Sestry | Нійоле Діргінчене: «Втомилися від війни? Тоді готуйтеся бути наступними!» (2024)

<add-big-frame>After many months of preparation and pilot training, the mighty roar of F-16 engines can finally be heard over Ukraine. The first shipment of 10 American-made fighters is already performing combat missions, and their presence can be felt on the frontlines. <add-big-frame>

<add-big-frame>Our modern fleet is expected to be joined by 20 new planes by the end of the year. While Ukrainian pilots are training, Kyiv could ask NATO member states about recruiting retired pilots. <add-big-frame>

Dan Hampton: I think snails move faster, but you know, that does not matter anymore. I wish this had happened a year and a half or two years ago, but now that they are here, the focus should be on using them as effectively as possible to win the war.

Mr Hampton, you are one of the most decorated fighter pilots since the Vietnam War. Over your 20-year career, you completed 151 combat missions in the Middle East during both Gulf Wars. From your professional perspective, what should be the main priorities for the 10 aircraft we currently have? How should we use them?

Of course, it depends on your Air Force and your government, but I am confident they will agree that the first priority should be clearing the skies over Ukraine of Russian aircraft. Once you have air superiority and control your skies, you can move freely on the ground and do whatever you need to do. The Ukrainian Air Force has done a great job and shown immense bravery over the past few years, but I think the F-16s have arrived just in time.

If Ukraine can secure its airspace, it will have many opportunities to carry out other necessary operations to drive the Russians out

‍By the end of the year, the number of F-16s in our arsenal is expected to increase to 30. In your opinion, what opportunities will this open up for us?

The real advantage of the F-16, and what truly frightens the Russians, is that this aircraft can perform so many different tasks, and the pilots are trained to execute a wide variety of missions - whether it is close air support, air combat, or taking out surface-to-air missile systems - anything. So, the more aircraft you have, the more flexibility you will have to carry out multiple missions simultaneously, depending on the need.

‍Overall, Ukraine is expected to receive 79 F-16 fighters. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has previously stated that to counter Russia in the sky effectively, we need at least 128 aircraft. So, my question is: will the promised number of F-16s be enough to impact the dynamics of the conflict and strengthen the military capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces?

Absolutely. I mean, 30 aircraft would be a very strong start. That is roughly the size of one United States Air Force fighter squadron. So, if you end up with 79 or 80 aircraft, that is almost three squadrons. You could position them in different parts of the country, allowing them to conduct various types of missions. This would give you significant flexibility to support Ukrainian ground forces and push the Russians back across the border.

In Russia, they are trying to downplay the capabilities and potential impact of the F-16s on the battlefield. Yet, recent attacks suggest that the Russians are also targeting American F-16s by striking airfields. What does this behaviour and these actions from the aggressor indicate?

Desperation. They are trying to downplay the role of the F-16 because they have not been able to control the skies over Ukraine for over two years. And they know it. They know they can not advance on the ground without air superiority. They tried to achieve this in the first 10 days of the war, but the Ukrainians completely shattered them. So, of course, they are going to say things like that. But who believes what the Russians say, right? I mean, they make everything up. They lie. It is propaganda.

If I were there with my colleagues, flying and fighting alongside the Ukrainians, they would not need to find me. I would find them myself. And I am confident your pilots feel the same way. So, it does not matter what the Russians say

United States Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has stated that he plans to ask President Joe Biden for permission to allow retired pilots to fly on Ukraine's behalf. You have previously mentioned that if you could, you would come to Ukraine and fight on our side. Do you still have that desire?

Absolutely. We are working on it. It is challenging for former officers, but I believe we will make it happen. There is a big difference between a volunteer with a rifle joining the ground forces and a former military officer flying to fight for Ukraine. So, these are political issues that, I hope - really hope - will be resolved very, very soon.

How do you feel about the idea of basing Ukrainian F-16s abroad for security reasons, for example, in Poland? There, you have good runways and maintenance capabilities. After all, Russia has kept its aircraft in Belarus and launched attacks from there.

It is no different. You know, everyone makes a big deal about not using Western weapons to strike Russian territory. But they constantly do it to Ukraine, don’t they? The Russians are using lousy North Korean ammunition, foolish drones from Iran, and other weapons. And, you know, it does not matter.

