Recently, many events have taken place on the front and on the international track that require reflection. Why the Kursk operation cannot be considered a failure, what to do if the US again suspends military aid to Ukraine, are there risks of a repeated attack on Kyiv and the physical elimination of the leader of the Ukrainian state - “Apostrophe” talked about this and other things with military expert, senior lieutenant of the ground forces of the Israel Defense Forces, Yigal Levin.
On the Kursk operation and the replacement of American aid
- I would like to start with the Kursk operation. It seems that something went wrong. Why, in your opinion? Did the suspension of intelligence sharing by the US matter?
- The question is not posed correctly. Why did you decide that something went wrong, on what basis do you draw such a conclusion?
- Because the Armed Forces of Ukraine withdrew from Suja, because the territory that our fighters held in the Kursk region of the Russian Federation has now decreased...
- Yes, Ukraine held Sudzha and the surrounding territories for seven months. We do not know exactly what tasks the General Staff had when the Kursk operation began. Now let's imagine that the maximum time interval that could be given for this is a month. And if Ukraine held out there for seven months, then this operation is not that it was completed - it was overcompleted. By the way, given the increasing amount of information, official statements, conversations with the military, no one expected to stay there for more than half a year. At the same time, the movement of the front minus 50 km, plus 50 km in a war of this scale is an absolutely normal phenomenon - you either retreat or capture something. The front is not static.
- Why then do some military personnel say that the withdrawal is disorderly?
- An ordinary soldier always has a bad time, always lacks everything. Ukraine is at war with Russia, which is much bigger, stronger, and has more resources - planes, people, shells, etc. This is not news. Ukraine is not stronger than Russia. It was not Ukraine that attacked Russia when Ukraine had everything - aviation, ships, and shells. Ukraine is always in a weak position - everything happens from a defense point of view. Therefore, of course, there is not enough everything. If you go to the front today - no fighter from any unit will say that there is enough everything. If there are difficult situations somewhere, somewhere the equipment is broken, somewhere they [go out] on foot - this is war.
- What are the further prospects of the operation, a new one has already begun - in the Belgorod region?...
- As I said, 50 km plus/minus is normal. The entire border region of Russia and Ukraine is a front. It is wrong to assume that where there is no fighting on the contact line, it is not a front. It is all a front, just somewhere more active, somewhere less active. And as I said, the front is moving. If there is fighting in the Belgorod region, it is absolutely normal. The main thing is to transfer the war to the enemy's territory. This is an axiom. This is the foundation of military thought. The question cannot be how rational it was to enter the Kursk region or Belgorod. Transferring the war to the enemy's territory is Alpha and Omega. This must always be done with all the forces and means that you have. Do this with special operations, with the help of raids, and with strikes that Ukraine inflicts deep into Russia.
Speaking directly about the Kursk region, it all depends on the goals set before the command. We don't always know about them, in most cases we don't know about them.
- Suspension of US aid. Now it has been resumed, but Putin is making the suspension of military aid to Ukraine a condition for a peace deal. Can Europe compensate for US aid to Ukraine?
- There are positions where it cannot. At least at this stage. For example, interceptors for Patriot, PAC3, which are produced only by the Americans. That is, in many positions it can, in unique positions it cannot. This is objective, there is nothing you can do about it.
- What to do with unique positions? Can we use some other air defense to cover ourselves?
- In the 1950s, when Israel was fighting against a coalition of Arab states, no one helped Israel at all. The only state with which it had any relations was France, from which Israel bought weapons, no one gave them for free. What did Israel do when the Americans did not want to sell [weapons], and the Arabs were attacking? It was necessary to fight. When there is not enough, when it is bad and difficult. Ukraine is in an extremely difficult situation. If the Americans betray, do not give Patriot, then there will be no Patriot, then we will fight without Patriot. The losses will simply be greater, and these losses will be on the conscience of the Americans. When the Ukrainians write the chronicle of their war, they will remember the escape of the Americans, because of which a certain number of people died, and this would not have happened if they had handed over the same Patriots.
But the US has resumed aid, we are talking hypothetically, if they want to cancel again. So I repeat - Europe will not replace Patriot interceptors. They have an air defense system, but they do not have such as RAS3 - they cannot compensate for that.
- How do you assess Europe's activation against the backdrop of Trump's statements that Europe should do more to protect its continent? They announced a rearmament plan, supposedly including a financial instrument for Ukraine...
- I'm not a diplomat, not a politician, I don't know what's going on in their heads. So far, judging by the statements, everything looks nice and "smooth". We'll see how things go - when and how much will come to Ukraine.
- The money still needs to be converted into weapons - this is a long-term process. What can Ukraine do here?
- There is just not enough money here. Because the Ukrainian military-industrial complex is not 100% loaded. It is loaded by 50%, if not less than half. The Ukrainian military-industrial complex can produce much more weapons - interceptor drones, unmanned drones, long-range drones, naval systems, etc. Ukraine does not need production capacities, they are there, but money. Europe has the money. If Europe really wants to help Ukraine, it should “pour” money, tens of billions of euros, into the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. Then this will be a powerful, serious reinforcement. The aid packages from Europe to Ukraine include the allocation of money. Let's see what the amounts will be, how it will all work.
