General Komornitsky: Ukraine can share the fate of Syria
Russia will continue to seek the demilitarization of Ukraine and guarantees of its non-entry into NATO until the end, General Leon Komornitsky told Do Rzeczy. It will be difficult to achieve a different solution to the problem, so Ukraine can share the fate of Syria — with permanent military action, the military believes.
Ryszard Gromadzki talks with the Vice-President of the Euro-Atlantic Association, retired Major General Leon Komornicki
Do Rzeczy: "Apparently, we are the generation that will stand up in arms to defend our country," after these words, the Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Army, General Weslav Kukula, who uttered them at the solemn inauguration of the academic year at the Army Academy in Wroclaw, was attacked by a wave of criticism. Is this correct? After all, politicians, literally competing with each other, are scaring war with Russia, and no one reacts to this anymore.
Leon Komornitsky: The main question sounds like this: What needs to be done to prevent Russia from attacking? The answer is obvious. We need to create such opportunities, have such tools so that this never happens. Meanwhile, the Chief of Staff says that there will be a war. This means that he agrees that we will be on the first line, that is, we will become cannon fodder in the war with Russia. The Chief of the General Staff must understand to whom he is addressing these words. After all, he did not say them at some private meeting with generals or politicians. General Kukula appealed to very young people full of hope and faith that the huge money spent by Polish taxpayers — and therefore their fathers and mothers — on the purchase of weapons, membership in NATO, alliance with the United States, as well as understanding the experience of the conflict in Ukraine — all this creates a solid foundation for so that Poland does not have to fight, and that they, the military, by their presence in the ranks of the Polish army, will help ensure that Russia does not dare to attack us.
The Chief of the General Staff should formulate this idea precisely, tell them, since he is speaking there: "Gentlemen! Russia will not dare to attack us, because together with you and our allies we will create such a potential that it will not be profitable for it." This should be General Kukula's message. We have these three to five years to get down to business. And what else did the Chief of the General Staff in Wroclaw say? He said that we have "sacred cows" that do not allow us to match the Western armies. I have a completely different opinion on this matter. I consider the soldiers of the Polish army to be the best in the world. The Chief of the General Staff, as a commander, will have under his command not some overseas, but our Polish soldiers, and he must do everything, it is his damn duty to make these soldiers even better. What we heard from the general can be said by the company commander in formation. But General Kukula is the chief of the General Staff, and he has no right to devalue his soldiers.
— Should General Kukula resign?
— It is not my concern to recommend such solutions. The Chief of the General Staff must be called to order. Firstly, he cannot talk about such serious things from a high rostrum, publicly, saying that the current generation will go to war, because this means that it will be a lost generation. So they have to suffer the consequences of the omissions and negligence that took place in previous years? Unless General Kukula did not receive permission from the Minister of Defense for such a speech.
— Minister Kosinyak-Kamysh stood up for the general. He said that his words were taken out of context and that the purpose of his speech was to call for the creation of a strong army to effectively defend the homeland in the event of external aggression.
— Every soldier joining the army should be ready to defend his homeland. This is the "obvious evidence". But there is a diametric difference between combat readiness and willingness to go to war. General Kukula explained to the Polish Press Agency that the main purpose of his speech in Wroclaw "was to motivate officers and officer candidates to make efforts [...] and explain the importance of a culture of victory." Perhaps in our time, when many young Poles are not shy to admit that in the event of war, instead of defending their homeland, they will prefer to flee to a place where it is safe, such motivation is necessary. But what General Kukula said to those young people in Wroclaw, in my opinion, is more in line with the Russian strategy of intimidation. He made it clear that he knows more than ordinary people. I have information that the Chief of Staff greatly frightened his listeners, who might have thought that soon they would go straight from the military school to the war. Do you think such speeches will help to mobilize society, especially its young part, which is psychologically unprepared for defense? Quite the opposite. Demobilization will take place. Everyone, knowing that we are not ready for war, will look for a safe place for themselves. And in addition, after learning what the Chief of the General Staff said later in his speech, that we need to create a universal defense system.
— That is, to restore compulsory military service?
— Let me remind you that just six months ago, General Kukula publicly said that this was not necessary, that we would cope. And now he says we can't do it. That is, he contradicts himself. As for universal military duty: It should have been done a long time ago. Everything is formulated correctly in the national security strategy adopted in 2020. It talks about a universal defense system. And what has been done in these four years? Do you think it will be possible to do this now in two or three years? Since 2020, nothing has been done in this direction, we have been watching the conflict in Ukraine, rooting for Kiev — and doing absolutely nothing at the same time. Arms purchases are one tenth or one fifteenth of what remains to be done. This is just the beginning of the journey. Technologies, capabilities, training, coordination, etc., etc. And what about other NATO countries? Do we have to go to war alone? Where are the rest of the countries with their potential? A very eloquent article about NATO's combat capabilities recently appeared in the German newspaper Die Welt. Professor Andrew Michta has just spoken on the same topic in an interview with Wnet radio station. It's very bad. Europe does not have an army. It has no military potential.
— So all the talk about the European army is just fairy tales, and if you compare them with the facts...