Regarding the use of Poland, it is a political issue. And since Poland is part of NATO, it makes the situation a bit more complicated. I do not have a definitive answer for you. I think Ukraine aims to have several well-protected airbases within its borders, where these aircraft can be serviced, repaired if necessary, and continue flying.

I do not think Ukraine wants to rely on anyone else, and you should not have to. And if everything goes as it should, you will not need to rely on others. You will get all the help and equipment you need, the political issues will be resolved, and you will win the war.

Do you foresee any logistical challenges in deploying and maintaining the F-16s in Ukraine?

You know, I can not give you a definite answer because I have not seen where these planes are based or what agreements have been made. I know that your government and military are smart enough to think through all of this, and they have had enough time to prepare for the arrival of the F-16s. So, I have to believe that everything necessary to keep these aircraft flying and fighting has already been established.

The United States will provide the F-16s with domestically produced missiles and other advanced weaponry, including the latest version of the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile and the AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missile. Can you tell us what this weaponry is capable of?

This is a very good decision because you definitely need this weaponry, and it makes the F-16s significantly more dangerous for the Russians. The AIM-120 AMRAAM is an active radar-guided missile, which means that the aircraft launching it does not need to keep the enemy on its radar. It can fire the missile, which has its own radar inside, and it will head towards the target and destroy it. This allows the launching aircraft to target multiple enemy planes at the same time, and the missile will do the rest.

As for the AIM-9X, it is an infrared missile with a high range. You do not necessarily need to aim directly at the target. You could be sideways to the target, and the AIM-9 will find the heat source and take it out.

So that is good. This is top-notch weaponry used by our Air Force, and I am glad we are providing it to the Ukrainian Air Force

Despite the extensive support of F-16 weaponry, the United States still prohibits strikes deep into Russian territory from these jets. What could change Washington's stance on this matter?

That is a very good question. I do not understand politicians, so I can not figure out what they are thinking. I believe it is foolish to give someone a weapon and then tell them they can only use it up to a certain point.

And if Washington is trying to maintain some sort of friendship with Moscow for whatever reason, I do not see the point. I do not care what Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin think about Western weapons reaching Ukraine. After all, they are attacking Ukraine with their own weapons and those they are receiving from other countries, aren’t they?

So, what is the difference if the situation were reversed? Russia is not going to do anything reckless, like attacking NATO or the United States Even Putin would not go that far

I would like our government to be less timid and say, «Hey, this is your weapon, use it as you see fit». What are we going to do, take it back? I do not think so. So, I believe that once you have the necessary weapons, if the situation allows it, you will be able to use them as you deem appropriate.

What do you think should be the first target if we get the green light from Washington?

Airfields from which they launch those drones at your cities, and where they base their fighters and reconnaissance planes - that is what I would target. I would destroy the airfields and take out as many of their aircraft on the ground as possible. Again, I do not have the same information that your Air Force and government do.

I am confident that right now, they are doing what is best for Ukraine, and in the future, things will only get better

How effective do you think the training of Ukrainian pilots has been, considering that its duration had to be shortened to record lengths?

Yes, that is true. It was shortened. But your pilots were not complete novices. They all flew MiGs or Sukhois and were already fighter pilots. So, it is just a matter of teaching them to operate a new aircraft, learn new tactics and adapt to new equipment. The F-16 is very different from the aircraft they have flown before, but they were more than capable of mastering it.

I believe they were very impressed with the capabilities of the F-16, and they approached it with great enthusiasm and were very pleased to be learning to fly it. And from everything I have heard from my colleagues who trained your pilots, they handled the task very well.

Was the prior experience of flying MiGs or Sukhois more of a hindrance or a helpful skill during training on the F-16?

A bit of both. I have also transitioned from one aircraft to another, and I am sure they had a similar experience. You develop habits from your previous aircraft because all fighters are different. It is not like renting a car. You can not just jump in and fly. They are all different, and you need to learn each one.

And sometimes, especially if you have spent a lot of time on a previous aircraft, you have to unlearn certain habits and develop new ones. So, in that sense, it was a challenge, but no more so than for anyone else. What really helped them is that they are used to flying at speeds of 400 or 500 miles per hour (643 to 804 kilometres per hour), thanks to their previous experience.

