Talking to David Pyne.
My first, very crucial question is in a sense related to our last conversation. What reaction did Vivek Ramaswamy’s peace plan have? That's interesting, due to the fact that it's most likely the only specified initiative of candidates in American presidential primaries.
– Thank you for letting me talk to you again. Indeed, Vivek Ramaswamy is the only candidate who has a circumstantial peace plan. Of course, president Trump besides declared that he would have ended this war within 24 hours. However, erstwhile asked how he would do it, he replied that he would endanger Putin and told him that if he did not halt the war, we would send much more weapons to Ukraine. This so does not seem very promising. The only way to truly end the war, recognised by Vivek Ramaswamy, is to halt all Western military support. Without this support, Ukraine will simply not be able to proceed the war. It is not capable of producing most types of weapons and ammunition, unlike Russia, which is almost entirely self-sufficient in the field of arms production. Vivek's plan has sparked various reactions in the United States. In the bottom-up Republican structures, he was considered very sensible and gained quite a few support there. However, in the United States we have Republican neoconservative elites. A fewer months ago, during the presidential debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Ramaswamy was the only 1 who made a clear postulate: the end of Ukraine's support. politician DeSantis besides spoke, who, however, made the interruption of aid to Ukraine conditional on an increase, even doubling, by the countries of the European Union. This would not be the best solution, though it would be closer to our position. Vivek Ramaswamy’s plan was the only 1 to presume a Korean-style ceasefire. The fundamental difference would be that it would not be forced by American troops. Given the fact that the Russians have declared no interest in the subsequent territories, beyond the western part of the Donetsk region, I believe that specified a plan could bring peace between Russia and Ukraine, as well as NATO, for many decades. Of course, the evidence on the permanent neutrality of Ukraine and its stay outside NATO should be drawn up.
What about the views of American society on this subject? Have any public opinion polls been conducted among the average Americans, not just Republican supporters, about this continuing financial support and another Kiev?
– A fresh poll of American public opinion conducted for CNN shows a clear breakthrough. It shows that 55% of Americans are against any form of aid to Ukraine, even humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicine. They are tired of supporting this war, which proved to be a strategical defeat of the West. In Biden's intentions, it was intended to weaken Russia, while leading to a general strengthening of Russia. On the 1 hand, she lost about 50,000 dead and wounded soldiers and respective 1000 military equipment, but still... As far as Republican voters are concerned, 71% of them are against any additional assistance to Ukraine, possibly outside intelligence cooperation, any exchange of information. But as far as the cost goes... We had a series of natural disasters here in the United States, during which the authorities seemingly had no interest in the destiny of the Americans. Meanwhile, now we have politics, like this is simply a war for everything. Each country should be governed by patriots who prosecute the most crucial interests of their own country. Of course, in the case of Russia and especially China, this can mostly be harmful to the remainder of the world. But besides for Russia, and for Poland, and for another patriot governments are something good. However, China is simply a country with far-reaching goals beyond their borders.
And what are the estimated costs so far incurred by the United States, by American taxpayers, to support Ukraine? Are there any reliable estimates? due to the fact that we're all wondering how much it's cost...
– In the United States, it is usually referred to as $170 billion, including $47 billion for military equipment. But the Ukrainian government itself claims that the value of this support is already $196 billion. I would urge myself to give religion to the Ukrainian authorities in this case due to the fact that they have no reason to miss the fact in this case. So we have almost $200 billion. Meanwhile, US citizens who have lost their homes, president Biden admitted $700 each. If we convert our support to about 28 million people inactive surviving in Ukraine, it turns out that we spend around $7,000 on 1 Ukrainian, or 10 times more. Meanwhile, American abroad policy is based on the pursuit of liberal hegemony. It was her that he spoke against in his fresh speech in Nixon's presidential library Vivek Ramaswamy. It is simply a quest for a liberal empire. I'm against her as a national conservative. We should limit our imperial commitment. I support the withdrawal of our land troops from Europe and the Far East. I am in favour of a policy of balance of power in which the United States could usage its land forces only in the event of any massive invasion of the NATO country. Furthermore, NATO and the European Union should be liable for specified a defence against possible aggression.
What you say reminds me of the concepts of any American scholars, specified as prof. John Mearsheimer, who analyses the current situation from realistic positions. Was specified intellectual, technological background an inspiration for Ramaswamy’s peace plan? Or does he enjoy the support of these intellectual circles?
– I did not talk straight to prof. Mearsheimer, nor did I hear any comments on Vivek Ramaswamy's plan. But these views seem similar. Mearsheimer even advocates leaving NATO by the United States, which would be a further solution than Vivek's proposals. Ramaswamy proposes a kind of bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation, possibly with the participation of NATO, which would primarily presume the withdrawal of all Western troops from all over east Europe. This would avoid unnecessary provocation to Russia. We see that president Putin intervenes erstwhile he feels threatened by NATO. What we call Russian aggression is simply a kind of preventive attack. His policy is so mostly defensive. If he wants to control Ukraine, he has adequate military possible to do so. He would have assembled an army of half a million soldiers at the very beginning, alternatively of the 190 000 that were involved. Returning to the peace plan, there are a number of abroad policy experts who are favorable to him. However, fewer of them talk out.
