We don't beat the enemy with numbers, but with skills.
You recently stated: "Much will depend on the situation in the East. If they hit the wall, they need a victory by cutting off Mykolaiv, Odesa, and the whole south of Ukraine." What is the current situation in the Donbas and southern Ukraine?
In general, the situation is threatening both in Donbas and in the south of the country. We see that we are dealing with a superior enemy force. Especially the advantage is significant in technique. The enemy has specific tasks. First of all, these are the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Then there is the land corridor to Crimea, which they have already partially secured, taking into account the positions that they have today. The next step is control over the Black Sea and a corridor to Transdniestria.
Heavy fighting is taking place in the Donetsk region. Our UAF is holding back the enemy. But the russians are gaining force. And they have really extensive resources there. In particular, the prevailing forces in technique, which is very important during the war.
As for the Mykolaiv and Southern direction, here, too, the enemy's forces are superior. The enemy has slightly changed tactics, partially turning to defense and entrenching itself. In my opinion, the purpose of such tactics is to accumulate forces and resources. As soon as they see that something is not working for them in the east, they will continue their offensive southward.
The situation in the East stretches the offensive in time.
I believe that now or later the enemy will continue to attack the Mykolaiv and Odesa regions. Because for them, the south of Ukraine is extremely important. The question of the South is a matter of time. They will certainly try to cut it off from Ukraine.
What is the quantitative ratio between our forces and the occupiers? After the defense of Mykolaiv, you said that you dealt with the army "with the armament of Soviet equipment and some of the latest measures". What has changed? What weapons did the enemy bring up? Who are we dealing with on the battlefield?
Globally and strategically, they outperform us in the ability to strike at the rear from the sky. These are first of all cruise missiles. We can't strike back. Although once we did it on their missile cruiser Moskva. And this is already a victory for us.
However, they continue to destroy our infrastructure. Because they predominate very strongly in barrel and rocket artillery. And also in combat vehicles, primarily tanks. They have a lot of them. They break through the defense thanks to the tanks. And then they are "properly" get a grip and entrench. Because in modern warfare, it is the tank that is a very serious weapon that causes severe damage.
How far do you think the enemy has advanced in the East and South over the past week?
The last week wasn't active enough. In the Mykolaiv direction, they practically did not advance at all. There is only one locality where they entered. However, only because we got out of it. From a tactical point of view, they are in the lowlands there. We understand that we will better control it from other positions and heights. This is a different kind of military proficiency.
In the Donetsk direction, the enemy has advanced a little bit. But not because of the defeat of our troops, but because of the competent maneuvering of our forces, thus occupying advantageous positions. Therefore, this advance is not of strategic importance. This is still a tactical level. Maneuvering of both our and enemy forces continues. So I can't say that something has changed dramatically during this week.
I think we're doing very well. And we need this time to deliver the necessary weapons. In particular, artillery, which we do not have enough to properly deter the enemy. We are very much looking forward to it from our partners.
Personally, I am very often directly under fire on the front lines. So I know how much we need artillery. Because we respond to ten of their shots with one or two. Our advantage is the accuracy of our shots because we can't afford to fire them the way they do. We don't beat the enemy with numbers, but with skills. That's how we work.
"We need more artillery to take the initiative."
What kind of weapons do we need most to strengthen?
In addition to deterring the enemy, we also need to return territories. Therefore, artillery and armored combat vehicles are needed. In particular, tanks. Some of our partners are helping to supply these weapons. But it takes time. If this is Soviet equipment, we need less of it, because we know how to use it. At the same time, those mobilized should still be taught to work on it. It's not enough to just put them in a vehicle and send them into battle. It is necessary to achieve maximum efficiency.
If this is the promised technique from abroad – and this is artillery – then it will take more time. I am sure that in this time we will be able to survive. Because we still have reserves, our artillery, tanks, and combat vehicles.
However, when we talk about a turning point in the war, we really need more artillery to take the initiative. Especially long-range artillery.
The russians are talking about their intention to seize Odesa. How realistic is this threat, given that they could also attack from the Transnistrian side, using their own troops and the army of the unrecognized republic?
There is always such a threat. This is war. We understand that one wrong move can completely change the situation in a particular direction. Therefore, this threat exists. We minimize it here. In Mykolaiv, the military and local residents are constantly working to strengthen the city and the defense of the region. All this unites us greatly.
