English Translation with Clarification of Obscurities
Host: Friends, hello everyone. You are watching the Politika project. We are grateful to you for being with us today. We thank you for your support for our project, for not forgetting to subscribe, and for supporting our broadcasts with likes. Today is February 20th, 11:01 AM Kyiv time. As you understand, friends, we have our traditional meeting with our project’s friend and, uh, military expert and military philosopher Oleg Starikov. Oleg Ivanovich, hello. Glad to see you.
Oleg Starikov: Hello, hello. I want to note that our broadcast is not only for Politika but also for Oleg Ivanovich’s authorial project. Therefore, friends, we invite you to support the work of our author, our guest. Don’t forget to subscribe and also follow his work. And besides today’s topics that are being announced, there will be many others on his channel separately, so don’t miss that opportunity. It’s all firsthand.
Host: Oleg Ivanovich, there are many topics, so let’s begin our discussion and we’ll start. What happened last night, as per our early segment, what happened while we were asleep? So, Bryansk and Kapustin Yar were hit by unknown drones. More than a hundred UAVs were launched tonight. Let me remind you that it’s from the Bryansk region that Russia most often launches ballistic missiles and drones at Kyiv. And from Kapustin Yar, the “Oreshnik” [missile] has been launched at Ukraine twice already. To what extent does this concentration of drones indicate a transition to a new phase of deep strikes on the military infrastructure of the Russian Federation? And considering that ballistic missiles are launched from the Bryansk region, and from Kapustin Yar, the Oreshnik has been used at least twice, can we talk about an attempt to systematically influence the launch infrastructure, logistics, and combat duty of these facilities?
Oleg Starikov: Yes, I liked your question, specifically the strategic part. For what purpose is all this being done? This is very important. Not the process itself, but precisely the goal. So, did the execution of this so-called special military operation you spoke about, which happened at night, achieve those goals that were planned in the combat control documents? Let me remind you again, all military operations, starting from the tactical level, I’m speaking strategically now, are planned, approved, plans and explanatory notes are drawn up. So, there is a goal, that is, goals, meaning there is an objective in the target that needs to be hit, and a goal that one is trying to achieve using the appropriate strike assets. So what is the goal? If it’s tactical – to train the enemy? Well, as I see it, it doesn’t particularly bother them. I’ll say it again, strikes on oil refineries don’t lead to anything at the strategic or even operational level. It’s like we’re even helping them get rid of their oligarchs this way and rework their entire economy from one built on hydrocarbons to new technological ones during the transition to the sixth technological cycle. You just have to think differently. Next. Such a strike on Kapustin Yar. They trained well, whether they hit or not is a separate issue. I think it was mostly for informational purposes. The main goal is informational, like showing, “We’ll reach you even there.” You know, when I served, I used to say: “We have long arms, you can’t hide from us, we’ll reach you everywhere.” Yes, that’s why “we’ll reach you.” Fine. They will set up a system, build a multi-layered system to protect this strategic facility. Kapustin Yar is a strategic object. They will do it, that is, they will saturate it with an air defense system, train personnel, and will carry out tasks related to uh uh security. Now, we also need to look at the economic and combat effectiveness. How many launch vehicles were launched and how many reached their targets? Is anyone counting this?
Here, I’m saying, someone is counting, for example, 1,000 were launched. Like, they calculated that for January, somewhere around 60 missiles. How many is that, yes, somewhere around 60 or 100, around 100 missiles were launched at Ukraine, of which 50-60 were ballistic.
And we were told that Russia can produce a maximum of 30 per month, they did 60 in a month. They’ll say: “They stockpiled.” No, you don’t quite understand how planning works. Military planning is a bit different from business. It’s completely different for them. Therefore, if something is being done, now we wait for the result. What result? Had a political talk, scared them? No, they weren’t scared, frankly, a word almost slipped out in the Kremlin. No need to slip. Yes, yes. So I say, the Kremlin doesn’t care. They don’t pay attention to anything at all. This isn’t even bites, not pinpricks, it’s not even a mosquito bite. This is a problem for local commanders. Don’t want to appoint another one? They’ll fight it out. Next.
We’re training their air defense system. Yes, we’re training. Training them.
Next question. Since they overcame the air defense system they built, they already have a multi-layered system and they overcame it. So, this was done with the help of our strategic partners. I’m actually even sure of it. The red telephone will ring and they’ll call Washington and ask: “So what are you doing there? Are we ending the war, or are you saying one thing in Geneva, but actually doing another?” And such phone calls, it seems to us, yes, it’s trivial. No, for one deputy minister calling another deputy minister, that’s a serious jab.
Therefore, Uh-huh. The conclusion is this: there is political expediency, there is military necessity. So, before carrying out a military necessity, one must calculate the political expediency. Or the conclusion: if these operations are at the tactical level, identifying the air defense system in a certain direction, yes, that’s possible. For what purpose? To deliver a massive strike. I agree. But doing one thing, another, a third… This, you know, reminds me of drone counting. Someone is keeping count.