We know that all this is at the expense of American and European taxpayers. Who, then, benefits from procrastinating this war? any are talking about a military-industrial complex. Others feel that investment funds specified as BlackRock are in favour of continuing the war. Who do you think is behind this?
"In the United States, behind this war is simply a coalition called an unholy covenant by me. It includes Atlanticists and neoliberals from the Biden and Democratic organization administration and neoconservatives from the Republican organization who previously stood behind invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, interventions in Syria and Libya. I'm not much for explaining war with an argument about the influences of the arms industry. Of course, he earns on it, so he has no business opposing greater conflicts. It can besides financially support politicians who support the continuation of wars. However, it is not the main factor. This most crucial origin is primarily ideological and occurs in factions of both major political parties. It is especially directed by the Biden administration. It's completely pointless, but the Atlanticists believe that NATO is the core of the United States' national security. It's not. It has been revealed that this alliance increases threats to its members, including us, through a provocative policy towards Russia, sanctions. The key to everything is so a certain kind of safety agreement with the Russian Federation, where no territorial concessions or a simplification in the number of NATO members would be allowed. However, there would be a common simplification of the armed forces, as in the Treaty on the simplification of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. To this extent, as I have already proposed in my January 2022 article, it is besides possible to consider marking certain spheres of influence. The Russian sphere of influence would extend to 10 erstwhile russian republics, without Ukraine. The US sphere of influence would be smaller than today. I think we could gain lasting peace with Moscow. This way of reasoning was at the heart of Vivek Ramaswamy’s peace plan.
In global politics, therefore, you mention to the thought of conventional realism alternatively than the ideological approach of Biden and others. I'd like to ask you a fewer questions now as a military expert. We late learned about plans to deliver F-16 fighters to Kiev. As you know, the Netherlands and Denmark have already made declarations on this matter, which intend to transfer a full of 50-60 aircraft. Of course, they'll buy an F-35 to replace those F-16s. Can the F-16 radically change the government of forces in the Ukrainian conflict?
– any influence, of course, will have. However, this is not an air war. Both sides have large supplies of ground-to-air missiles. Russian Air Force is not very active in this conflict. It's more like a war on drones, rockets and artillery. And these are areas where Russia is clearly superior to Ukraine. We have heard so many times that as shortly as we send any weapons to Ukraine, Kiev will immediately displace Russian invaders from the internationally recognized territories of Ukraine. Nothing like that happened. The Ukrainian counter-offensive ended in disaster, which is acknowledged by even the American and British liberal media mainstream. And we've already delivered about 150 western tanks. We saw Leopard 2 tanks destroyed, Bradley armored cars. 50 or 60 F-16 fighters, or older fourth-generation machines, little advanced than Russian fighters, will not change the arrangement of forces in the Russian-Ukrainian war. We should so reduce our expectations a small bit and start to realize that this war can only end at the negotiating table.
And how long does it take to train an F-16 pilot? I've heard different opinions about it...
– In the United States, we usually implement a pilot training program, including F-16, during the year. It is possible that these trainings could be shortened to 4-6 months. This would not be adequate from the point of view of the United States Air Force, but possibly it is about pilots who would only learn to operate this peculiar aircraft. So if the fighters were delivered soon, they could most likely be utilized at the end of this year, or at the beginning of the next year. I believe that this is another origin that will affect the course of the conflict that will not be importantly affected.
Some method infrastructure is besides needed. Not only in the form of air bases, but besides engineering, etc. We have besides late learned that Kiev has asked the United States for tactical AGM-158. The F-16s are not designed to carry British Storm Shadow missiles. Do you think that Biden's administration can agree to hand over Ukraine with specified rockets and would it not be possible for Moscow to cross another border?
– I'd be very concerned. Air-ground missiles are usually capable of carrying atomic loads, besides in the case of F-16s – e.g. B61 atomic bombs located in Western Europe. This was the most crucial reason for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. After 15 years of diplomatic attempts to avoid war, to bring about any agreement or agreement with the United States and NATO, which would include compromise provisions and break the absurd thought of Ukraine's membership of NATO, which will never happen, of which everyone on the western side is well aware... The most crucial of Russia's concerns was that the United States would deploy in Ukraine in the event of its accession to NATO B-52, which would thus be 480 kilometres from the Russian capital. If we declared now that Ukraine would join NATO, Russia would become even more aggressive and would most likely scope the Polish border, and possibly usage tactical atomic weapons to defeat Ukraine, besides threatening to usage this weapon to NATO countries, including the United States. This is about the vital interests of the Russian Federation. The war in Ukraine is of secondary importance, it is not strategical in terms of NATO security, due to the fact that it is actually a territorial dispute. In the last 9 years, Ukraine has already lost 18% of its internationally recognised territory. Yet there was not yet, apart from tiny episodes in July or August last year, a real Russian offensive. If Putin truly wanted to decision to Riga, Vilnius and Warsaw, he would at least effort to take Kharkov, which is only 25 kilometres from the Russian border, is the second largest city of Ukraine and has many Russian-speaking Russian-speaking Russians. Meanwhile, he showed no imperial aspirations, even though it was initially claimed that he would want to conquer most of the Ukrainian lands. The fact that he withdrew from the 3 Ukrainian circuits occupied by Russia last spring was groundbreaking for me. No aggressive dictator going to occupy the capital or most of the territory of the neighboring country would do that. That was not necessary. Unless he planned to sign an agreement with Kiev, which he yet rejected. The work for the outbreak of war lies with NATO and, of course, with Russia. But the work for its continuation rests on the shoulders of Volodymyr Zelensky, erstwhile British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and president Biden.