It is important to emphasize that the further fate of the land corridor will depend on the situation in Mykolaiv. We are also well aware of this. We also realize how important it is to keep Odesa at the seaside. Therefore, when I talk about the south, I always say: without Mykolaiv, there is no Odesa, and without Odesa, there is no Mykolaiv. Now, these two cities hold each other. Like the military twins, they protect our entire South.
There is definitely a threat of a breakthrough from Transdniestria. It should be minimized. We have enough patriots here, people who are ready to defend our country. But there is modern war. We need technique.
It is impossible to stop the enemy with automatic rifles themselves, the enemy who is advancing on us with thousands of tanks and combat vehicles with artillery. Otherwise, it's just throwing people to their deaths. So I think all the equipment that our partners have promised us will make a big difference. It will give an advantage to our forces.
"Moldova must now decide whether it is pro-russian or pro-European country."
I will quote another interview where you said: "Additional units, instead of defending the East or Kyiv, are standing near occupied Moldova – Transdniestria. There are very large warehouses of weapons and ammunition. When we think about where to get the ammunition, we must keep in mind the places where they are. There are a lot of them there. When the 14th Army came out of there, a lot was left behind. I think we will always reach an agreement with our friends from Moldova." How to make an arrangement? And with whom from Moldova?
When I talked about friends, I was referring to partners from Moldova. In my opinion, there is a great chance now. Regarding all the unrecognized republics that the russian federation made after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Now there is an opportunity to resolve all territorial issues of the former USSR countries.
Because now we can see how russia works. It will never stop. It constantly bites off parts of territories, and establishes its quasi-republics, with the help of which it also tries to kill. In my opinion, Moldova now has to decide for itself whether it is pro-russian or pro-European with democratic values. Ukraine is already fighting for this. Therefore, they have the opportunity to solve the issue of Transdniestria with the help of their army.
We have our own interests there. There are really huge ammunition depots there, which would greatly help us in repelling aggression. Here the question is not even about being ready to enter another territory. We are ready to help Moldova resolve the issue of Transdniestria. Because our enemies are standing there, the russian army, which is killing our people, committing a real genocide of Ukrainians. Our task is to destroy the enemy there as well. I think we could do it if the leadership, the President of Moldova agreed with our President. Both countries would only benefit from this.
"For the last ten years, everyone has lived with the understanding that there will be no more land war in the 21st century"
Russian propagandists spread information about the seizure of large stocks in warehouses in Balakliya. Is this true?
I also checked this out and can say for sure that the information is not true on the scale they claim. We remember that there were explosions in the warehouses of Balakliya. And most of the ammunition there is not suitable for use. And everything suitable was taken to warehouses in the center. Or have already been used. Therefore, perhaps we are talking about a small amount of what is left. However, these are definitely not the "Smerch" that russian propaganda shows.
The occupiers continue to spread information about preparations for "provocations" and "terrorist acts" in the south. In particular, about attacks on warehouses with ammonia in the port of Odesa. Is the Ukrainian military ready for such provocations? And to the enemy's use of chemical weapons?
Unfortunately, I don't think we are 100% ready for provocations and the use of chemical weapons. Although we need to prepare for this. It's a shame, but I've seen only a few military personnel who have gas masks or atropine pills (from a sarin attack). Or with the resources needed when the enemy uses nuclear weapons. I think we are more unprepared than ready for all of this.
Then who should be responsible for this?
We have the management of radiation, chemical, and biological protection units. The relevant services must ensure this. The responsibility is actually everyone's. Politicians and the military must guarantee such protection.
I have one more question: Who is responsible for the fact that the enemy surpasses us in artillery? For the fact that the enemy has more aircraft? Perhaps this is the common responsibility of all of us. For the last ten years, everyone has lived with the understanding that there will be no more land war in the 21st century. A nuclear strike was thought of as something unrealistic. Everyone forgot about the Soviet first-aid kits, where there were medicines against radiation. We have none of this. But our volunteers and the army are working on this issue. I think all this will be provided soon.
Is there still a threat of seizure of the South Ukraine NPP?
Of course, such a threat remains. Because there is a large group of the enemy in the Mykolaiv direction. We're standing on defense. And we're ready for it. It all depends on how the particular brigade will hold up. From a military point of view, we have a defense. However, I think the near future will show how events will develop in this direction.
"Putin may use tactical nuclear weapons when he realizes he's losing face"
There is constant assistance to the enemy through the Crimean bridge in the Kakhovka and Kherson directions, to Snihurivka, Velyka Oleksandrivka, and Mariupol directions. At the beginning of April, you said, "It would be good if our partners would provide us with something we could hit the Crimean bridge with. This would solve a lot of problems."