Here, you are a journalist, right? If someone from the authorities comes to your broadcast, ask him: “Are you keeping count? How much money is allocated for drones?” First. Second, how many drones financed by the state come out of industry or from different sectors of industry? How many of them are combat-ready, and how many are not combat-ready? That’s second. And third, what is the effectiveness of the strikes? That is, they delivered a strike worth a million, but the effectiveness is a kopeck. You know, this reminds me of school. “Swing for a ruble, but hit for a kopeck.” Yes. This seems like some kind of school get-together to me. Well, this is some kind of kindergarten, a platoon. We haven’t grown up to the level of… Mobile groups of TCC colonels. And there’s also some kind of platoon-level thinking. That’s it. Yes. Let’s get into a fight, hit once and run away and hide behind this school toilet. Let’s watch, have a smoke, and see what the high schoolers will do. Some kind of kindergarten. Planning. Again. Clear planning. For what purposes is this being done? Economic feasibility, not for writing off drones. Well, I remind you, they’ve already started, uh, how shall I put it, they’ve already sat down on the drones [i.e., become dependent on/mired in drone contracts]. And try to check how many were launched. And how much money was spent on them? Impossible.
Host: Yes, Oleg Ivanovich, especially in our time, it’s too much of a story, a mystery that, as they say, is shrouded in darkness. On one hand, we see legislative norms that allow the sale of drones abroad. On the other hand, we see bloggers who continue to collect money for these same drones, so something doesn’t add up here, plus or minus, yes. But we leave this question open, also to our viewers, friends. What do you think, to what extent are such strikes capable of actually reducing the intensity of Russian attacks? Or maybe it’s more of a symbolic character? Write in the comments, we would be grateful for your answer. Let’s move on. But, as the biblical truth says, an eye for an eye. While we are striking targets on the territory of the Russian Federation, there are also retaliatory special operations that the RF was planning on the territory of Ukraine. But according to information from the SBU and the national police, these actions were nevertheless stopped. The RF was planning the murder of a well-known journalist, employees of the GUR (military intelligence), and heads of state enterprises. They were collecting data on the victims, places of residence in minibuses, uh, routes, excuse me, methods of possible attack. The organizer of the group was a 34-year-old citizen of Moldova, recruited by the Russian Federation while serving a sentence. For committing the murder, the special services promised a reward of up to one hundred thousand dollars. To what extent does the choice of such targets—media, military intelligence, strategic state enterprise—fit into the logic of hybrid warfare and an attempt to simultaneously strike at the informational, military, and economic stability of the state? Are we talking about a targeted strategy of pinpoint destabilization?
Oleg Starikov: Oleg Ivanovich, well, some small targets for military intelligence. I’m serious. Well, you see, to conduct such an operation, we’re back again, you see, I keep bringing everything back to economics, please. Yes. Yes. Why? Because war is economics, war is finances. No money, no war. That’s it, bayonet into the ground and go home. This is the most important thing, because without finances, without funding, nothing will happen. So, the amount of planning for the operation, yes, it takes several million dollars to spend, to conduct such an operation. Several million dollars. What for? What’s the goal? Why do this? No, I say again, I understand that some department is in a border region, Bryansk or Belgorod, an FSB department or a GRU intelligence center is located somewhere, they need to show results. But there are no results in their work. So let’s launch this. Or some people sitting in Transnistria or somewhere else, intelligence centers there, well, or somewhere, yes. And if someone at the tactical level comes up with this, they’ll get it on the head for it, they’ll be held accountable. And it’s the same way, it’s not just for nothing, I understand how it’s all done. Nobody counts here because we have a war. They think war cancels everything. No way. It seems that war is in no hurry.
How many criminal cases do we have opened under Articles 101 and 111 and related to especially dangerous state crimes? We expose spies every week. Nothing but spies. Yes, everything is fine, well done, excellent work.
Now another question. The result of the work of law enforcement agencies for special purposes and law enforcement agencies is a court decision in the name of Ukraine. How many of these cases that we are told about, that they catch someone every day, there are spies everywhere, have been sent to court and resulted in convictions?
Ask that same question. Again, I’m telling the respected host, ask a deputy or whoever will tell you how it’s all being fought, how many cases… the results of the work are evaluated by this, not by me just saying something and forgetting it. You know, I especially like it when they detain someone and put out a dollar, they put out a dollar, here’s a dollar. What, don’t people have dollars? Yes, everyone has dollars, you know, even we Ukrainians have this whole, uh, how shall I put it, a saying: “The money’s all gone, time to get out the dollars.” This is our mentality. Everyone has their own little stash. So they got out a dollar. Here’s 100 dollars, damn, that’s just how it is. What, are dollars forbidden or something? I don’t know, they act like they’re forbidden. And they keep putting them out, sitting there showing it all. They’ll have to answer for this after the war, because they are called law enforcement agencies. I say again, law protects rights, not punitive. Now uh…
They found someone, right? They found them. These people, what are they going for? So, it turns out, they consider, well, those who were detained, let’s assume that this uh actually happened. So it is. And the materials that have been documented will be submitted to court. That’s all clear. I agree.