In Poland we now have another component of escalation, at least in the media. The Polish authorities decided to deploy thousands of soldiers close the border with Belarus. Of course, that decision was argued by the presence of a private military company Wagner in the country. I think this could be the next step towards escalation. In your opinion, in the Biden administration, can anyone in Washington conclude that it is time to bring another Central European country bordering Russia into war?
– I don't think that's the Biden administration's target. It focuses on leading the current war to the last Ukrainian, utilizing them as cannon meat to weaken Russia, although this is not very successful. However, I do not believe that it is seeking a direct conflict with the United States and NATO. And if Poland, our NATO military ally, crossed the Belarusian border and sent authoritative combat troops to that country, this could lead to a war on the full alliance with Russia. Of course, as you most likely know, more than 10 1000 Polish volunteers were sent to Ukraine. Unfortunately, last November we learned that 1,200 Polish patriots died in the war with Russia. Poland, of course, has a long past of fighting Russia. Polish legions liberated Polish lands controlled by Russia during planet War I. Now, according to 1 of the channels on the Telegram, Poland may have lost 10,000 people, although I don't think that could be true. I am curious in the opinions of Poles about these losses in Ukraine.
Well, I can only say that we have no authoritative data on Polish volunteers or mercenaries who died in Ukraine. The Ministry of defence is silent about this. We do not know how many Poles can fight in Ukraine. This data is not released, so I find it hard to comment. 1 last question; we have already mentioned Wagner's group. I'm certain you've been following the events around what happened to Evgeny Prigożyn and the group's commanders in the plane crash in Russia. There are plenty of versions of what truly happened. What is your opinion on this? Western mainstream media find it apparent that Putin was the 1 who got free of the Prigozhyn, thus eliminating his army of mercenaries. Do you think that you would have real reasons to make specified a decision?
– 1 of the most interesting materials I've read about this is Stephen Bryen's article from the safety Policy Center. He claims that the Russian Chief Intelligence Board (GRU) was most likely behind this assassination. He believes that the GRU can act independently of president Putin. By concluding that the Prigozhyn poses a real threat and possible danger to Putin's power, the GRU people may have thought Putin would be okay with it. It looks like there's been a force charge detonation on board with a timer, but it could besides be a land-to-air rocket strike. any may say that Ukrainian peculiar forces are behind everything. They would besides have an apparent motive, due to the fact that Prigożyn was liable for the deaths of a immense number of Ukrainian soldiers, for utilizing more violent measures in the war in Ukraine. However, it is closer to my view that it is the GRU or president Putin himself who is liable for the assassination of the Primogyn and the people who were in charge of the income of 3,000 mercenaries in Moscow.
And how do you measure Wagner's real military level? What is the actual value of this group?
– Wagner was a valuable structure in Russia's military potential. Although they were mercenaries, they had dense weapons, assault helicopters, the latest T-90 tanks and newer T-72 versions. Wagner's group actually won the conflict of Bachmut. At the same time, Russia mobilized a large number of troops, possibly about 300,000, deployed them close Kharkiv pending the president's decision to launch a fresh offensive, while the Ukrainian counter-offensive ended in failure. Ukraine has engaged its last able brigade and, as I have heard, has lost any 40,000 dead in it in 2 months. Plus, we have a akin number of wounded, including hard. Wagner's group has fallen significantly. I do not think that it is an crucial origin in Russia's subsequent military operations in Ukraine. However, I think it is inactive useful in Africa, pursuing another Russian goals abroad.
I see. Thank you for taking the time to talk. We keep our fingers crossed for those candidates in the American presidential election who will be able to end this war. We are close to the front line, so we want you the best in Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign, in which you are involved.
– Thank you very much. We support Poland and Polish nationalists specified as you, as well as your actions for a more realistic policy for Poland that could aid to end this conflict.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
David Pyne He completed his studies in national safety at Georgetown University. He served in the Pentagon General Staff, where he worked in arms control with the countries of the erstwhile russian Union, east Europe, mediate East, Africa and Western Hemisphere. He collaborates with the conservative portal and magazine "The National Interest". He is presently the chief advisor to the candidate in the Republican Party's presidential primaries, Vivek Ramaswamy.
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 37-38 (10-17.09.2023)
