As part of the interviews conducted by the MENA Research Center, Denys Kolesnyk, a French consultant and analyst, spoke with Colonel Rtd. Ihor Kozii, a military expert at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (Ukraine), to discuss security-related issues.
Russia has changed the Minister of Defence and the head of the Security Council. Patrushev’s whereabouts are currently unknown. Shoigu’s position is expected to be filled by an economist with a background in economic affairs. What does this reshuffle signify, and where did it come from?
Well, if we look closely at who Shoigu is, we will see a very interesting career from a party functionary to the Head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and then the Minister of Defence — a role he has held for quite some time.
At the same time, during his tenure several interesting events took place within the Ministry of Defence. For instance, multiple criminal cases were opened against his deputies and it is unclear whether these were solely due to corruption committed by his direct subordinates or whether it they were linked to more influential circles.
We should also remember the scandal involving Prigozhin, who repeatedly accused both Shoigu and Gerasimov of inadequately managing the provision and delivery of weapons.
Given the current sanctions on the Russian economy, Putin’s decision to appoint Andrey Belousov, an economist as Minister of Defence aims to strengthen the economic aspects of the ministry. This move is intended not only to adapt the ministry to market realities but also to find ways to improve the situation within the defence industry, including managing orders and other relevant aspects.
By the way, even in Ukraine, we observe a situation where a part of the management is unable to generate new ideas.
This lack of innovation, coupled with Russia’s tendency to steal or copy other countries’ ideas and implement them quickly thanks to its defence industry, presents a challenge not only for Russia but also for Ukraine. If Russia does introduce new ideas and approaches to weapons development, it will be quite difficult for Ukraine to compete.
A few days ago, the Russians started operations in the Kharkiv area. In your opinion, is this a new offensive direction, or rather some manoeuvres to divert Ukraine’s defence forces from the main front to defend the Kharkiv line on the border?
I think this offensive tries to solve both issues. Firstly, I cannot say that this direction is detached from the Donetsk-Luhansk direction, or in this case, rather Luhansk. But it most likely combines both directions from the point of view of operational strategy. This means that Russia will try to capture Kupyansk in order to reach a certain river barrier.
On the other hand, we see that Vovchansk is the primary target, with the strike directed more towards Kupyansk than Kharkiv because it is located between the Oskil and the Siverskyi Donets rivers. The Russians want to connect these two areas. That is, the group operating in the Luhansk sector should reach Kupyansk, and similarly, the group operating in the Vovchansk sector should also reach Kupyansk and connect there.
If we look very carefully at the geography of this region, we will see that a vast area could come under the control of this grouping. This would allow Russia to make a serious claim on additional territories in the Kharkiv region. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility that they will try to incorporate it into their Constitution by the end of the year.
Is there anything Ukraine can do to counter this?
Ukraine today finds itself in a difficult situation for several reasons. First of all, the consideration of the law on mobilisation by the Security, Defence and Intelligence Committee of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) took extremely long time, especially given the context of war. This prolonged delay is frustrating, as it serves no practical purpose, and, in fact, the Russian Federation benefited from it.
While it’s hard to definitively say if there is a conspiracy connecting one action to another, it is evident that the main political department of the Russian Federation Armed Forces is actively assessing and developing different scenarios for their military.
By the way, an interesting event took place about two days ago, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine decided to adopt certain approaches allowing the individuals who refuse to bear arms for religious reasons to dodge the draft. In my opinion, this is influenced by the Moscow Patriarchate, which is no longer a purely religious structure but one involved in information gathering and sabotage within Ukraine. They will likely exploit this ruling to disrupt mobilisation efforts and hinder effective decision-making even more.
As for weapons, there have been numerous comments on this issue, so it may not require further elaboration here. However, I remember reading an article in an Italian newspaper, explaining that Ukraine is setting up a closed underground weapons production facility. This is a positive development, but in my opinion, this should have been initiated much earlier, let’s say in 2014, or even before.
And while we’re talking weapons, how do you see the connection between the reorientation of US arms supplies to Israel after the 7 October Hamas attack and the war between Russia and Ukraine, given the impact on Ukrainian interests and resources?
We are probably starting to forget the origins of this conflict and the theories surrounding it. For instance, let’s consider the Silk Road. The United States claimed to have found an alternative route, transporting goods across the Red Sea to Israel and then distributing them across Europe. This posed a challenge to China and the Russian Federation.
Moscow, seeking to remain a global player, is closely monitoring these developments. Russia used a small conflict to bring China to its side. Additionally, Russia is leveraging its cooperation with sanctioned Iran to fuel the conflict between Iran and Israel. And Hamas became the main executor of this plan. Money, in the form of oil, gas and certain technologies, was the reward that China agreed to. Iran also took advantage of this situation by supplying Hamas with weapons to position itself as a significant leader in the conflict with Israel.