Now we need to figure out why the people who were detained turned to a criminal path against…
Host: Well, why did they turn, Oleg Ivanovich? Let me clarify. The organizer of the group is named as a 34-year-old citizen of Moldova, recruited in the RF while serving a sentence. That is, perhaps this is already some kind of typical or trending scheme of using such a foreigner with a criminal past to carry out sabotage tasks for the Russian Federation. So, he… and who was in his group? Did anyone join the group or not?
Oleg Starikov: Well, apparently yes. But it’s not specified here. No. So, this is the main thing. He didn’t do it himself. It’s one thing if Moldovans, a group of Moldovans, builders came and under the guise of builders began to carry out the task assigned to them by a special service. That’s one thing. A group of Moldovans organized, that is, a criminal group, a sabotage and reconnaissance group, let’s call it that, uh, foreigners. I agree. But here, who were his uh… the perpetrators? He is the organizer, he is the foreman, right? And who did he organize? So, who did he find? The same Moldovans? No, citizens of Ukraine. Now we ask ourselves: why did citizens of Ukraine take this path? Is anyone investigating this?
This is the very foundation of the work of the state machine.
Why does a person, yes, a person comes in, appointed as an official, he has a wonderful face, honest eyes, he speaks English, he’s such an activist, stands there, well, a very normal activist. And after six months, he becomes a corrupt official.
Why did he become a corrupt official? By the way, I haven’t seen a single activist who doesn’t have this smell of corruption around him. Show me a new face that doesn’t have this trail of gray hydrogen SO3. Yes, honest, most importantly, honest eyes. That I understand. Poverty, uh, need, but you want to live, and you see that around you, this exists, there are opportunities, and a person is weak. But a person is weak. It wasn’t for nothing that Jesus Christ gave his life for us, such weak ones, so that we would think. He made the 10 commandments. Ah well, man is weak. Weak, nothing… This I understand. But this is against the state. Where you live, where your parents are, where you were born, where you went to school, to university, where you socialize, and you betray them.
This is a completely different motivation. It’s not money. I tell you straight, it’s not money.
Host: It’s all money.
Oleg Starikov: No, it’s not money. And why isn’t anyone addressing this?
Host: It’s nice to hear, Oleg Ivanovich, that $100,000 is not money to you.
Oleg Starikov: No, it’s… Oh, you see, this is your Generation Z’s… your generation of 30-year-olds. I call the generation 30 to 45 years old, but 50 years old is a lost generation. 35-50 is a lost generation. Because you measure everything by money. No, my dear, not everything is measured by money. These people came when, back in ’19, I remember, Timokha became a minister here. And “We’ll step over, we’re coming, we’ll show everyone,” and so on. Those who don’t respect their elders will face the same fate. That’s what led to this. Honest eyes would save us. But in reality, this reminds me of “The Twelve Chairs.” Remember how Ostap Bender uh went to get tickets, that is, tickets, yes, passes from the controller for “The Marriage”? He says, “Where did you see…” then this ticket-taker remembers, somewhere he saw those honest eyes of Ostap Bender. And then he remembered: “Oh, he was in the transit prison, when he was serving time for a minor offense, yes, honest eyes.” So, we don’t need all this, it’s all been done before.
Not everything is measured by money. So until the time when people come who will measure and evaluate their actions from the perspective that this is your territory, this is your apartment, this is your entrance, this is your house, this is your street, this is your city, and this is your country, and not the other way around. “First, think about the Motherland, and then about yourself.” In the Strategic Missile Forces, where I served, there was a saying, we all laughed, yes, somewhere about that, about the Motherland. Rodina [Motherland] wasn’t the Motherland, the former USSR, but there was a Colonel-General Rodin, a member of the military council, a political officer. We used to joke: first, think about him, and then about yourself, sit down. So, we’re thinking about someone else, we have a different worldview. We’re not thinking about someone else. For us, the priority is family, home, apartment, city, community. We are different. We have a completely different… we live differently, we think differently. That’s why the northerners [Russians] aren’t attacking us? Because they have a completely different worldview. And we switched to their side. We have the same thing. The state. So, why isn’t the state working, doesn’t understand, and isn’t working, isn’t doing everything possible to prevent such facts, isn’t conducting preventive measures? Doesn’t engage in military-patriotic education? Why? Because… Yes, because… Because why? Because, yes, and that’s it, friends, write, react, what you think about this. I see your comments, we are grateful for your activity. Don’t forget to support this conversation with a like, because this way you’ll help YouTube’s algorithms understand that this conversation is interesting not only to you but could potentially be interesting to other viewers.
Host: Oleg Ivanovich, this conversation will make those who might embark on a criminal path think. They’ll think, and then they’ll say, “No, really, maybe…” With you, Eduard, several people will step away from this criminal path, they’ll say, “Yes, really, we need to… those thoughts I had, wanting to earn some money.” No, we’ll turn them away from this. And so, I believe we have fulfilled our task of general preventive work.
