Good morning. Thank you for taking the time to talk.
– Good morning. Thank you for inviting me.
What could be casus belli?
I would like to start with 1 of the basic questions that our Readers are asking themselves. How likely do you think is the outbreak of an armed conflict between Europe and, more specifically, the European associate States of NATO and the Russian Federation? What would be Russia's point of view casus belli?
– You know, the modern planet is simply a small more complicated than, say, the situation we had in the mid-20th century. It's more flexible. On the another hand, Europe is becoming more aggressive in trying to find this casus belli. This is not only about Ukraine, but besides about the Baltic countries, which are trying to see how much it is possible to break the UN Maritime Convention, which is the basic origin of the law defining everything that can happen in the seas and oceans of our planet. It's a very dangerous precedent. And that could be it. casus belli. The reason may not become so much that Estonia is bad, Poland is upsetting or the French are jumping. The reason lies in the fact that the current European elites, especially the EU, are simply incapable to accept their failure, even this moral one. This is what their governments are based on. This component is in rule besides present in governments Vladimir Zelenski. The serious demands for elections by the United States are ignored. It was extended, as we know, to martial law. The case is set aside by all means. However, the question of change, the rotation of these elites is to a large degree an crucial origin in terms of supporting the peaceful solution. The thing is, global safety isn't about any deal or arrangement. frequently our reasoning on this issue is rather shallow and it is to recognise that we have specified a deal here, another treaty there and another 1 there. No, it's all a certain holistic system, a process in which circumstantial mention points appear. They are different agreements and agreements. However, this is simply a process in which all stakeholders should participate. If 1 organization ceases to participate in this process, global safety suffers. Let me give you another question: what will the conflict between Russia and Europe end? Russia will endure very badly and Europe will cease to be due to the fact that no 1 can warrant that the average conventional war will not at any point turn into a atomic war. Will the United States take part? I don't think so. due to the fact that it would be better for them not to interfere in specified a situation, to make money, to participate in reconstruction, or to simply observe these events from a distance. Because, of course, endurance will be more crucial to them. No American president would want to regulation the bunker crew, and everyone wants to regulation the United States, or possibly the world, too. That's why I don't think they're going to get caught in this storm. This is besides due to this – let us think logically – that if the United States participates in any large-scale conflict with the exchange of atomic blows, even at tactical level, it will make a maximum advanced hazard for each another that they will become the mark of strategical impact. So only any individual American enclaves in agrarian areas can survive, and possibly not. However, they are very susceptible to attack, due to the fact that most of their population clusters are on the coasts. Russia will have a somewhat more chance of surviving, though it will besides be destroyed. Next question: what will China do? On the 1 hand, it may seem that China should stay on the side and observe this conflict from a distance. However, China has a circumstantial enemy in the form of the United States, against which they are presently expanding their atomic potential. So what happens if the United States gets hit hard? China will then aim to kill its opponent. Do the Americans know about this? I think so. Therefore, if they decide to take part in this conflict, they will simultaneously carry out Chinese strikes. Technically, it's possible. Do the Chinese realize that? Yes. So if individual pulls the global trigger, I don't think anyone's gonna be talking about a area anymore, but there's gonna be an impact on all the players. The exception will be Russia and China, which will not attack each other. India will not start a war with Pakistan either. Otherwise, the large powers will behave and this will mean a global apocalypse. Will civilization survive? He'll survive. However, any countries will be badly destroyed. Today, therefore, each casus belli could lead to a planet war. We're not at war right now. We have peculiar Military Operations. delight note that since planet War II, we have not actually had wars. There have been various operations, but not wars, due to the fact that war means legal obligations, certain elements. That's why everyone prefers peculiar operations. And us and the Americans. But are these wars? Yeah, yeah. Is there anything out of control? Maybe. Let me give you an example. It concerns Poland. During the erstwhile rule, the Polish government declared at 1 point that it could offer military aid, Polish troops that would loosen the Ukrainian army on the border with Belarus so that Ukrainians could fight elsewhere. What did the Americans say? Americans, including a globalist Mark MilleyThey said that if you do, it'd be just your problem, which means they won't defend you. He showed that America is not going to defend Europe. She doesn't request it for anything. You can draw money out of it, but you can die in her defense.