It seems to me that our partners will not provide us with the weapons we would like. So that we can shell for more than 100 km. However, many negotiations are classified as "secret". In particular, regarding such weapons.
When we talk about howitzers, they are field weapons that hit the enemy on our territory for 40-50 km. And everything else, the missiles that are launched further, is already politics. From the point of view of our partners and russia, this is already a provocation.
We understand that the United States – our main partner – has interests in other countries as well. We can remember Iran trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons. The United States is holding back both Iran and russia. There are also North Korea, Taiwan, and China. So they're trying to maneuver between all of this so they don't provoke more than is already happening. And they will handle such political weapons very carefully. This applies to serious air defense and medium-range missiles.
Still, I think they will be afraid to give us such weapons. We are given weapons only for deterrence. In the future, though, anything is possible. It will depend on whether russia uses more serious weapons than it does now. In terms of modern land warfare, if you close your eyes and imagine that there are no nuclear weapons, the enemy already uses whatever he has in his arsenal. That's all their power! And the russian federation is not as strong as they said.
If we had a few more years, Ukraine would have reached the same level. However, if we keep in mind nuclear weapons, this is a completely different step. I think that if they apply it somewhere, then the supplies to us will be completely different. Of course, we wouldn't want such a scenario.
Recently, more and more people are talking about the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons by the aggressor. We remember well the words of Putin, who promised that if our partners would help Ukraine, the whole world would see consequences it had never seen.
I also agree that they will not use strategic nuclear weapons – there is no point. But if we reach the borders, defeat them, and they realize that they are losing face, they can use tactical nuclear weapons.
After all, we all understand that the russian federation has come here to show the whole world the "power" of the russian army. Instead, he fell into the trap of not being able to leave without at least some kind of victory. They need it. "If they see that they are losing it because we are winning, and we do not allow them to achieve their goals, Putin can use nuclear weapons. Tactical, in certain areas, to force us to capitulate or make some political concessions.
If there are the first uses of these weapons, it will be with minimal losses. Just to demonstrate crossing this line. And what could be next is indiscriminate strikes.
Boris Johnson warned of an unequivocal and instant reaction from the UK if russia decides to take such a step. Wouldn't that hold Putin back?
I doubt that this will lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the British against the russian federation.
However, it is only a guess. Because this question is very important. We understand that the use of nuclear weapons will be the beginning of a Third World Nuclear War.
I would like to hope that these statements will restrain russia. Because threats from Putin are one thing, and actions are another. The diplomacy works. And russia understands the possible consequences. They outlined them for themselves.
"I'm not sure that in two or three weeks the war will recede"
Recently, the head of the Kryvyi Rih MRA, Oleksandr Vilkul, announced a possible offensive on the city. How likely is a breakthrough here?
They were already advancing on Kryvyi Rih, where we stopped them in the same way we did at Mykolaiv. But what I see is the enemies entrenched on the territory of the Kherson region.
According to my forecasts, the enemy will gain a foothold in the Kherson region until the pseudo-referendum is held. I know that they even pour concrete over some defensive positions. We will see everything that will happen after the so-called referendum and May 9. I don't doubt that they will make new plans, given the territories they still want to seize.
Adviser to the Head of the President's Office Oleksiy Arestovych, on the other hand, predicted that within two to three weeks the active phase of hostilities would subside. Do you have a completely different assessment and possible scenario?
What do you mean by "subside"? If we compare the situation with the first days of the war and the last week and a half, when the russian federation withdrew troops from the Kyiv region, the fighting began to recede. These troops left, entered the territory of the russian federation, and now returned to the Donetsk direction. Local fighting continues there. Therefore, I think that the fights will subside only when they reach their goal. And this is the border of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Question: How will they be determined? What is enough for them in the South? Is the Kherson region enough for them to move on to defense and gain a foothold? Whether it will be necessary to reach Transdniestria.
I believe that they will play out exactly the latter scenario. In other words: if they reach the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, they will continue to finish it off. That's why I'm not sure that in two or three weeks the war will recede.
In your opinion, how long can this "great battle" for the Donbas and the South last?
It all depends on many factors. It is necessary to take into account the forces and resources that the russian federation has concentrated. According to my information, they withdrew forces from the Kryvyi Rih direction and sent a lot of missile artillery and hardware through Kakhovka. Also, a lot will depend on our forces. Whether we will get the promised equipment from the partners and how many troops we will relocate.
