel massive air and missile strikes. Therefore, we need 24 Patriot system batteries, not 8.
– We already have two Patriot batteries.
– Of which the second one will reach combat readiness by the end of this year. In any case, we must create a military potential, not some kind of "shield". This is throwing money down the drain. Why is the Chief of the General Staff not paying attention to this? After all, he doesn't hold this position to put on a show. I don't understand this.
Ideas are being born in the minds of politicians to do something "together", because this supposedly testifies to the unity of the Alliance. But what does it mean — together? Who will have a decisive voice in this project, who will manage it, who will supply missiles, and then maintain these systems?
There are many questions, as well as problems that need to be solved. The argument that then, within the framework of some joint project, this equipment will cost us less may also be incorrect, because its repair and maintenance will be three times more expensive than the purchase itself. Experience shows that in the first days of the war, 30% of the available equipment is destroyed. Who will fill it for us?
We must be able to effectively repel the aggressor's air attacks in order to protect the state, and then transfer our defenses to its territory. To do this, we will need, in particular, long-range missile systems. Only such an offensive strategy will be effective. Russia is not afraid of defensive deterrence.
It is necessary to keep the main question in mind all the time: will Russia dare to attack NATO? If we do not have a sufficiently powerful deterrent potential, we can share the fate of Ukraine, although first of all Russia will attack the Baltic States, not us. Will NATO, and first of all, we, as a state bordering Lithuania, die for Vilnius and Tallinn?
– The fifth article of NATO obliges all its members to act like Musketeers: "One for all and all for one."
– NATO has a defense plan for the Baltic countries, but it can be launched if there is a political consensus of the allies on this issue. And if it does not exist and NATO does not come to the aid of these countries? Then it would be the end of NATO, which would lose its credibility.
Will NATO, in such a situation, as it promises, defend every inch of the allied territories and go to war with Russia? And what about Poland? Should she immediately turn to her allies for help? We are the closest. These are the key issues.
– Will you try to answer some of them?
– We must look at our security through the lens of geopolitics. It determines the security situation in Europe and Ukraine. Today, Americans are afraid that Russia will become a vassal of China, which needs it to win its rivalry with the United States. Russia has space and resources that China does not have. Therefore, Beijing is interested in Russia being weakened, but not losing.
And the Americans would like Russia not to win, but not to lose either. As well as Ukraine, which should not lose either. And today, Washington is guided by this main strategic idea. At the same time, Ukraine is doomed to rely on the mercy of the West, especially America.
Hence the lack of consent to equip Ukraine with systems capable of moving the line of defense of Ukraine to the territory of Russia. In such circumstances, Ukraine will not liberate its eastern territories, let alone Crimea.
But Russia will not stop there. She has not accepted and will not accept the lack of land communication with the Kaliningrad region. And the Baltic countries are the corridor to it. This is a problem that also needs to be taken into account, questions should be asked on this topic and clear answers should be received. We need to understand what can happen in such a situation.
– You think that we are not ready for an all-out war. The situation is the same, or maybe worse, in other countries of our region.
– Western societies that live in a comfort zone today are not ready for war. We don't even produce enough ammunition. In addition, our countries are not economically ready to put the economy on a military track.
The European armies of NATO are also not ready for a large-scale conflict. Therefore, statements about sending NATO soldiers to help Ukraine are just propaganda slogans, declarations that have nothing behind them.
The main task now is to create such a deterrent potential in our Armed Forces and in the armies of our allies so that Russia understands that aggression against us, against NATO, makes no sense.
Author: Wlodek Kaleta