Provocations in the Baltic
As for the Baltic countries, this is 1 interesting element. You most likely remember that at any point Western experts discussed the conversion of the Baltic Sea into interior NATO waters. Many have already called him that. They besides discussed the blockade of the Kaliningrad circuit. To what degree specified a possible blockade or its attempt, purely theoretically, could be treated as casus belli?
– You know, technically, it's being tested right now. This is theoretically possible due to the fact that the interior waters of different countries are adjacent in specified a way that it is possible to close global waters for shipping. Meanwhile, the Maritime Convention guarantees the right to freedom of navigation for peaceful purposes. This applies to both cargo ships and warships. However, everyone has the right to inspect their territorial waters. They can be carried out in strictly defined cases: if, for example, an individual transmits a transmitter to another country, which contains content aimed at its political system; or if individual deals with piracy, carries prohibited loads, etc. You can then usage inspection, but you can't arrest these units. For example, no detention can be imposed on a ship with oil or no adequate insurance, or owned by an “inappropriate” company. Another interesting case is piracy. The question is, who can inspect specified ships? It may be carried out by either the country whose flag they are flying or the country in which they are located. So if the ship is located in Polish territorial waters, then Poland can inspect it. He can't do that to Estonia. Do you understand? It does not substance that he is in NATO – he simply has no right to do so. Another issue: a case where a military vessel stops a vessel flying another flag and a group of armed units appears operating without any grounds. We are dealing with piracy. And it doesn't substance that a warship belongs to a certain country. Why? First of all, we can ask ourselves an simple question: possibly the crew of this ship is crazy? possibly she decided to rob the place. What can we do in this situation? Then we can destruct this ship, according to the convention. Imagine the situation with the tanker. Let's give it a Polish corvette and announce that it is to halt and be inspected. The tanker crew responds that there is no request to check it due to the fact that it is under any another flag. He states that he carries oil alternatively than drugs; that he has nothing to do with pirates or criminals. He says everything's fine and shows the documents. In response, he hears that she will now be escorted to the territorial waters of the Navy unit. Imagine that there's a tiny boat next to it that fires a informing shot. It is simply a boat flying the Russian flag. What would happen next? Corvette ignores warnings and then the boat decides to mark her. The ship is under attack. Under global law, we can presume that we are dealing with a situation in which a civilian ship is attacked by pirates. How do you strike? The Baltic Sea is very small. In fact, present the full planet has become tiny from the point of view of rocket weapons. After all, we see that all ships have become an easy target, even if they analyse the deficiency of resilience of the Black Sea Fleet to attacks of unmanned boats. You don't think the NATO Navy would be as susceptible in specified a situation in the Baltic? The Baltic Sea is even smaller. Also, you realize – it's a bat with 2 ends. specified actions can actually lead to complete blockade, etc. If there is an attack on NATO's warship, it could start with a planet war. This ship may be considered pirated earlier. 1 can besides presume that another attack will be more serious. Though personally, I don't think that will happen. We've had attempts to make before in the planet casus belli That's how the Americans stood behind. The Israelis erstwhile attacked American ships. What? The Americans were inactive supporting Israel. Everything depends on the current political situation and on the possible intent of specified actions and whether individual in the name of all this will be ready to die. And death will surely come.
War is dynamic
Another issue, very interesting for Polish Readers, is the alleged slide pass. Many people say that this is the possible direction of a possible Russian armed attack. They would aim to penetrate the Kaliningrad circuit. How likely is this script in the event of a war?
– Of course it is possible for a war scenario. If we had a war and there was a blockade of the Kaliningrad circuit, the armed action if civilians were killed, yes. However, it is simply a alternatively outdated concept, coming from the Guderian era, armoured wedges, army maneuvers commanded by Marshal Zukov. The war is different now. There are also tanks, the maneuvering looks different. There's a full another way to war. Yet, many people in the planet are not yet aware of this. And all you gotta do is look at the arena of armed action – the Russians, the Ukrainians, to see what the war looks like now. It truly is rather different, and I would say that even the American arms manufacture and technological thought do not follow. Things change besides fast. Today's war is dynamic adequate that I can't find an analogy in the past. Especially erstwhile it comes to tactical solutions, maneuvering or utilizing weapons. Everything's changed.