Oleg Starikov: God willing, Oleg Ivanovich. On the other hand, I’ve very rarely seen people who, before embarking on a criminal path, actually thought about it beforehand. But who knows.
Host: The Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine, Pivnenko, said that Ukraine, Oleg Ivanovich, will be able to fight for several years, he says 100%, and will not give up any territories to the Russian Federation. There is data on the mobilization resource, the standing of the defense industry and its condition, the volume of Western military aid, the burden on the budget, where a significant part of the expenditure is the security and defense sector. And at the same time, this part of the expenditure is subsidized by our partners. How realistic is it to talk about a guaranteed ability to conduct intensive combat operations over a horizon of several years, Oleg Ivanovich, and what factors – demographics, societal fatigue, economic factors – could become critical in the long term?
Oleg Starikov: What do you think, should the Commander of the National Guard say something different if the Supreme Commander-in-Chief says the same thing? He, naturally, will say what the Supreme… there is a higher political authority. The military is completely subordinate to the higher political authority. He can’t speak otherwise, but if I were in his place, I would advise focusing on better execution, increasing the level of combat readiness of the National Guard, combat training, combat capability, working on education, on military-patriotic education. As for political statements, that’s the Minister of Defense, he’s in the Cabinet of Ministers, let him make political statements. This is just a little advice from a person who, since ’92, I was at the origins of building military counterintelligence in the National Guard, Internal Troops, and served until 2010, and I serviced, including in Kyiv, I was the head of operational units for the National Guard and Internal Troops. I know them all well, and they know me well. Therefore, respected gentlemen who hear me, generals, uh, stick to your functions, and don’t make political statements. That’s the first point. The second point, war itself is political, it’s within the political framework; when the political component ends, the military one will end too. I said it wrong, again: when the political one concludes, the military one will also conclude. I always draw attention to these two verbs: politics will conclude, the political elites will end the war, then the military will be ordered, they’ll immediately, well and good, immediately go about their business, withdraw troops to permanent deployment points and will carry out those tasks prescribed by the statutes of the armed forces, orders, and so on.
Host: Oleg Ivanovich, maybe it’s the other way around?
Oleg Starikov: No.
Host: Let me clarify the question. When this statement is made, for example, that Ukraine will not give up any territories, and that’s a fact, but it sounds like a political-strategic directive, to what extent could this be a rigid public formulation to narrow the space for diplomatic maneuver for politicians?
Oleg Starikov: Not the first time. Again, I’ve already said, I repeat, the entire military structure, the military system, the entire military system, law enforcement agencies and also special services, the law enforcement fund, uh, law enforcement agencies of special purpose, law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, the armed forces are subordinate to civilian authority. I sing it again, they are subordinate to civilian authority. If the military, the top military leadership does not carry out the order of the top political leadership, then they precisely fall under those articles we were talking about 10 minutes ago. That is, here we have the next point: what are we fighting for? Well, remember at the beginning of the war, “an authoritarian state.” And now the Supreme Commander-in-Chief says: “An authoritarian state attacked peaceful Ukraine, meaning it is trying to impose its authoritarian methods, its control, and so on, on our democratic country.” That is, we are fighting for freedom and democracy, for democracy. And democracy does not imply military rule. Military rule is called something else: a junta.
A junta. Therefore, I didn’t say it for nothing, I advise the respected generals in the National Guard, a structure I respect, for which I have great, great respect, well, I know them all. Don’t get involved in this politics. Your task is combat readiness and protection, that is, care for every soldier, so that they give you soldiers as materiel, and you return them alive and healthy. Even in wartime, that is the commander’s task. That’s all. And also, naturally, the social protection of servicemen related to those wounded, those killed, naturally, all payments, well, and everything connected with these issues.
Therefore, I repeat again, unfortunately, in our information space, and also in the information space of European countries, I recently gave comments to the Italian press, La Repubblica, the central press, and an Italian asked me exactly the same question. “And if so,” I tell him, “Wait, with you, if your Chief of the General Staff disobeys your Prime Minister Meloni, yes, disobeys, what will happen? What do you think will happen?” He says, “Well, what do you think? And with us?” The same thing.
Therefore, there are some hotheads, there are, I agree. But for that, there are appropriate structures that ensure state security.
And they are responsible for that. The Department for the Protection of National Statehood, the Department of Military Counterintelligence, it is their main task to restrain hotheads, to have conversations with them, general preventive conversations, or just conversations. When the order comes from the top political leadership, they won’t go anywhere, everyone will carry it out, withdraw, stand in permanent deployment points, and carry out the task. No one will carry it out? They’ll be dismissed from their positions and uh stripped of their military ranks. That’s what happened? Remember when the Secretary of War, by the way, the title Secretary of War, Hegseth, yes, gathered all the generals. 400 generals, remember, he gathered them, or 800 from all over the country he gathered, yes? That was last year. And President Trump spoke, they all came, well, it was a meeting, the Secretary of Defense spoke, and then the President spoke. And what did President Trump say? He said: “Whoever disagrees with me, please stand up and leave. Tomorrow you will be stripped of your military ranks, awards, all privileges you had. Go ahead.” The military, the military, the top military are subordinate… again, they are subordinate to the top political leadership. This is not a party. In the army, engaging in political activity is forbidden. We have problems. We have some individual structures that engage in political… legislation.