In fact, the Russian Federation took advantage of the fact that some of the US weapons were diverted from Ukraine to Israel. But how will it develop further? The Arab-Israeli wars have already taken place more than once, and the outcome is almost always the same – sooner or later the war will be over. Israel, with the support of the United States, will win. Although some humanitarian aspects cause outrage among various activists, for example, as we saw during the Eurovision Song Contest or the speeches of pro-Palestinian activists in the United States. These issues exist and are not going away.
For some reason, however, no one tries to raise the question with Palestine as to why it does not control the terrorist structures that operate freely on its territory, and, moreover, can actually replace its security or law enforcement agencies.
This creates an interesting dynamic. On the one hand, Israel is accused of killing civilians, but this civilian population chooses the government that turns a blind eye to the actions of Hamas and other terrorist structures. And it is not yet clear if this is the official policy of the state of Palestine towards not only towards Israel, but also towards Hamas. Moreover, Hamas could become an integral part of the state, which poses a significant danger.
Just last week, Washington warned Israel against conducting an operation in the city of Rafah, but Israel proceeded anyway. Why is America holding back Israel and preventing it from completing its plans? And why did Israel, which is, after all, dependent on the US, ignore these warnings?
Most likely, because Israel realised much earlier that it is impossible to survive as a state without its own serious weapons production. A significant amount of Israeli weapons are not only available for sale abroad, but also sold and used by the Israeli armed forces. In other words, there is no such thing as a surplus of weapons, as Ukraine’s experience has shown.
But as far as Israel is concerned, elements of corruption, if they arise, are swiftly condemned and addressed. In times of war, the concern is shared by all citizens, including the children of high-ranking officials who serve in the armed forces. Israel mandates military service for all its citizens, ensuring a robust defense. And this goes in contrast with Ukraine, where the level of corruption only increased with the war and where children of politicians and prominent citizens don’t serve in the army by using their parents’ connections.
Most likely, the United States’ attempt to maintain a leading role in terms of international law is facing serious resistance from the Russian Federation, which acts as a terrorist state. China, too, operates in the international law sphere, sometimes adhering to it and sometimes supporting rogue states and new centers of terrorism. This situation has persisted since the Soviet Union era, but Europe has often overlooked it.
Israel seeks to pursue an independent policy likely because it has a better understanding of regional dynamics. What we see today does not mean that the US will stop supplying weapons to Israel. Moreover, trade through third countries, as practiced by the Russian Federation using Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and other Central Asian countries, remains an option.
Therefore, America’s threats regarding Rafah are not critical for Israel. Tel Aviv understands that even if Washington cuts off some supply channels, it will not significantly affect the Israeli army’s operational capabilities.
Let’s shift to Yemen, where the Houthis control most of the territory and only a few days ago they attacked ships again. The US and Britain have formed a coalition and periodically bomb Houthi positions, but this has not brought the expected results. Why did the bombing of the Houthis fail to achieve their goal? And how could this crisis potentially be resolved?
I would like to quote one of Israel’s defence ministers, who said in early 2014 that World War III had already begun, despite the fact that back then there were talks about hybrid threats and conflicts happening under the threshold of an armed conflict.
In fact, when Russia or China try to find allies or create a coalition to oppose the idea of a new Entente, we must understand that the Houthis are just like those terrorist organisations that are now trying to conflict with Israel, such as Hamas.
And they didn’t create themselves, and it’s clear that they need substantial funding. Russia and China, while unable to overtly support them, have interests in these conflicts. Iran, previously isolated, is breaking through this isolation with support from China and Russia, that includes, but limited to, the supply of cheap oil and gas to China.
On the other hand, we should clearly understand that Iran will benefit in this regard because it will receive technology for weapons development. Russia and China also try to impose on Iran the support of these small regimes, terrorist structures that are emerging in the post-Soviet space. And Iran agrees to this, in fact, it became one of the main supplier of weapons, sometimes ideology, human resources, when necessary.
So it is very difficult to answer your question about how to resolve this conflict. The Ukrainian foreign minister suggested that victory over Russia is possible either through military means or by creating a broad, powerful coalition. Every time the UK or the US uses military force in the Middle East, it weakens Ukraine’s position, a scenario that benefits Russia.
How can we do something different here? This is a really serious question, and we need to think at least about what can be created, at least concerning an intermediary such as Iran, I mean an intermediary between Russia and China all the way to terrorist groups, such as Hamas.
And finally, a question of a broader, let’s say geopolitical nature. Why is the West showing weakness and not helping Ukraine enough in its struggle against Russia? And what prospects do you see for resolving global conflicts and building a new world order in the next five years?