Progress by Few
What achievements could be distinguished from technological developments? I am referring to solutions developed during peculiar Military Operations, both by the Ukrainian and Russian sides.
– Of course, the question of unmanned systems is here. However, this is only 1 peculiar case. In fact, there has been a fundamental breakthrough in the world. erstwhile this military-industrial complex was a origin of technology. It always has been. Man flew into space due to the fact that rockets had been constructed before. atomic power plants were created by making a atomic bomb earlier. There are thousands of specified examples of the usage of military technologies in the civilian sphere, or possibly even millions. The breakthrough is that present is the opposite. civilian technologies go into the military sphere. Clearly, this is seen from the example of Americans whose civilian technology is then utilized in the arms sector. The most striking example is Elon Musk And his Starlink. I do not know if anyone truly believed that this strategy was designed to let the unfortunate people of Africa to have a fast Internet. I uncertainty it. The fact is that the Starlink strategy was rapidly converted to Starshield. Meanwhile, announced by Donald Trump The effort to make a rocket defence system, a golden dome, proved completely useless. civilian sphere, i.e. civilian manufacture and civilian technology, became the donor to the army and the military-industrial complex. And that's very important. As regards the usage of these technologies in armed actions, another breakthrough is that measures to kill people have become much cheaper. You don't request a $3 million rocket for that anymore. Just a drone that costs $100,000. So the full strategy changed, prices changed. That's bad, due to the fact that these technologies have become simple and cheaper. This made it easier to access the death market. Currently, all country can make drone factories utilizing civilian technology. We'll see any interesting things. erstwhile paid killers, bandits killed, did their criminal work with a sniper rifle, planted explosives, etc. shortly they'll be doing it with civilian drones making droplets, etc. Especially since there are already people trained in this area. So we will be in trouble, and Europe will besides have it erstwhile all this leaves the front line. Where does it go? Ours will stay with us. And where will the Western Army go? Will he take care of building a fresh Ukraine? I don't think so, due to the fact that they can't build. Why is the east of Ukraine the most industrially developed? due to the fact that another people lived there. Poles realize this and realize it – all these differences between circuits and different regions. That is why the issue is rather sensitive. erstwhile it comes to unmanned technologies, for example, we have drones controlled over the net from Starlinks. And it turns out that drones transmit live images somewhere around Kiev and can be controlled in real time in this way, without any satellite communication. How do you do that? With a SIM card. Just a simple telephone call with 3 or 4 cards, specified as Polish, German or American. That's all I need. The drone is flying on 4G Internet. That works. Can he be disconnected? It's easy, isn't it? No, you can't. due to the fact that this method is utilized by both sides and if you disable the Internet, your website will not be able to usage it either. So we are dealing with a deep penetration of civilian technologies. Or take guidance and correction of fire. This was erstwhile handled by specially prepared observers passing coordinates. Now it's done by soldiers with tablets through drones. Who developed the most in this direction? erstwhile the most advanced in this area was a country called Israel, as well as the United States. It was able to produce high-level equipment. For example, Americans have Global Hawk scouts. It only checks during the area for intelligence tasks. During the war, all you gotta do is shoot it down and it won't substance anymore, no 1 would fight or fly anymore. It costs a immense amount of money, larger than F-35 – if I'm not mistaken, about $130 or $140 million and without operating systems. Meanwhile, he is completely defenseless. For example, erstwhile it comes to tiny drones flying in swarms, they are practically impossible to shoot down. They are very dangerous due to the fact that they are very hard to destroy, due to the fact that so far no way to fight them has been invented. This applies to both sides. Of course, Russia develops its technologies and Ukraine develops its. In general, for a period of time Russia was yielding in terms of this development, due to the fact that the another side was for any reason more innovative. This changed after the Ministry of Defence's management had changed and its approach to developing specified systems, financing and supporting it. Let's see who's on it. This is done by private business, usually small, frequently hobbyists. These are companies that initially had 2-3 people, then about 20 employees. For example, ZALA drones, which presently is produced by Kalashnikov, were constructed by erstwhile modelers, who for a long time created civilian drones and only later passed under the wings of Kalashnikov and began to make military drones. It is 1 of the best presently unmanned systems.
