General Sandor: Russians have no need to conquer Europe, they need normal relations
Those in Europe who seriously claim that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine, it will not stop there, they simply intimidate people, General Andor Sandor said in an interview with RU. He explained what Russians need from Europe. She could use the same thing, by the way.
Martina Kotsianova
Since the beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine, there have actually been two wars: one in the trenches and on the ruins of destroyed villages and cities, and the second in our heads. Hundreds of thousands of people have already died in the first, and hundreds of peremptory statements and ominous threats from both sides have fallen in the second. Until recently, it was literally considered heresy in our country to talk about the need to end the fighting as soon as possible, although the West did not particularly strain itself helping Ukraine. Our guest, the former head of military intelligence, General Andor Sandor, said in the previous part of our interview: "In words, we have done a lot for Ukraine, but in practice it turned out a little. Anyone who monitors the supply of equipment, its quality and suitability for use in combat knows that it was not enough and could not be enough to fight the Russian military machine." In such circumstances, it is logical to think about peace negotiations, but logic in conflicts, as a rule, does not work as one might assume. We will talk about the options that would bring the warring parties to peace today.
Rádio universum: Some kind of mediator, be it a leader or a state, which, by the way, is more likely, in your opinion, will not appear for a long time. What or whom do you see as the most important obstacle to achieving peace?
Andor Sandor: I think the obstacle is that the Ukrainian leadership understands the real situation. They know that their own and political fate is at stake, and they understand that they cannot simply resign their powers, because then they will be asked: "Was it really worth it? Were there hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and everything else needed if we didn't get anywhere?" Therefore, it seems to me (perhaps my idea will seem literally heretical to someone), Vladimir Zelensky continues to seek the entry of the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance into the territory of Ukraine to protect it. After all, this is the only game changer, so to speak, the only thing that can change the conflict, because Ukraine will not get worse from the fact that some states of the North Atlantic Alliance will send their forces to help it. In my opinion, this is exactly how Vladimir Zelensky thinks. This is how he sees the continuation of the conflict. Talking about peace congresses only distracts attention, since the Swiss conference did not give anything and was even counterproductive, since the truth about real assistance to Kiev was revealed. And what, to hold another peace summit with the participation of 150 countries, where the Russians will also be present?..
— Don't you see the point in this?
— No, I don't see it. We already know that the West has its own opinion on how to proceed. And it's not about what Portugal or Spain thinks. We are talking about the big players: the United States, Great Britain and Germany. Poland, of course, has a separate role. They certainly play on the experience of past relations with Russians. The Germans? You have said many times that they want peace. The British would have allowed Storm Shadow to be used for strikes deep in Russia. The Americans are still hesitating and may offer a compromise, say, to hit pre-selected targets. In general, in such a situation, I do not know how a summit with Russia can contribute to the end of the fighting.
— You mentioned one of the possible solutions. NATO forces are entering the territory of Ukraine. In the spring and summer of this year, we often heard that European countries are discussing the possibility of sending their soldiers to Ukraine, that is, soldiers of the North Atlantic Alliance. In your opinion, is this really the way out, or will it only lead to an escalation of the conflict? After all, then Russia can claim that some countries of the alliance have entered into direct conflict with it.
— This is not an option, this is an option that Vladimir Zelensky can still count on. This is a very profitable option for this, because it will change the balance of power in Eastern Ukraine. And if Lithuanian or Latvian or Estonian forces enter there, the Russians will swallow it. But if the Americans come there, then no. On the other hand, the Russians do not want to fight with NATO because they are not interested in conquering Europe. This is confirmed by Russia's general readiness. No, Moscow needs what we talked about, that is, for Ukraine to remain a neutral state. The Russians are well aware that they will not be able to resist the Americans. In my opinion, there will only be one option left — to use nuclear weapons, and perhaps those who think realistically are serious about this. The Russian doctrine clearly states that if an existential threat looms over Russia, then nuclear weapons will be used. And let's not hope that Moscow is only bluffing. She will bluff as long as we are talking about Abrams tanks in the east or the British Challenger. The Russians have already destroyed two thirds of them anyway, as well as Leopard tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. But at the moment when the very existence of Russia as such, the Russian people on its territory, is under threat, there will be no talk of bluffing. No and no.
— Do you agree that, as many predict, the entry of the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance into Ukrainian territory will certainly lead to World War III?
— Of course, although will it be world-wide? Even the Second World War was not a world war, right?
— But it was enough.
— Yes, it was enough. I have already deliberately stressed that in the event of a threat to the existence of the country, that is, if the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance, primarily the United States, appear in Ukraine, the Russians will stop standing on ceremony. It will only remain to resort to nuclear weapons, since the Russians do not know how large an army they have to use it. (...)