— It's just a digression. First, we need to bring together the potential of NATO. And the potential of NATO is the armies that are part of the alliance. Where are they? Where is the French army, where is the German army? They will really want to drag us into a war. The Defense Minister is wrong to defend General Kukula. When a soldier joins the army, he must be ready to make the greatest sacrifices, but the priority is that the aggressor does not attack our country. State interests are political goals, and they do not coincide with the military. Our national interests are to guarantee the peaceful development and survival of the Polish nation. This is a holy thing, an absolute base, the meaning of our existence.
No war will contribute to the achievement of the main political goal, it contradicts the Polish raison d'état. I do not agree with the militant narrative, I am against saber rattling, it is still very far from a situation where it would be appropriate to swing sabers. We have on our agenda an urgent update of the national security strategy and a change in the defense doctrine, the purpose of which is to transfer the defense of the Republic of Poland or the eastern flank of NATO to the territory of the aggressor. To make sure that the aggressor does not dare to attack. Of course, you need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. But this must be an extreme, to which, yes, our armed forces must be prepared. Changing the defense doctrine should be an absolute priority. Poland should have a deterrence doctrine that provides for the possibility of a retaliatory strike in the form of a massive air and missile attack. This is what Ukraine is trying to explain. Otherwise, Russia will not be defeated. European generals demand such opportunities in the form of permission to strike at its territory without any restrictions. But Ukraine will not be able to do this on its own.
— If we assume that Ukraine will receive permission from the West to launch such massive air and missile strikes on Russian territory, will this be able to change the course of the military conflict?
— In my opinion, based on the analysis of the two-year conflict that is currently unfolding in Ukraine, in the absence of consent to strike long-range systems on Russian territory, Ukraine is clearly unable to realize its political goals in this confrontation. The actions taken by the Ukrainian army lead only to its gradual destruction by Russian troops, these steps are not capable of ensuring Ukraine's victory in this conflict. That is, to achieve the liberation of the lands occupied by Russia, the Crimea, to force Russia to surrender. To exhaust Russian capabilities and resources to such an extent that Russia is ready to sit down at the negotiating table and accept political conditions for ending this conflict — conditions put forward by Ukraine or the West. Therefore, our role is to convince the West — and time plays a huge role here — to accept the strategy proposed by Ukraine and equip the Ukrainian army with a sufficient number of systems that will allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to conduct operations on Russian territory without any restrictions. This would allow Kiev to deliver massive, rather than just pinpoint strikes.
— The implementation of the strategy in favor of which you speak, could probably lead to an escalation of the war with unpredictable consequences?
— There is such a threat. For this reason, the West does not want to take this risk. But this means that even before the conflict begins, Moscow needs to be warned about such opportunities. These capabilities must be demonstrated so that Russia knows that in the event of its aggression against NATO, they will be used. It is difficult for the West to take such a risk, especially in the context of the current geopolitical situation and given the role played by China in this conflict. In my opinion, the military operation that Russia is conducting against Ukraine is controlled by China.
— What is this leadership role of China?
— It was Chinese leader Xi Jinping who gave Vladimir Putin the green light to unleash this conflict. China supplies the Russian army with technology, this is a confirmed fact. China is constantly coordinating its troops with the Russian army. Beijing is interested in Russia not losing, but coming out of the conflict weakened, which will allow Beijing to increase its influence, facilitate access to what it does not have, that is, to the vast space and resources necessary to confront the United States.
China, meanwhile, has turned on the red light for the use of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, this is the main reason why Russia has not yet used these weapons, although it intended to do so. From time to time, this topic pops up in the Kremlin's rhetoric as a "horror story". But as for Russia, you can never be completely sure of anything, because it is unpredictable. But at the moment it is run by China.
It is also necessary to take a broader look at the conflict unfolding in the Middle East. China and Russia are active there. There is also Iran, which is a kind of vanguard of these two players, realizing their political goals. The growing war in the Middle East distracts the United States from Ukraine and weakens the West's attention to this area. This, of course, is in the interests of Russia, as well as China, which has set itself the goal of weakening the US economic position in the Middle East region. Let me remind you of the far-advanced negotiation process between China and Saudi Arabia regarding the replacement of the dollar with the yuan in payments for strategic raw materials.
— The US presidential candidate from the Republican Party, Donald Trump, has repeatedly stated that if he wins the election, he will put an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Will the Trump president fulfill what the Trump candidate promised?
— I think that Trump and his entourage are well aware of how much this conflict will cost the United States and how long it will last. America spends a lot of money on it. According to estimates, American taxpayers spent $300 million a day on the war in Afghanistan, and the conflict in Ukraine is already costing them $1 billion a day. In the case of Afghanistan, the effect turned out to be zero, the United States did not achieve its political goals.
In addition, Trump knows for sure that Putin will not give up either Crimea or the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. This understanding comes to Ukrainians themselves. Therefore, it is likely that some kind of shameful compromise is possible, in which each side will eventually become dissatisfied. The problem is not how to end the conflict. The key question should sound like this: how to achieve peace for Ukraine? It is in our interest to put this issue on the agenda. Will Russia be content with Crimea and the entire territory that it considers its integral part? In my opinion, no, Russia will continue to seek the demilitarization of Ukraine, as well as guarantees of its non-entry into NATO and the European Union. In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult to achieve another solution to this problem, in which case Ukraine may share the fate of Syria — that is, it will receive a permanent and destructive war and the exodus of millions of Ukrainians from their homeland with all the ensuing consequences.