Host: Oleg Ivanovich, yes, we just heard your main point: that the military should not engage in politics, since that’s the most important thing, and your final point.
Oleg Starikov: The final point is that these narratives being thrown around are very bad, it won’t happen like that. It will only be political, that is, only the country’s leader, the politicians who are elected or who are currently elected until new elections, that’s it. Nothing else will happen. No military cabinet, no military generals in power. Only civilian politicians. Civilian politicians.
Host: Yes, let me remind you, we began our communication in this part with the statement by the commander of the National Guard, Pivnenko, that Ukraine can fight for several more years, 100%, and will not give up any territories to the Russian Federation. Let’s move on. Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv, Dnipro, and other major regional centers are under threat. Russian naval drones – a new threat for Odesa. In the spring and summer, the Russian Federation will destroy water supply systems, said ex-commander of the AMO [maybe a typo for AFU?] Ihor Yakubets. The Kremlin will also attack factories, enterprises, and military facilities, it was said. Let’s talk about military logic. Why water, and how is this different from strikes on energy infrastructure? That is, if we rely on this statement or formulation: water plus simultaneously factories, enterprises, military facilities. What is the military logic of shifting the focus to water supply? Is this an attempt to cause a humanitarian crisis, pressure on the authorities and society, disrupt industry, complicate logistics, medicine, or all at once? What do you say?
Oleg Starikov: No, well, this looks more like some kind of combat propaganda, yes, a humanitarian crisis. Uh, how long have we not seen strikes on Kyiv? When was the last strike on Kyiv? Well, relatively, a few days ago.
Host: No, on Kyiv.
Oleg Starikov: I’m talking about, well, what kind of… Dnipro? It’s been quiet for about two weeks now. Nothing at all. Not even alerts much. Oleg Ivanovich, what part of Kyiv do you live in?
Host: Let’s not disclose.
Oleg Starikov: Yes, I’m there, I’m where the humanitarian catastrophe is. Yes, I… thank God, I’m exactly in the area that didn’t get hit. But nearby, yes, there is really a humanitarian situation. That is, you have no electricity, and water, they only supply water now. With us, thank God, I’m closer to the Dnipro River. Therefore, uh, it’s the far side and so on, of course, the far side, Stara Darnytsia, there, of course, they have certain problems. Therefore, now everything connected with uh with air operations, they are more aimed at the humanitarian component, and uh, to put it another way, let’s call it political-diplomatic pressure. Why? Because, if we speak in military language, then uh a stage is ending. And in military operations, there are always stages like this: they conduct first, second, third, and within the framework of a military air operation, it’s the same, these air operations are assisting ground operations. Therefore, this in itself is a final stage connected with the realization of certain goals.
What goals are they pursuing? Well, firstly, everything related to energy. But energy for what? To make the military-industrial complex uh not work, not produce those items that Ukraine produces. That’s understandable. First. Dual-use goods. Understood. Third. The strikes related… already in January, an active phase began to knock out the energy system. And the energy system related to substations, thermal power plants, 150 kW, 330 kW. This is all, everything that is being done so that nuclear power plants cannot transmit to local areas, so that there can be no uh duplication of energy transmission, and also to cut off the power supply system to Western Europe. Why is this being done? Again, they are creating such islands, energy islands, military… I already said, as a humanitarian thing, to pressure society itself, so that it pressures the military. And the military themselves, their parents, children, wives, they live in the rear. So the rear pressures the military. That also exists, right? That exists. Well, and also, as I understand it, a retaliation. It’s a kind of payback. We were talking about Bryansk, Belgorod. You have to evaluate how the enemy perceives it. That is, we think we are responding, they think we are not responding.
Therefore, war on cities, first, war on infrastructures, second, is now being waged in full. It’s being waged in full. And there is a third war, which characterizes total war. That’s what we discussed in the first question. Everything related to sabotage and targeting civilians, top military leadership, political leadership, that is considered total war. God forbid it becomes… that is, there are individual elements, and they turn into a system. Then a war of attrition will turn into a real total war. And it can no longer be stopped. Then, really, everyone will feel it. And you, living on the Pechersk Hills, right, Eduard? Well, and I live there too.
Host: I live far from that district.
Oleg Starikov: No, well, we need to strive for that, right? We need to strive for it. Therefore, uh, the whole task is for the state to achieve its war aims. Political aims. And now I’ll ask you a question. Do we have political aims for the war? You won’t answer me. There are none. You will now start talking, it will be military aims. You will now start answering, for example, this is all military. These are not political aims. And there are no political aims. And most importantly, secondly, after the war, the state should emerge much stronger than before the war.