Technological leap
And what drones is Ukraine utilizing today? How much is it even able to produce unmanned?
– I have already mentioned the low cost of marketplace entry, both technological and financial. Ukraine developed it rather well. They have long-range drones. After all, we know that they scope far into our territory. Why are they doing this? We're moving on to the most crucial issue. We have anti-aircraft defence systems in Russia, indeed any of the best. However, no anti-aircraft defence is perfect. Let us callback the case of Israel. He was defended by this system, and besides by American Patriots, THAADs, American fleet, Jordanian, French and British fighters. So this tiny part of land had full crowds of defenders. Meanwhile, Iran managed to hit the objects in its territory reasonably well. By the way, he did not want to escalate the conflict. Hence, Israel knew in advance that rockets would fly; these messages were reported almost live. Second, the strikes were very precise, so that God forbid you destruct something that would trigger a feedback reaction. Anyway, the missiles fired have reached their targets. What does that mean? That there is no perfect rocket defense. Russia is just learning to defend its vast territory. In general, the effectiveness of the opponent's strokes has fallen many times. They are captured by our systems and then destroyed by our Pancyr, Tor and others. Ukraine presently produces a full scope of drones – from tiny unmanned aircraft to ciders. They besides developed well the production of unmanned boats. They created full systems on their basis, of course utilizing Western technology. At first, it did not make so well, although possibly there are any surprises waiting for the opponent, due to the fact that late this improvement has moved forward. It's about the Baltic. Today, we have practically matched them. Take, for example, the dense ciders that were originally utilized in agriculture, called in our slang Baba Jaga. present they are no longer agricultural ciders, but specially manufactured equipment based on the erstwhile design, with the same performance and the same control systems. All of this is moving on. We've even got air-to-air copters duels. There are systems. For example, there's a reconnaissance drone flying around and it notices through the camera that another drone is starting to attack it. As shortly as the second approaches him, he starts to execute maneuvers and avoids in automatic mode, change course. So robots start fighting each another in semi-automatic and automatic mode. I think that's what wars will look like in a year or 2 years. Is that good or bad? Wrong.
I'm sure. I think the number of human losses will increase.
– Actually, yes.
Next question. You were talking about drones and their production by tiny private companies. However, many were very amazed that Russia had specified a well-developed weapons manufacture and was able to produce artillery missiles in specified quantities. After all, it was considered that all this possible was destroyed in 1990. Is this sector of the defence manufacture new, or is it russian heritage?
– Firstly, everything here is simply a russian legacy, due to the fact that Russia is the heir to the russian Union. The russian Union was the heir to the Russian Empire. Only governments and systems change. But you besides do not separate the Polish People's Republic, the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom...
Russian manufacture tops
Unfortunately, our politicians are cutting themselves off.
