Russia continues its offensive in the Donetsk region. According to the analysis of the DeepState project, which monitors and marks the movement of Russian troops on a map, movement was registered near five settlements in the region. In recent days, Russian forces have occupied four settlements, which further complicates the situation in the Velika Novosilka area. Tensions in the region continue to rise, prompting renewed calls for support from the Ukrainian government. What to expect… On the topic before FACTS, the o.z. colonel Vilis Tsurov, Chairman of the Board of the Union of Reserve Officers “Atlantic“.
- Col. Tsurov, what phase did the war in Ukraine enter? How do you see the events?
- It was high time that the USA and some European countries allowed the use in almost full volume of the long-range weapons delivered to Ukraine. It was a rather strange and illogical situation for almost three years, when Ukraine was given all kinds of weapons systems, but various restrictions were imposed on their use. Not to mention the time devoted to their study by highly educated Ukrainian military personnel. Even something more – a year ago, the West managed to force Ukraine to start from scratch, without preparation and the necessary armament, without aviation, without having completed its defensive operation, a counter-offensive, which was doomed to failure from the very beginning. And this is because the Russian Federation had a significant superiority in manpower, artillery and equipment. This global fear of Putin's nuclear blackmail has hybridized and forced Western politicians to be extremely cautious in making bold decisions to support Ukraine. The Ukrainian army knows best how to act with all forces and means, as long as it has freedom of action. The fact of this is the entry into the Kursk region, with which he once again wanted to prove that Russia is not capable of acting with nuclear means, even if attacked, which is what Europe fears the most. The permission to use the Western long-range systems in full volume came after Zelensky presented his “Victory Plan”, namely – showing the US and Europe violating the Budapest Agreement when Ukraine went from being the world's third nuclear power to a non-nuclear state. Then the USA, Great Britain and Russia undertake to guarantee its sovereignty. Then follows the line of Ukraine being accepted in the fastest way into NATO or... becoming a nuclear state, which is what Putin fears the most. These are the two main directions for limiting and stopping the war. This is the easiest way for the Ukrainians to become a nuclear power and the UN cannot intervene.
- The US allowed the use of missiles from Ukraine, which can be used to hit targets inside Russia - ATAKMS. Moscow responded with the Oreshnik ballistic missile. What are these weapons…
- According to data from open sources and after some professional analysis, Ukraine already has at least two types of missiles that can also be converted into carriers of nuclear weapons - one up to 700 km and one up to 1600 km, which have already passed tests. A few days ago, Zelensky announced that tactical missiles up to 500 km, also of Ukrainian production, are entering service with the Ukrainian army. Let's not forget that Ukraine has some of the largest reserves of plutonium and spent uranium in the world, and the production of a nuclear bomb of the type used at the end of World War II, according to world scientists, would not last longer than a month. And this is so given the scientific potential available to the country and the experience gained during the Soviet era.
Already at the first positive responses of the West for using the maximum long-range of their weapons in Russian territory, Putin managed to attract attention again with the use of the so-called "Oreshnik" rocket, which, according to Ukrainian intelligence, was launched from a range west of Astrakhan – about 850 km from the hit. There used to be a Soviet training ground there, where part of the Bulgarian Air Defense and Air Force went for exercises and to test weapons. If we analyze the “experiment“, we will see that the flight time according to data from various sources is about 35 minutes, and the speed in the final phase was about 3700 m/s. It follows that the trajectory of take-off and descent was quite steep and there was additional acceleration during descent. But the fact that there was no warhead, only charges to divide the warhead into 6 parts and then each of them into 6 (total of 36 warheads), indicates that it was an experimental item.
- What kind of escalation of tension does the use of these missiles lead to?