Let me put it differently. There are no political aims for society. There aren’t for politicians either.
Host: Ah, I agree. I agree. Yes.
Oleg Starikov: Depending, yes, for politicians… that is, I agree. I understand what you’re talking about. I understand. Yes. Well, this also indicates that wars are waged by elites. Not society wages war, but elites wage war. And it turns out that the elites are waging war, they have goals. They have goals. They shift responsibility onto society, saying society demands this. And society asks the question, asks the elites: name the goals of the war. They name military goals.
The 1991 borders. Well, further on the topic. But that is not political aims. It is not. As soon as you say political aims, a question immediately arises. Aha. The elites. So, the goals are a bit unrelated to making the state, upon exiting the war, again, and now the most important thing, the state exiting the war becomes stronger. And the state will exit… if the war ended even now, all our energy infrastructure is destroyed.
How will we build a new, strong Ukraine if all the energy infrastructure is destroyed? Yes, in principle, they brought in 2-3 GW, these… everything related to energy. In principle, they’ve already pulled in one nuclear power plant [mobile ones?]. Well, autonomous power sources, but that’s only for households, and everything related to industry.
We are told how many investments will come. Investments. We’ll be wallowing in money here. “Rivers of milk, banks of jelly.” There will be tons of money. Everyone is dividing it up. Everyone is dividing money. But there’s no one to work. Try to find a good electrician or mechanic now, you won’t find anyone. Thank God there are still 70-year-old grandpas who go around and do some work, but there are no young people left. The young people… in the end, what will happen in 10-15 years? And I’m not even talking about pensions, there will be no one to work.
That’s the most terrible problem. Now I draw a conclusion. The law of war.
What destroyed states, in most cases, was not the wars themselves, not victory or defeat in war, but the crisis that comes after the war and the devastation that comes after the war.
That’s it. That’s the law of war. And we must never allow this to happen.
We are fighting for an independent, strong Ukraine.
Host: The Institute for the Study of War reports that Putin is preparing for mobilization? The preparation for a new wave of mobilization is evidenced by the adoption at the end of last year of laws allowing the Ministry of Defense to call up a two-million mobilization reserve, and also by the fact that the influx of contract soldiers has stopped covering losses at the front. Oleg Ivanovich, to what extent do these steps really indicate preparation for a change in the situation at the front and as a real plan for the coming months?
Oleg Starikov: The Institute for the Study of War is Victoria Nuland. Yes, uh, absolutely right. It’s her husband, if I’m not mistaken. Yes, yes, yes. So, well, that’s clear then. The question in a war of attrition, which I talked about 5 minutes ago, that turns into total war. Time, the main factor, is time.
Who does time favor? Unfortunately, I see, when you ask the question, in principle, among European elites and a certain party, well, one of the major parties in the United States, they think that time is on the side of the transnationals.
Uh, conservatives, and I include myself, I’m a conservative too, think… I think that time is on the side of the Russian Federation. Why? Because, again, you can print a lot of money. War is finances, economy, and resources. Money… the European Central Bank can print a lot of money, although I’m not sure they haven’t printed it already. All our main allies or partners talk, they talk so much it brings tears to your eyes. They talk about how they perform on the proscenium. Macron, I listen to them, I just weep, weep, how they love our Ukraine. “Give money, give opportunities.” But you know, well, next time, they give, they give resources only to fight, so as not to lose. That is, to stretch time. What are they dragging time for? Time. Okay. They’re dragging time. What are they waiting for? They’re waiting for Putin to die.
Well, Putin will die. Okay, he died. I, by the way, have already thought about this. My next episode… Actually, the “Operational Situation” episode just came out. Very interesting. Look, it already got over 30,000 in 12 hours. And now “Military Affairs” will come out, and then next I’ll record “Military Affairs,” uh, a forecast of what will happen if the Russian Federation collapses. A scenario: what will happen if the Russian Federation collapses?
Has anyone thought about this? No one has thought about it, they don’t have the sense. And I’ve already started sketching out this scenario. And the situation is such that the main loser will be who? Europe, if Russia collapses.
Well, naturally, us too. We’ll be buried. We’ll simply be buried under this debris. We’ll be buried.
And Europe will completely fall under America. And Europe will be no more.
Host: Regarding mobilization, Oleg Ivanovich, I remind you.
Oleg Starikov: That’s what I’m talking about. Mobilization. If we think that people who steal toilet bowls sit in the Kremlin, well, such dim-witted ones, right? Well, of course, yes, in a month it will all collapse, everything, everything will collapse. But we’re talking about something else. You have to respect, understand, and know your enemy. You can say whatever you want about them, but that they are not professionals at their job? No. They are professionals at their job, cynics, criminals, all that, all that is understood, but they perfectly calculate, calculate all options, just as I calculate all options before something happens, before certain actions. If indeed there is now a war between conservatives and liberals, the liberal side, that is, the Democrats, let’s call them Democrats, liberals, whatever they’re called, well, okay, the liberal-democrats. They think that Putin… that is, everything will collapse now, and they will seize Russia’s resources and… someone from the war, Russia will lose again, as in ’91, they will take back the resources, everything they spent on the war, from Russia in this way, and restore all their damages, all the money they transferred, they’ll restore it all. Nothing of the sort. The Americans will take everything. The Americans will take everything, they won’t give anything to the Europeans.