By my profession and occupation, I am more inclined to view things in terms of conflictology or power dynamics rather than via the lens of political issues. Practically speaking, I believe that the so-called weakening of the West has happened again because of corruption.
The Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation created vast networks of agents in almost every country in the world. We hear about it from time to time, sometimes there are cases of people working for Soviets and later for Russians in very prominent positions, such as one of the most recent cases – a commander of the Eurocorps, a Pole, who was dismissed due to counterintelligence concern.
We have also forgotten the Czech Republic dismissing three highly respected generals for their contacts with Russian agents. Similar incidents have occurred at the political level and within special services. For instance, scandals have emerged in Austria, Germany, and the United States, where Russian agents were discovered. We can also recall a French lieutenant colonel, stationed at a NATO base in Naples, who was detained by the French DGSI for passing information to the Russian SVR.
In general, some benefit from the market economy and the so-called common prosperity of mankind, others don’t. And the Russians have a clear understanding of how to use it to its benefit. By the way, the diamonds are mined in Yakutia, the Sakha Republic, in the largest mine in Russia. Do you remember what happened when we imposed sanctions on diamonds? The answer is obvious: diamonds were still being sold. Even the previous US president, Donald Trump, who visited Moscow and had certain contacts there, is also an example.
Russia, through certain structures, is constantly present in general political life of foreign states. I am not trying to demonize it or say that it is omnipresent, but Britain is an example of this presence. Although Britain is an island with its own peculiarities, and the Russians are trying to play the Scotland or Ireland card there. Cultural things, such as St. Andrew’s cross that is used both by the Scottish regiment and the Russian marine, with different color scheme though, have important and can be played. The relationship between the royal family and Nicholas II also has its significance. It is possible to play such things and leverage them to Russia’s benefit.
Another aspect is the ambitions of the current government of the Russian Federation, which seeks to return Russia to the status of a great empire. This is due to a certain psychological state of the person who is currently leading this country. We have seen the processes that preceded this: political assassinations and other steps that gradually brought Putin to power. In fact, the people who were involved in these processes foresaw this problem, and now we are facing it.
I don’t think I can say that the global order will change and another “Yalta-2” is to emerge. It seems that the elite of powerful countries are gradually getting rid of their rose-glasses, although sometimes we still hear inexplicable statements, such as the US Secretary of Defence’s statement about preventing Ukraine from bombing Russian oil refineries. And it is clear that he made this statement for a reason. Obviously, some lobbyists are protecting certain interests — this all plays is favorable for Russia.
As for the solution to this issue, the answer lies on the surface and it is very simple: we should arm Ukraine. And I understand that not everything in Ukraine is perfect in terms of internal politics or with regard to reforms. But this country was seriously ill until February 2022, and now it is beginning to realize that many things need to change dramatically.
For instance, at one time, the military had a term called military diplomacy and Ukraine needs military diplomacy. In the Czech Republic, the Minister of Defence had a British adviser. Why can’t we bring back this tool and bring these advisers in an official capacity to the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine or the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? This should be done.
As for the statements of the NATO Secretary General, they are sometimes understandable, but sometimes they go in line with the interests of the Russian Federation. For instance, statements about NATO troops in Ukraine can be misinterpreted. While French soldiers and NATO soldiers are different entities, such messages can be exploited by Russian propaganda.
The French President, Emmanuel Macron, was much more smart in this regard when he announced the possible presence of French soldiers in Ukraine in the future. He was not talking about NATO soldiers, but French soldiers. However, will Macron initiate the creation of a new Entente? I would like to believe so, and history gives him a chance.
Today, Germany can stand side by side with France and prove that they are on the side of good. When it finally happens, and when Ukraine receives everything it needs, including assistance in reforming institutions, then the so-called global redistribution of power will fade into the background. And, yes, Russia will be angry and will still try to find hot spots, but when the main issue is resolved, it will be possible to address the smaller issues. This is where Ukraine can help, as it has repeatedly assisted NATO in several operations.
Is there a fear in the West of a Russian loss? It is often said that there is a fear in the West of a possible collapse of Russia and loss of control over nuclear weapons. There is also the idea that Russia cannot afford to lose, and if it sees that it is losing, it will use tactical nuclear weapons or do something extraordinary.
But in my opinion, this is not about fears, but about interests. The interests of every single person who has influence on politics and tries to influence political decisions. Their dependence on certain economic levers and corruption schemes is dominant today, and Russia uses this to the fullest. It is a bit ridiculous not to see this.
For instance, I find it intriguing that Macron, a relatively young president, was the one to take the initiative, while others did not. Why is it that in Ukraine, it is the younger generation driving change, while the older generation does not? I have a theory, but this is a very delicate issue that needs to be studied.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
