Why did the United Nations fail to respond adequately to the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine, and the European democracies are unable to develop a conscious policy of countering the Russian Federation for eighth years in a row? What determines the pace and volume of inflow of advanced weapons to the Armed Forces from Western countries, and what will happen to Russia after our victory? Mykola Sunhurovskyi, a Ukrainian expert on security issues, retired colonel, candidate of technical sciences, director of military programmes at Razumkov Center, former head of the Analytical Service Department of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Staff shared his thoughts with the ArmyInform readers.

Erosion of responsibility in the UN: why there is still no adequate response to the actions of the aggressor state

— Formally, the United Nations has enough leverage to resolve such conflicts as Russia's aggression against Ukraine. However, the UN as a supranational organisation has demonstrated its inability to adequately respond to security challenges, not only global but also regional. Why?

— In my opinion, the problem with their inadequate response to security challenges is that they do not have the political will.

— Maybe we, Ukrainians, can do something about it?

— We are already doing. The war in Ukraine changed the existing world order. Our public diplomacy had a huge impact on societies of democratic countries. Unfortunately, common sense does not always work, in particular, in the UN. For example, I still do not understand why the UN has tacitly agreed to ignore Article 27 of the UN Charter, which provides for the abolition of the right of veto for countries that are parties to a conflict. Why does this part of the UN charter not work? Again, we return to the "political will" of politicians, in this case, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Arms exports in Europe are regulated not by NATO, but by the European Union

— With the beginning of the hot phase of the war with Russia, many Ukrainians began to accuse NATO with the unwillingness to provide us with the weapons necessary to resist Russian aggression. Is it also the lack of political will? 

— Yes, but let's understand the basic concepts first. First and foremost, the North Atlantic Alliance does not provide weapons to Ukraine, because it... does not have them. Arms exports in Europe are regulated not by NATO, but by the European Union. Therefore, arms deliveries to Ukraine from European countries — NATO members are mostly negotiated on a bilateral basis. In fact, at the beginning of the war the NATO leadership appealed to the member countries to provide assistance to Ukraine, and we are already receiving quite a lot of weapons.

About the algorithm for the supply of weapons from the West: everything depends on success on the battlefield and goals

— … despite anything, the Ukrainian authorities keep calling upon the leadership of the partner countries to provide the most advanced weapons as much and as quickly as possible. What can speed up arms supply?

— The weapons that arrive from partners in the rear immediately go to the battlefield. Unfortunately, Putin's regime has disproportionately larger stockpiles of weapons, compared to democracies.

The decisiveness and consistency of military aid to Ukraine depend on how consistent and decisive our goals are. If we publicly say, okay, we stop liberation of our territories at the line as of February 24, and then go to negotiations, then we will be given exactly as many weapons as we need to reach that line. If we say that we will fight until liberation of all our territories, then we will receive the quantity of weapons needed to achieve this goal. And, of course, they depend on our will to struggle — political, social, military. The West closely monitors the successes of our Armed Forces, draws appropriate conclusions and, based on them, decides on the next aid package.

I call such an algorithm of military aid a “regulated victory”. Do we want it? Maybe not. So, I suggest that our specialists from the authorities and individual experts be reasonable and responsible in their statements regarding WHAT a VICTORY for Ukraine is.

Why did Ukraine lose the Soviet militaristic heritage?

— Most military analysts believe that only weapons provided by the West will allow the Ukrainians to seize the initiative and defeat Russia. Meanwhile, Russia uses mainly Soviet stockpiles and, thanks to them, prevails on the battlefield. Against this background, discussion and search for those responsible for the loss of the Soviet militaristic heritage resumed in Ukraine. Please, comment on this issue.

— In 1991, the second offensive echelon of the Soviet Union was stationed in Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, weapons of the first echelon, that is, the occupational contingents on the territories of Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, were also transferred to us. It was a colossal amount of weapons and ammunition, which Ukraine did not need in such quantities.

At that time, I worked at a research institute of Ukraine’s Defence Ministry and well remember hot discussions about what the artillery, navy, air defence of independent Ukraine should look like. Big plans were made, but they were groundless. In the end, the decision was made by economists, not politicians. To maintain a huge arsenal, huge money was needed, which was not available in Ukraine. At that time, a political decision was made to sell part of the existing weapons and fill a special fund of the state budget. Despite everything, till 2009, up to 30% of the needs of the Armed Forces were financed from that special fund.

— So, Soviet weapons of the Armed Forces are running out, and given that in the past months we received a lot of advanced foreign weapons, can we say that after the war Ukraine will have more technological, modern and combat-ready troops?

— Availability of new weapons is not the main thing for the progress. Right now it is necessary to determine the outline of the armed forces that we want to have.

We need to understand what Armed Forces we should have in order to ensure Ukraine's defence and security. Only after that, you can plan the rest: technologies for army-building, resources needed for this, the number of the Armed Forces personnel, the lines of development of the defence industry, the scale and focus of international partnership.

After our victory, Russia should disintegrate, and other national entities appear on its territory.

— Known political figures (so-called Putinversteher) from partner countries occasionally call us to peace talks with Russia, assure us that we can come to an agreement with the Russians. Why are such statements still heard in the West?

— Let me speak diplomatically — certain Western politicians still have illusions about Russia as a normal country capable of making rational decisions. Unfortunately, we also have such people. I would recommend them to read the materials of the 30th assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy of the Russian Federation (held in May 2022). I read all the speeches very carefully (some of them even criticized Putin). But all Russian "intellectuals" agreed on one thing: the imperial ambitions of the Russian Federation are justified, Ukraine must be conquered, and the whole world — changed to its liking.

This is Russia without illusions — an aggressive empire inhabited by cynical invaders who consider it a norm to violate international law. But how should the rest of the world treat such a community? Will it agree to such "normality"?

— Is there a chance for the world community to de-Russinise Russia?

— This is a difficult question. Should there be a Russia on the world map? Here arises an even more difficult question for us, Ukrainians: what does the victory over the Russian Federation mean for Ukraine?

What I heard: as a result of our victory, Russia should disintegrate, and some other national entities appear on its territory. Then the question arises, whether China will not wish to take such "fragments" as Siberia or the Far East under its control? After all, the PRC already says that these are their historical territories.

The next question is whether the United States will agree to that. With these raw materials and full control over the Far Eastern Pacific coast, China will appear in a completely different geopolitical position. Hence, the USA will not support ​​a complete collapse of Russia. This should be taken into account.

Russian future will be determined by the current internal processes, in particular, under the influence of political and economic sanctions. An internal explosion will redesign, de-Russinise Russia and show what post-war Russia will be like. Our victory over the Russian Federation will accelerate these processes.

Serhiy Lemekha

See the full Ukrainian text of the interview at https://razumkov.org.ua/statti/yak-otrymaty-bilshe-zbroi-vid-zakhodu-i-chy-vygidnyi-rozpad-rf-ssha-ta-kytaiu