Therefore, there will be no mobilization in Russia in the near future, not even in the medium term.
Accepted. Let’s put a period there. There is a semicolon after this. Oleg, and the second important thing, why there won’t be? You’ll ask, there won’t be. Why won’t there be? Because in a war of attrition, in a total war, I said, time is on the side of the Kremlin. That’s the conclusion. And the viewers themselves will draw the further conclusions from what I said.
Host: Why did you say we put a semicolon? Because according to media reports, mass distribution of summonses for military exercises has begun in Belarus, especially in the western regions of the country.
Oleg Starikov: Well, the thing is, in order to… how to maintain, how to increase the level, I understand that Lukashenko, realizing that the army he was building is currently, in principle, not very ready for the new realities of the war, the Russian-Ukrainian war, he is now raising the level of combat readiness, mobilization, the military commissariats are working, because mobilization itself is a serious… This is the hardest thing there is in a state. I repeat again, there is nothing harder. How to conduct a mobilization process that exists in the state? I’m serious, there’s nothing harder. And he, now, in principle, might be conducting this as a partial test to see how it all goes.
Nothing terrible. Personally, as a military personnel, I do not see this as any kind of intelligence indicator that preparations for something are underway. I don’t see it.
Especially since the Republic of Belarus is the Belarusian Military District. Belarus is small. Their mobilization level has always been… they haven’t really changed it. They’ll raise it quickly. Maybe they’ll train now. This is not an intelligence indicator. A real intelligence indicator will be when they bring there uh elements.
That is, not containers of nuclear ammunition for Iskanders and Oreshnik, but they make a real arsenal there. That would be it.
Host: So you believe in Minsk’s official position. This is a planned test. You’re ready?
Oleg Starikov: I don’t believe. I say again, it’s a different question. I’m a career counterintelligence officer, a career military man. For me to draw any conclusions, I consider that I look at intelligence indicators. There are intelligence indicators. Uh-huh. One thing is talking, another thing is actually moving the supplies. Absolutely right.
Host: There is a statement from five European intelligence agencies, and it is reported that they consider an end to the war this year unlikely. Our viewers also asked about this. I’ll quote you quite simply. And here the nickname is not very readable. “When will it all end?” was said. Oleg Ivanovich, finally, this question to you. Who is… Okay, I’ll say it differently. Who benefits from the war? Not on their own territory, but a war that provides opportunities for career advancement, uh, to get new ranks, to write some documents, to speak, to get political advancement, that is, something for politicians to grow. Society always supports those who advocate a hard line. This is always the case, in all times, these are populists, as they’re called. Next, the military-industrial complex works, starts making a profit. Previously, a shell, an artillery shell, a 155mm artillery shell cost 2,000 euros before the war. Now it costs 8,000 euros with the same wages, the same resources. So imagine, what percentage is that, right? Some will say 4%, right? It’s like that joke. I buy for two, sell for eight, that’s how I live on that 4%. Yes, naturally. And it goes on across the entire product range.
Next, you can go on business trips. That is, there is a certain pool of people who are interested in this. Yes, that’s how it is. That’s how it will be. That’s how it will be.
Therefore, the next question. In politics, there is so-called lobbying. And large military corporations always hire three-star, four-star generals to lobby their interests. For example, Boeing or uh Raytheon or uh Lockheed Martin, well, major American companies. They have all four-star generals there. Petraeus. Yes, and also the Minister of Defense of Britain, oh, Britain’s, Germany’s Defense Minister comes out and says: “Putin, that is, we, Russia, having ramped up its military-industrial complex, it won’t be able to stop it, and as soon as the Russian-Ukrainian war ends, they will come to…” There is logic in this, isn’t there? There is, of course, this is an intelligence indicator, this is a real intelligence indicator. So, what are the burghers doing and what will they do? Yes, we need to allocate money for defense. We need, need, need. So everything, everything, everything has been set in motion. And now let’s make a geopolitical choice. First, who benefits? Good. Is it beneficial for the United States of America for a deindustrialized Europe to become industrially developed again?
Well, you immediately answer: “No.” That’s right, isn’t it? No. Why? Because all the industry that exists is moving to America. All of it, the entire military-industrial complex is in America. Trump says: “Buy from me, I’ll sell you everything.” That is, you buy everything on the spot. It’s not beneficial for them to produce their own. Only Macron is trying to voice there: “Oh no, let us, I’ll sell.” He says: “No, no, we’re Americans.” They’re pressuring him.