They are accustomed to thinking very quickly and operating a jet aircraft. So, these are all good qualities that carry over from one aircraft to another

Can you share how the F-16 has performed in other wars or against similar adversaries in the past?

I participated in both Gulf Wars (the armed conflict from 1990 to 1991, where Iraq faced a coalition led by the United States. - Author), and while those were not Russians, they were using Russian equipment and were trained by Russians. In both cases, after the first 24 to 36 hours, the enemy air force stopped taking to the skies and engaging with us because those who did never made it back home.

I do not take them lightly. I do not underestimate them, but I do not overestimate them either. They have very significant weaknesses, and we are aware of them. We have the tactics and weapons that we have passed on to your pilots to be able to combat them quite effectively.

If you compare all the weapons for the F-16 that have been provided or promised to us with the best Russian weaponry, who would have the advantage, in your opinion?

The F-16 has the edge. It has a much better radar and can deploy a wider array of weapons that we have, much more effectively than the Russians can. So, I am confident that your pilots have been trained on all of this. They know the systems, they know the weapons, and I am sure they will use them correctly. And Ukraine will be proud of them.

‍In 2022, Russia employed S-300 missile systems to strike ground targets in Ukraine. Now, Russian arms manufacturers have once again upgraded this surface-to-air missile defence system for ground offensive operations. Among your achievements is the destruction of 21 such installations. Ukrainian forces may also need to target Russian air defence systems from the sky. What are the biggest challenges in such operations?

This is a very complex question. The mission of hunting down and destroying surface-to-air missile systems is the most dangerous in any air force, in any theatre of operations. It is far more risky than close air combat or shooting down enemy fighters in the air.

The Russians, to their credit, have always had good systems, and they have many of them. One of the primary challenges in any of these situations is pinpointing their exact location. We have assets in space and other places that can locate them.

I hope that all this information will be passed on to the Ukrainian Air Force so they can use it to do what needs to be done to eliminate these air defence systems.

This project is co-funded by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation as part of the «Support Ukraine» program, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

‍

‍

20

хв

Mariia Gorska: On July 1st Ukraine began the negotiations on joining the EU. It is a unique case - a country resisting an aggressor is simultaneously going into the EU. As an expert on the European Commission in the 2000s and an employee of the Polish Committee for European Integration in the 1990s, how do you see this moment in Ukraine and Poland’s history?

Małgorzata Bonikowska: This is certainly a precedent. The EU has never faced such a situation before. None of the candidate countries have been in a state of open war. The Republic of Cyprus was the only country that joined while having problems at the borders.

But it was the war that led the EU, as a union of twenty-seven, to make decisions important to its history. Not only did it unequivocally condemn Russia and support the country that suffered from the attack and brutal invasion, but it also adopted more than a dozen packages of sanctions against Russia and introduced joint mechanisms of financial and military assistance to Ukraine.

This is also a precedent in the European Union - joint arms purchases from a common budget, the so-called «European Peace Facility». The EU has never engaged in this before.

This war has put the structures of the European Union into a state of shock. In response, certain measures have been taken that resulted in an expansion and a quick start of the negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova

Processes that could not be moved for years, if not decades, are now happening.

What are the main tasks for Ukraine during the negotiations?

While the war in Ukraine is an absolutely extraordinary situation, the process of negotiations about joining the EU is a standard procedure.

Poland, like other countries that joined the EU, went through this process. It involves a country that wants to join the European Union negotiating to adopt the entire legislative base and the main principles of the EU's functioning. Therefore, these are negotiations in which the position of the negotiating country is weak because, as a rule, this country still has to accept everything in the end.

The only question is how quickly and to what extent. The negotiations are based on clearly defined principles. There are 35 negotiation chapters concerning specific areas of state functioning, such as agriculture, environmental protection, education, the economy and healthcare. The negotiations concern how quickly and to what extent the country wishing to join the EU will adapt to the EU legislation and internal rules.

Transition periods are possible, meaning a slower adaptation. In exceptional cases, exemptions, known as derogations from EU rules, are possible. For example, Malta has additional guarantees against the purchase of property by citizens of other countries.

Where do the biggest problems lie in Ukraine’s case?