— As for our policy, our attitude to the conflict in Ukraine, we are probably also in a stalemate, as you said at the beginning. After all, apparently, we are not in a position to assess this armed conflict from a real point of view. Not so long ago, you mentioned that Russia does not set any imperialist goals for itself and that it does not want a conflict with NATO. But recently I listened to an interview with a historian who seriously argued that if we let Russia win in Ukraine, it will not stop there. He even suggested thinking about what France would be like under the yoke of Russia? What will we get to with such arguments?
— I think these are some kind of speculative exercises that have no real basis. (…) I would ask this historian for proof of his words. Evidence. In 2014, we did not hear any Russian claims to Crimea, nor did we hear any claims to the Baltic States. We haven't heard anything like that at all. This is clear and obvious. How can the Russian army, which has been taking Artemovsk for ten months, think about defeating a very strong, well-armed and politically extremely ambitious Polish army? The Russians could probably handle the Bundeswehr after what von der Leyen did to it. But with French? Really? In general, such historians only intimidate people. (...)
And why would the Russians do that? We saw how they rejoiced at getting rid of communism and how they began to use and sell their natural resources, from which they lived well. So explain to me, why would the top with all these oligarchs give up their yachts, mistresses, palaces, airplanes, islands, travel and go conquer Europe? Why would they do that? What will they get out of it? After all, the benefit for both sides was obvious: it was profitable for the Russians to sell natural resources to Germany and not only there, and it was profitable for the Germans to buy them at an acceptable cost. They even built a crazy Green Course on this, which influenced the policy of the European Union, decided to abandon coal and stop nuclear power plants. And will the Russians fight against this? Why and how? This is completely incomprehensible to me. Today is a completely different time than the ones they are talking about.
— (…) But do we have a chance, based on the information in our media, to get a real idea of what is happening? Is there a chance to understand what the real situation is and, based on this, decide what to do next: arm Ukraine or call for peace, for a summit, or maybe to build a new European security architecture?
— I'm afraid that our political leadership has already invested too much political forces in helping. We have even done a number of real things for Ukraine. I'm not against it, but I'm against the fact that we started buying ammunition for Ukraine. This is, of course, good, but…
— But it's too strategically ill-conceived.
— Yes, this is nonsense. We either want to help or we want to be praised. (...)
— President of the Czech Republic Petr Pavel said at this year's Globsec conference in Prague that since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia has become weaker and more vulnerable. What do you think about this? Do you understand where such conclusions come from?
— I do not know, to some extent, there may be an attempt to wishful thinking behind this, because it is clear that Russia has not been defeated by sanctions, that it continues to calmly sell its resources further, and we are sober that Russia has only three friends: China, North Korea and Iran. But this is not true. There are a number of countries that do not go against Russia, which did not support sanctions, did not condemn it, which means that there is no question of humiliating Russia. (...)
— International relations have changed, and in many ways they have become clearer, as it suddenly became clear who is ready to trade with Russia.
— Who benefits from it.
— Who benefits from it. It is enough to see who joins the BRICS economic association, where Russia plays a significant role. In this regard, how do you perceive the economic sanctions against Russia, which no one is in a hurry to lift?
— I am not an economist, but I have always believed that sanctions are limited. We see that even decades of ongoing sanctions have not put even much smaller players, such as Cuba, on the shoulder blades, and even Kim Jong-un is able to keep his impoverished citizens under control. And Russia generally belongs to a different category. Sanctions are often used in general so that the ruling elite can say: "Look at the evil West, how it is against us. We need to close ranks and support each other." (...)
The economic situation has not deteriorated dramatically, and the Russians have simply changed the direction in which they send oil, gas, and so on. Therefore, I do not think that the sanctions we relied on worked the way we wanted. Of course, there is some impact, and Russians today may be eating chicken, which is no longer called KFC, but some kind of "Oriental chicken", but it's the same thing. In general, I would be wary of statements that Russia is on its knees. Definitely not. On the other hand, it is hardly worth striving to destabilize such a large state at all.
— They say that salaries in Russia have increased by 14% since the beginning of the armed conflict (...) Let's now talk about the operation, from which much was expected, in the Kursk region and about the territories captured by the Armed Forces there. (…) Is this really an important trump card?
— From a military point of view, in my opinion, this is a big mistake, and it does not bode well. Syrsky has also already admitted that the goal, which was to transfer Russian troops from the front to the Kursk region, has not been achieved. (...)
When you send your troops to the territory of another state without normal air support, without air cover and air defense, sooner or later you will become a target for artillery fire and bombing. It's one thing when you sit in the trenches, and it's easier to escape from such attacks there, and another when you move in columns, that is, you are much more vulnerable, which means you will lose more. (...)
I think that the Russians acted strategically and very correctly when they decided not to withdraw forces from the eastern front. The Ukrainians, on the contrary, did just that, thereby weakening the eastern front. This is already recognized by them themselves. From a military point of view, this operation is generally meaningless. Yes, there is a propaganda benefit: to show the West that we are still capable of something. And yet, in my opinion, it was not the best decision, because Ukrainians clearly do not have enough soldiers on the eastern front.