Next. Is it beneficial for Russia for Europe to start developing its own military-industrial club? No, not beneficial. Not beneficial for her.
Is it beneficial for China? Not beneficial. Therefore, next. Is it beneficial for France for Germany, a country that currently has only one and a half brigades, one and a half combat-ready divisions, of which one is tank, no, one mechanized, one tank, maybe they’ve started recruiting now, but this was before the war, only those were combat-ready, the rest of the Bundeswehr wasn’t combat-ready. And now if the Bundeswehr grows to 250,000, that is, they will have 10 divisions, 20 divisions. How will France react to this? I’ll tell you right away. It will be like the aftermath of World War II. What happened then? What was the decision? Demilitarization of Germany, not militarization. Therefore, let’s approach all these information dumps not from a linear, primitive side, but from a global side. Will the United States allow military-industrial enterprises to develop in Europe? It won’t allow it. I tell you straight away, it won’t. And second, uh, what are the States doing? The States are providing all these preferences, causing all enterprises to leave. Soon there will be no Mercedes and no Volkswagen in Germany. Everything will leave. Everything will leave in different directions. By the way, Volkswagen built a wonderful electric car factory in China. They are already selling electric cars in Kyiv for $25,000. Our citizens are already buying them, scraping together their last money, because the money is gone. Well, they buy a $25,000 Volkswagen, a nice, beautiful ID. They let me test drive it, I drove it, yes, a wonderful car, but I think, with our cold weather, electric cars won’t work for us. We need internal combustion engines. So, not everything is so simple. Not everything is so simple. We will… in order to draw correct conclusions, we’ll watch the Politeka channel. And whoever wants to listen to lectures more substantively, watch my author’s programs. I give lectures there. Please subscribe, don’t forget. Very interesting. No one gives such information as I do on my channels, in my author’s programs.
Host: Friends, to put a period at the end of our conversation, you need to press, click, rather, the like button up. We would be grateful for your support, subscribing to Politeka and also to Oleg Ivanovich’s author channel. The link will be in the description of this video. Oleg Ivanovich, we are grateful for the conversation, for your vision of what’s happening. Take care of yourself. Good health. We’ll see you in 2 weeks, but you’ll see my colleague in literally 7 days. Until we meet again.
Oleg Starikov: Thank you. Yes, thanks. 5,000 people watched live. That’s more than all the unified news in a week. We got 5,000 on one broadcast. Thank you very much. Subscribe, don’t miss it. Thanks, friends. See you.
Synopsis
In this February 20, 2024, interview on the Politeka channel, military expert Oleg Starikov offers a skeptical and strategically-focused analysis of recent events in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The discussion covers several key topics:
- Deep Strikes into Russia: Regarding Ukrainian drone attacks on Bryansk and Kapustin Yar, Starikov argues they lack clear strategic purpose. He dismisses their military effectiveness, suggesting they are primarily informational (“showing we can reach you”) or even counterproductive, as they allow Russia to strengthen its air defenses. He contrasts this with the need for operations driven by clear political goals and economic cost-benefit analysis, criticizing a perceived lack of professional planning.
- Failed Russian Sabotage Plots: Commenting on a foiled Russian plot to kill Ukrainian officials, Starikov shifts the focus from the perpetrators to the root causes within Ukraine. He questions why Ukrainian citizens would collaborate with Russia, linking it to broader societal issues like poverty, corruption, and a failure of state institutions to provide preventive education and genuine patriotism. He contrasts this “lost generation” motivated by money with an older generation’s value system.
- Ukraine’s Long-Term War Capability: Reacting to a general’s claim that Ukraine can fight for several more years, Starikov firmly states that military leaders should focus on their professional duties (training, troop welfare) and leave political declarations to civilian authorities. He emphasizes the principle of military subordination to civilian power, warning against any drift towards a “junta.”
- Russian Strategy on Infrastructure: Analyzing potential Russian strikes on water supplies, Starikov views them as part of a broader “war on cities and infrastructure.” He believes these strikes aim to pressure Ukrainian society and, through them, the military, creating “humanitarian” pressure as a political-diplomatic tool. He distinguishes between tactical strikes and the systemic targeting that characterizes a “total war.”
- Mobilization in Russia and Belarus: Starikov dismisses ISW reports that Putin is preparing for a new mobilization wave, arguing that in a war of attrition, time favors Russia. He views Belarusian military drills as routine readiness checks, not a precursor to involvement. He warns that those who underestimate the Kremlin’s professionalism are mistaken.
- The War’s Endgame and Geopolitics: Concluding that the war will end when political elites decide, not through military action alone, Starikov explores who benefits from its continuation. He identifies the military-industrial complex and certain political actors as beneficiaries. He presents a global view where the U.S. benefits from a deindustrialized Europe dependent on American arms, and argues a Russian collapse would be catastrophic for both Europe and Ukraine. He laments the absence of clear political war aims from Ukraine’s elites, warning that the post-war crisis and devastation could ultimately destroy the state more effectively than the war itself.