- According to Ukrainian intelligence, this is a modification of an old Soviet missile, the warhead of which is equipped with about 1300 kg of explosives (according to some sources up to 800 kg.), depending on the distance at which it will be launched. If we do a simple calculation – it will have up to 36 kg of explosives in each warhead. With a defeat zone of up to 0.25 sq. km (500x500 m), as the impact shows, there is no logic in thinking that this is some kind of super weapon. Moreover, a second missile has not yet been launched. Again, according to Ukrainian intelligence, Russia has about 10 such missiles, because when conducting experimental firings with a new weapon, in the case of a missile, it is necessary to have at least several items – up to 10, so that they can be analyzed in the event of unsuccessful attempts or during refinement, improvement, etc. According to information from military sources, the theory is that for the effectiveness of using cluster nuclear warheads, it is important that the fall distance of the individual warheads be large enough so that the strike zones of the individual warheads do not overlap depending on the charge, which is impossible to achieve at hypersonic speed in the last phase of flight. At hypersonic speed, dispersion is very small and practically all warheads fall on a small area. On the other hand, cluster munitions are relatively more expensive to manufacture even in experiments, more difficult to store and maintain, larger, more difficult to move and less reliable to use. As we see, the use of such missiles will not lead to a new escalation and higher tension, but will further reveal the purpose of the propaganda activity of intimidation from Moscow to the world.
- The conflict is approaching its third anniversary. Is Putin or Zelensky in a better position?
- It's hard to say because there is no winner yet. Putin hopes that the new President Trump, after taking office, will end the war by recognizing the territories seized by the Russian Federation and making compromises on the part of Zelensky, which is not at all acceptable to Ukraine. On the other hand, if Ukraine succeeds in becoming a nuclear power and declares intransigence to preserve its territorial integrity since 1991. with the price of using all funds incl. and nuclear weapons against Russia, this will have an impact on the course of the war. As we have seen so far, Putin has only threatened the West with nuclear weapons if it continues to help Ukraine. Putin also defined some "red lines", which I have already stopped counting. Why didn't Putin try to threaten Zelensky or anyone from Ukraine? Apparently, he doesn't have that courage yet, because the Ukrainians broke a lot of “red lines” and apparently they are not as naively afraid of his propaganda as the Western democracies are.
- What should the presence of North Korean soldiers on Russian territory tell us? What actions can the North Koreans take part in…
- First of all, the Putin regime's fear of mobilization problems in Russia. The victims are already numerous – we have almost 750,000 Russian servicemen killed or seriously wounded on the front lines. It becomes very difficult to replenish with quality fighters. In second place – losses at the army's main support logistics facilities – storage bases, oil processing plants, transportation facilities. In third place – tying third countries to their own problems, through promises to export resources and military technology, concluding “party cooperation agreements in the interests of ideology”, seeking allies from countries that have poor or no diplomatic relations with the US and the EU (North Korea, Iran, Syria, some authoritarian African countries, etc.). Already, Syria has fallen out of Moscow's active supporters since authoritarian President Bashar al-Assad left power and went into hiding in Moscow. The presence of North Korean soldiers will not change the course of the war much, but it can further strengthen the isolation towards Russia and North Korea, respectively increase the aid to Ukraine. As you can already see, South Korea has also increased its aid to Ukraine. It was probably explained to the North Koreans that they would be participating in a “peaceful special operation”, as the Russian military was told at the beginning of the war, but after the first casualties fell, communism in North Korea would come up with some excuse.
The area around me is known for “their religion” in North Korea they don't bury the bodies, they burn them.
So they are unlikely to bring the victims back, and it will all come down to the political propaganda typical of authoritarian societies. At the moment, I think that Putin will use these troops from Russian territory, mainly for the liberation of Kursk. He has already tried to use military personnel from other nationalities, but without the necessary success. And imagine what resources Russia will have to devote to the transportation and adaptation of North Korean troops who have no combat experience. We have seen them, as well as the troops of the Russian Federation, only in parades, typical of totalitarian systems.
- The new US President Donald Trump threatens to stop the war. What moves are there?
- President Trump probably has a plan. He is a businessman and thinks spatially and pragmatically, but at the moment there is still not much information in the media, if we exclude given assumptions. The US is the main donor to Ukraine. As a major nuclear power, they have the necessary tools to do so, even more so when it will be in the interest of the world and themselves. It will not be easy, but there are options, and they are again related to providing nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine. Russia has already made a similar move after delivering nuclear weapons to Belarus, and the regime there legitimized its use in its military doctrine. There is also an option that was released a little over a year ago. It is a NATO commitment to close the airspace over Ukraine within its territorial integrity since 1991. The world is facing World War III and only Ukraine can prevent its outbreak, naturally with the strong support of NATO and its members' strategic partners.
The Trump administration would not “give” easily to Putin parts of Ukraine,
because the US has “invested“ extremely large sums from its budget for its defense.
- In your opinion, a cessation of war under what conditions will be acceptable to both sides?