– It means that you have weak politicians, if they think that the nation is not the same, that previously the nation was the incorrect one, "indeed," and now it is "right." In my opinion, specified a policy towards your own people is not good. In humans children are born, then these children have their children. I don't think specified a policy is very smart. Moving on to why Russia inactive has production capacity – you remember that in 2022, at the end of 2022 there were opinions that we were moving out of rockets. They'll be gone in a minute. Then individual in the European Union, I guess. Ursula von der Leyen Or any another well-known politician, said the Russians were utilizing parts from washing machines to make rockets. Do you remember that? That was funny. They began calling for the introduction of an embargo on washing machines, considering that we would not be able to produce rockets as a result. What does that mean? Unfortunately, the full deficiency of professionalism and education of politicians in power. erstwhile they get to it, that's another issue. Clearly, however, they have no knowledge. As for artillery missiles, you know, there's 1 interesting theme. You travel in civilian passenger planes, flying Airbuses or Boeings. They are equipped with civilian turbojet engines. They're large jet engines. There is simply a technology of their production from the very beginning, i.e. the definition of structural parameters, for disposal, which can be described as their life cycle. The number of countries that are able to produce specified engines – not average jet engines, but just specified ones – is little than the number of countries capable of producing an atomic bomb. We know who has atomic weapons. And who can produce specified engines? It can be produced by Europe, with British-French cooperation. Germany is incapable to do so, but the joint British-French plants are. They can be produced by the United States, sometimes in cooperation with Britain. It can be produced by Russia as part of a full cycle. A fresh Russian PD engine is being tested. By the way, it'll be 1 of the best engines. another countries are incapable to produce this. China is only now trying to join these countries, completing work on certification of its first engine of this type. Will they succeed? I don't know. Brazil and Canada produce aircraft, but are incapable to produce engines for them. In Canada there are plants producing them, but they belong to the British. That's more or little how it looks. The country of production does not matter. The ownership of technology is important. Let us now decision on to the number of countries that have a full production cycle of various types of missiles – from plan to mass production. There are even fewer. Why is Europe having problems with this now? due to the fact that this cycle is not limited to casting a warhead, filling it with TNT and attaching an explosive charge. This TNT should be produced first. peculiar steel is needed to manufacture these heads. Meanwhile, in the UK, for example, the last cast iron plants were closed, which is simply a key component of the full steel industry. Now the British can only melt scrap. Can Britain so produce missiles on its own? Not anymore. Let's decision on: during the war these missiles are consumed very much. Not in hundreds or thousands anymore, but in thousands of tons. That's erstwhile you number it. Do you understand? All their warehouses are produced, and powerful, developed production capacities are needed. Is specified production needed in peacetime? No, not at all. So what do we do with these production capacities? You can close factories, but they inactive require investment. You gotta keep it all, keep the production lines. Somebody's got to keep an eye on all this. We gotta heat the mill buildings. There's no way out. Take care of all this? No, you'd better close it. And abruptly the war breaks out. War always breaks out unexpectedly. How do I get production capacity? There are inactive supplies of weapons, but we saw during this conflict that they were immediately deserted, besides in our home. As far as production capacity is concerned, all of this has been destroyed by the West and you. Boris Yeltsin. Fortunately, Mr Vladimir appeared and began to rebuild it gradually. We have a company, Rostech, headed by Czemezov. The company began to collect all factories, the full technological cycle, which was connected not only with the armaments, but with the full advanced technology manufacture from russian times. It's all gone under the company's supervision. More companies were gathered for a long time. Why? Why, for example, do Americans presently have problem producing Stingers? It's simple. There were quite a few Stingers, but they were rapidly used. It was so decided to produce fresh ones. And it turned out that there was no longer a company that produced any tiny seals for them. It's gone bankrupt. Meanwhile, we have collected and modernised all specified companies. We have modernized the aviation industry, including the civilian industry. European values supporters, specified as Gajdar, wanted to destruct him too, who said that we didn't request any civilian aviation due to the fact that we could call Boeing or Airbus and order airplanes from them. Incidentally, the russian Union, the russian aviation manufacture controlled, if I am correct, over 40% of the planet market. It's all been destroyed. Who divided this marketplace among themselves? Boeing and Airbus, about 50-50. Have you always heard of Airbus before? possibly there's planes out there somewhere. Recently, all of this has gradually begun to resuscitate in us due to the fact that we have maintained these production capacities. besides about missiles, rockets. We kept people, we developed fresh projects. It is in the rocket area that fresh structures are inactive appearing. They even appeared in the conditions of the already passed hard competition on the planet market. For example, we had Bulgarian brothers who started producing them by breaking the licensing agreement. erstwhile we delivered them production lines and everything was produced there. Question is, on what grounds? It's not like we were in an alliance with them anymore. But they did what they wanted, claiming that if they were producing, they would proceed to produce. In general, however, it turned out that everything works well with us – we started production reserves, we have production capacities. Yes, many things are not enough. Still, it turned out that compared to the alleged collective west, we are the top anyway.
Collective effort
Is this truly the merit of defence Minister Andrei Belousov? Many say that he is the specialist in planning and creating production chains.