Therefore, it is impossible to say that it will be a week. If they see equipment relocation, they will pull up their own. It is difficult to predict anything. If we clearly knew that they have 500 tanks, a certain amount of combat vehicles and artillery, and we have a counterweight, then we could talk about time. It would be a matter of military skills. But the fighting continues. They can last a week or two, or maybe a month or more. If we have a proper defense.
The same Boris Johnson suggested that the war could continue until the end of 2023. Is this scenario of a long war - for years - realistic?
This scenario is possible. The issue here is that we will need resources to do this. No matter what they say, a lot will depend on the partners. If they give us the forces and resources, of course, we will fight. We have a lot of examples of wars of independence that have been waged for years.
Our priority is not to give up our position. Do not give up our territories in any case.
This war has already made Ukraine strong. And it will make it even stronger. We must understand that we need to return all territories without exception. We shouldn't be negotiating to give up anything or to lease something to someone for 100 years. All this will play to russia's advantage.
As long as the entire democratic and civilized world is support us, and we are witnessing it, Ukraine must demonstrate its readiness to fight for its own. If we give something away, then the attitude toward us will be corresponding.
"Through Ukraine, NATO has the opportunity to make sure that russia never even thought of threatening the countries of the Alliance"
Your parliamentary colleague Yehor Chernev, who is also in the field, recently said: "After an interview with a retired US colonel on CNN about problems with the supply of US military aid to the front, I am taking this issue under my control". At the same time, the UAF General Staff asked to refrain from commenting on logistics and supplies.
I can say that on our battlefield there are the weapons that our partners have announced.
Yes, there is no heavy artillery. But I don't think it was about artillery cannons that "disappeared" on the territory of Ukraine. Or which ones are being stolen.
I think there may be questions about humanitarian aid. Because there is always "war is when one fights to the last ditch and another gets rich". There will always be people ready to profit from it. If Yehor Chernev feels the strength to deal with this and take control, of course, it should be done.
Recently, the media reported that the Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz removed heavy weapons from the list of what Berlin can supply Ukraine with. In your opinion, why did Germany take this position?
From the very beginning, we saw that Germany's position was more pro-russian than pro-Ukrainian. Now it is still politically trying to have it both ways, get gas and resources from russia.
Perhaps it sees cooperation with the aggressor in the future, so turns a blind eye to the European values that it promoted itself.
In my opinion, this is a weakness. In particular, Germany will see in the long run how all this will respond to it. While the entire civilized world understands the threat, supports Ukraine, and recognizes the aggressor who is committing genocide here, they are taking insufficient steps. This indicates the weakness of their political structure.
When one country in the EU falls out of the common path, there are already a lot of questions about it. I will repeat once again - this is an anti-Ukrainian position. Because now we have a genocide of the Ukrainian people. History shows that Germany has already made certain mistakes. I wish they wouldn't repeat them. Wouldn't fall into the same trap.
I will recall again one of your interviews, where you directly stated that NATO countries are afraid of russia: "A lot of countries are really cowards... The fact that they don't close the sky is real cowardice. NATO is showing its weakness." Why do NATO countries show such cowardice? There will be no reaction from the Alliance, even if the aggressor uses nuclear weapons?
Let's just say they showed cowardice. Now the situation has slightly changed. Because they saw how Ukraine stands. They didn't believe it from the very beginning.
A few days before the War, I spoke with a high-ranking official of the US Department of Defense during the Trump administration, who is still very authoritative in military circles, he is a general. When I asked about helping Ukraine in case of Putin's attack, three days before the invasion, he said to me: "If you will hold on, then yes." But then I heard skepticism in his words. They thought we would be defeated in three or five days. Therefore, they said that they did not want their weapons to be shown to the whole world, as was the case in Afghanistan.
Further, NATO monitored the situation in Ukraine. We have proved that we will not give up and are ready to fight for our independence. And now respect for us as an independent state has increased tenfold. We started to be regarded differently. Most NATO countries want to be associated with us. So they want to help, not stand by.
The Alliance also has a chance to show its strength. Because for them, the issue is not only in Ukraine. Russia reacts to the statements of the Baltic states and Finland. The aggressor threatens these countries, which means NATO. Through Ukraine, NATO has the opportunity to make sure that russia never even thought of threatening the countries of the Alliance.
Therefore, in my assessment, somewhere at the very beginning, the Alliance showed cowardice. If Ukraine was cowardly and morally weaker, we could be seized in a week. They would watch it and send out some notes of protest. We have shown that Ukraine is completely different. NATO is no longer afraid of russia, because Ukraine has proved to the whole world that the aggressor country is not so scary.