- In my opinion, for now there are no crossing points at which negotiations can be held to stop the war. If we comply with the international agreements within the framework of the UN, then an acceptable condition for stopping the war for Ukraine will be the restoration of the territorial borders of 1991. But this will not be in the interest of the Russian Federation, which brutally has already “adopted“ (“legalized“) the new territories – The Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya republics and Crimea, having introduced an assimilation policy in them. For a war to end, there must be a winner and a loser. Otherwise, a temporary truce can be reached, which will lead to a new, even more brutal war, and we see how brutal this one is. In this war, the winner can be the one who manages to fight it longer. Behind Ukraine is almost the entire democratic world, with the most highly industrialized industry, which is aware of the Russian threat. If this continues and the Ukrainians are willing to break free, they will be victorious. Their motivation is the protection of the family and the fatherland.
On the other side, they face an opponent with a completely different motivation – the soldier's fear of being killed by his own if he does not fight with foreigners.
But this cannot last long, because the generations are growing up and sooner or later the big contradiction will arise between the old Putin nomenclature and the young generation, which three years ago was 15 years old and now turns 18 and wants to study in the West. Not to mention the ever-escalating contradictions between the central government and the eighty-nine territorial units in Russia.
- How do you see the position of the EU. It's like European politicians fell silent after Trump won in the US?
- In my opinion, this is not the case, since the statements of the Secretary General of NATO – Mark Rutte, unequivocally show NATO's support for Ukraine, and this has been supported by almost all members, including the US. The US election did not affect countries such as South Korea, Australia and Japan, which increased their support for Ukraine. The problem is that this year in many countries in Europe elections were held and as seen everywhere the Russian hybrid war against the EU - and in particular against the countries - is having a big impact. The latest example is the rigging of the Romanian presidential election, where Russian interference was found. As long as democracy is inherently more naive than normal, Russia's hybrid attacks against it will be effective. As we can see, in the former socialist countries, only Bulgaria and Hungary still succumb to manipulative influence on the part of the Russian Federation, because the nostalgia for the “big brother” still works, even though in 1956 the Hungarians were slapped by him. The rest of the countries long ago broke the “umbilical cord” and are now well advanced in their development, especially in terms of defensive capabilities, hybrid defense and NATO requirements.
- Was Bulgaria adequate in its aid to Ukraine…
- I can't confirm! Everything was so “illegal“ that almost nothing was said to the public. Above, I mentioned the still “healthy relationship with the older brother”. For the other countries, we seem to know more. For Slovakia, for example, we even know how many billions of euros the EU reimbursed them for giving Soviet aviation and Soviet air defense to Kiev.
If we gave anything, it was insignificant or just enough, otherwise the media would explode! It is no secret that our army still uses mainly Soviet armaments, much of which has been rendered unusable, but is still kept, unfortunately, to support personnel to “serve” periodically. We lost a lot by not giving it to Ukraine and remained the only NATO country keeping the largest percentage of it! One day we will probably have to pay for disposal.
However, there was information in the media that the Ministry of Internal Affairs managed to get rid of a hundred old APCs, but with residual resources, and to sell them for use by Ukraine. Along with their transportation to Ukraine, the Ministry of Defense got rid of several self-propelled guns ("nails") that were no longer needed (understand "unusable"). There was information about old cartridges and various ammunition, RPGs and ammunition for them, emptying warehouses with gloves and body armor (probably from the ones we wore with disgust in Afghanistan and Iraq), etc., but it's still something. I hope they helped the Ukrainians! It seems that we have given a little more from the private sector of ammunition production, because there the reaction is more flexible, but of course against direct payment.
When announcing the conclusion of the contract for the new IRIS-T air defense systems, from an interview with the Minister of Defense, it became clear that Bulgaria received about 55-60 million from the EU to recover the funds from the aid given to Ukraine. euro, I am not sure about the exact amount that will be added to pay for the new air defense systems. Unlike other countries, where aid to Ukraine was announced in the amount of millions of euros and only Kiev had the right to disclose what it received, in our country such a practice was not applied at all. Perhaps that is why the reimbursement by the EU is small, regardless of the adopted regulations in the EU on the reimbursement of a unit of combat equipment. In general, Bulgaria managed to comply with the decision of the Alliance to deliver aid to Ukraine.