– No, that's not true. It was a group of people. Even before Mr. Andrei started dealing with the case, many others had already dealt with it. You know, they say Korolow sent Gagarin into space. But it was not Korolow, it was the russian people. Yes, Korolow was the main designer. The current defence minister is good at economical matters, he is an economist and he is in the right place. I'm a military man myself, and I know that military men are rather stiff, operating strictly according to instructions, regulations, etc. After he took over the Ministry of Defence, many things began to work more efficiently, change and improve. We became even more efficient very quickly. But maintaining industrial potential, which was very difficult, is the merit of a group of people. This required money, resources, etc. You should have taken it from somewhere. You had to find employees who would actually work. Modern workers of the military-industrial complex have nothing to do with the thought of a drunk uncle Vani with a cigaret in his teeth standing at the device at the "Krasnya Oktiabr" factory, as is frequently seen in the West. No – this is simply a young man or girl in a white apron who is active in programming, managing dozens of complex production devices. This is what fresh workers look like. The stereotypes must be abandoned.
The main goal is peace.
The last question concerns Ukraine and the current situation. I propose that we abstrate from the political forecasts, the negotiations that are presently underway, the ceasefire, the concept of peace and the conclusion of the russian Union. How much time do you think the Russian armed forces would request to take Donbass completely into his administrative boundaries, including Sławański, Kramatorski, etc.?
– You know, there's something else to think about today. Before that, it was about shifting boundaries. It will come to him anyway, due to the fact that otherwise it would be a violation of the provisions of our Constitution. After all, there have been referendums in these regions where global observers have been present, who have seen all this. So we have a series of events that can be compared to Kosovo. Putin erstwhile said there was a terrible precedent in his case. And now Russia is referring to the United Nations Charter and its right to self-determination. Since it was considered possible to do so in Kosovo, it means that it can be done anywhere. It can't be said that we're playing here, and we're not playing there, we're just wrapping the fish in paper, as Żwaniecki utilized to say. Therefore, these areas will undoubtedly be ours, but most crucial are not territories. You know perfectly well that the Ukrainian people have always been divided. We had industrialized regions of east Ukraine, intelligence in Central Ukraine and – excuse the expression – villagers in Western Ukraine. In the west of the country there is no manufacture and thought in agrarian terms. The Ukrainians themselves admit that. Honestly, I don't know what's going to happen to Ukraine. I'm certain we'll take ours there. But now the West is active in all this, specified as the French or the British who want to enter Ukraine. It won't be their first attempt. rather recently, I mentioned a monument in 1 broadcast, like in London, close Regent Street. As 1 British companion told me, he commemorates innocent fallen soldiers of the Royal Guard. I asked the question: what were your innocents doing in Crimea? They invaded Crimea, which, by the way, belonged to the Russian Empire. The monument contains inscriptions “Krym”, “Balakowawa” and others. You were suffering due to the fact that you wanted to take Sevastopol? And now it's all over again – it's dragging them to take over. Which is why I think as long as it does, Russia will proceed to fight. They didn't build it all, so they don't have a title to run it. Odessa is simply a Russian city. It was built by a caryca. possibly due to the fact that she was a German native of the Holstein family, the Germans will yet find that it was all due to her birthplace? We can imagine something like that.
All this is complicated, due to the fact that she was born in my hometown, in Szczecin, in the current territory of Poland...
- Yeah, so possibly you'll find individual else will. Therefore, well – the situation is somewhat fluid. In fact, our commander-in-chief clearly said in his interviews and speeches what Russia wants. The main goal is peace. It is besides worth remembering about the Munich speech in which Putin explained the principles we are dealing with. Then Europeans sitting in the front row laughed at it. They're inactive laughing. In the meantime, human coexistence must not be broken. If individual violates them, it all ends badly.
Mr. Dmitri, thank you for this interview. I think it was very interesting and it brings a lot from the point of view of knowing what is happening today, besides in Poland. I inactive have quite a few questions, so I hope if you have time, we can get back to any of them in the future.
For you, Mr Matthew, I'll make time.
Thank you very much.
- Yes, goodbye.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