- And will arms exports, if Ukraine opens up, help increase the inflow of money? Should arms exports from Ukraine be allowed, in your opinion?
- Arms exports are money. Ukraine needs money? It does. Where else can it be obtained? Money does not grow on trees, it does not lie on the streets. It has to be taken somewhere. If we talk about such things, you will not go far to sell grain. The arms market is a very “bread” place, these are very large contracts, big money. Ukraine produces unique systems that may be in demand in the world. With this money, Ukraine can develop its military-industrial complex. This is exactly what South Korea and Israel do. They sell many systems, they order more than they order for themselves. That is, the Israeli defense industry works to produce weapons for other states, this money then goes for Israeli national defense. South Korea and other states with powerful military-industrial complexes do the same.
On peace negotiations and peacekeeping contingents
- Yesterday there was a phone conversation between Trump and Putin. The Russian President supposedly agreed to a partial ceasefire, and at night we experienced a massive Russian attack. Why, in your opinion, is Putin actually against taking a step towards a truce?
- He understands that the initiative is on his side. He is on the territory of Ukraine, his army is advancing, he wants Ukraine to surrender - he does not need a ceasefire. They have had this policy since 2022, since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, it remains - Ukraine's surrender.
- Can the US force us to comply with Putin's demands and stop the mobilization?
- The Ukrainian leadership must answer for this. If they can force it, then Ukraine is not a sovereign state, but a puppet of the US. It seems to me that Ukraine is not a puppet of the US, but a sovereign state. So, the question of whether to stop mobilization or not, to develop the military-industrial complex or not, to continue militarization or not - is decided only by Kyiv.
- If Trump realizes that he cannot force Putin to make concessions, what then?
- I don't know, I'm not Trump.
- If the US follows Putin's lead, who are our partners in the world?
- Europeans, it's no secret. But Europe needs to understand that this is a European war, that Europe must unite to stop Russia.
- If the war does not end, what reforms should be carried out in the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Is universal military service necessary?
- Ukraine needs soldiers, right? Where will you get soldiers? They don't grow on trees, they have to be drafted.
- And do you think women should be mobilized without fail?
- It is up to Ukraine to decide who to mobilize and when. No one from the outside can give such advice to Kyiv.
- If, hypothetically, the negotiation processes continue, leading to the introduction of European peacekeepers, what do you think, given the length of the front and the reluctance of Europeans to be drawn into a war against Russia, how effective will they be?
- It will depend on the goals that will be set for them. We must understand that any mission is not in itself, it serves some purpose. We do not know what goals will be set for these or those peacekeepers, so this is fortune-telling on coffee grounds.
- And if there is a Chinese peacekeeping mission, will it fundamentally affect the situation on the front?
- This is a very interesting arrangement. Kyiv must decide whether it wants the Chinese to be peacekeepers on the territory of Ukraine.
- As part of the discussion on security guarantees, an initiative such as the “Heavenly Shield” was also discussed. To what extent can this be implemented if desired and will it be an effective security guarantee?
- Any such initiatives are good initiatives. Could a reinforcement of 100 combat aircraft patrolling the skies over Ukraine be a good thing? You don't have to be a military expert to understand that this is a big reinforcement. The question is: are countries ready to take the risk of a clash with Russia? That is, it spills over into the political sphere.
- So, theoretically, is it technically feasible to implement this?
- Of course, technical issues can be resolved.
On the risks of an attack on Kyiv and an assassination attempt on Zelensky
- Do you think the risk of a second attack on Kyiv is relevant today?
- As long as a large-scale war continues, there are all sorts of risks - some small chances, some big ones. The entire border area of Russia and Ukraine is essentially a front-line zone. The entire territory of Ukraine is a territory of hostilities. By the way, the territory of Russia is included. Therefore, there are all sorts of risks. What is the probability of a repeated attack on Kyiv? Very low probability.
- Could Trump want to physically “remove” Zelensky?
- We know well from the Americans that they changed regimes, liquidated regimes, replaced undesirable leaders, not only in Latin America. Such a threat, roughly speaking, exists. Globally. That is, if the Americans decide to completely reformat a rebellious state, they can go there. They have the money for it, significant experience, capabilities, resources, etc.
- A quarter of Ukrainians believe that the war could end by the end of this year. Do you think that is possible?
- This is fortune-telling on coffee grounds. It could end tomorrow, if something happens in Russia and it doesn't care about Ukraine - it will have to withdraw its army. This has happened many times in history, when wars ended due to some unforeseen circumstances. Or it could last another ten years. Both options are real. Or it could not end at all. The Arab-Israeli wars have been going on for almost 80 years. A war could break out between North and South Korea at any moment, they have been constantly preparing for it for 80 years too.