First and foremost, it is corruption - a massive problem. It concerns the whole functioning of the state in habits formed back in the Soviet time.

The organisation of the state largely relies on agreements and oligarchy, and society has become accustomed to this. Corruption, of course, exists everywhere to some small extent, including in the EU, but such cases are stigmatised. There is an apparatus to hold people accountable in such situations.

However, these are absolute exceptions and are unequivocally condemned. Upon joining the EU, Ukraine will need to adjust the functioning of its state, relying on strong institutions and transparent procedures.

How long can Ukraine's integration take, and is it realistic to implement changes during the war while simultaneously defending the country?

The EU understands that the war is an additional challenge that places a tremendous burden on the Ukrainian state.

At the same time, Ukraine receives significant military and financial assistance. Therefore, it is important that there is no doubt about where this aid is going and that it is not subject to corruption mechanisms. When we talk about the plan for Ukraine's reconstruction after the war, we think not only about where to get the funds, in what scale, and how to modernise the country, but also how to ensure these funds do not leak «to the side» into private hands.

This is important, and I believe that one of the methods is close cooperation with foreign advisors from EU countries, including Poland.

Before the start of negotiations, the President of Ukraine approved a delegation to take part in negotiating the joining with the EU that was comprised of government officials, diplomats and experts. How important is the composition of this group and what skills should these people have?

Negotiation group is a formal structure, created by the government of the country joining the EU.

Each negotiation area is headed by a deputy minister who coordinates the work of an entire team. This team comprises individuals with substantial knowledge of the areas of discussion. Usually, these are people appointed by the relevant ministries - ministry employees or external experts. Exactly these individuals, using their professional knowledge, must assess the implications of implementing EU norms in Ukraine and their impact on specific sectors. Their role is to analyze whether there is a need for delays or even deviations from EU rules, and if so, to what extent, as well as how to prepare the legal framework in your country for making the necessary changes.

Ukraine is subject to a screening process which involves analysing the entire legal situation for discrepancies, gaps in legislation, lack of regulations and the need for new ones. The negotiating team will provide recommendations on creating regulatory documents that will need to be submitted to the Ukrainian parliament. As a result of the negotiations, Ukraine's legal situation should closely align with the EU's legal framework, so that there are no discrepancies at the time of accession.

This concerns the «Acquis communautaire» legislation, meaning all the legal norms, directives and standards that member states must adhere to. At the same time, however, each country has the right to negotiate a longer implementation period for these rules in particularly challenging areas. In Poland's case, for example, this was environmental legislation, as it set requirements too high for our country's development stage at that time. We joined the EU in 2004, and the transition period lasted until 2017 because we understood that we could not implement all EU standards in this area faster.

The Ukrainian side together with the EU needs to identify such issues that pose clear difficulties and agree on an extended period for implementing EU norms in these areas.

According to expert estimates, negotiations with the EU typically take an average of 5-7 years. However, the war in Ukraine is accelerating Ukraine's path to the West. How long can the negotiation and accession process take in our case?

War and accession are two different things. The war makes the negotiations difficult for Ukraine, though it will not accelerate them but rather slow them down

This is because the EU is already a quite complex organisation, comprising 27 countries with significant differences among them, as well as in their political systems. The accession of each new country poses additional challenges. Therefore, the EU tries to prepare both itself and the acceding country for this moment, minimising the differences. The greater the differences, the greater the internal problems for the EU as a whole.

We cannot allow a situation where enlargement undermines the entire structure from within.

There are many concerns on the EU’s side regarding the next enlargement. We do not want to weaken but only strengthen our community. That is why negotiations with Ukraine will be long and complex. In Poland's case, they lasted five years, and in Spain's case - nearly eight, while Greece had shorter negotiations (four years and five months, - Edit.).

Ukraine is a large and populous country. A large country means large problems. Look at the situation in agriculture and the conflict between Poland and Ukraine over grain. There will be more such situations in many other areas. Even without the war, there are many challenges between Ukraine and the EU, so negotiations will not be easy, and the moment of Ukraine's accession to the EU will be challenging for both sides.

What is the good news for Ukraine?

The good news is that there is a clear will to negotiate and that Ukraine is not only a candidate country but has already embarked on the path, with all twenty-seven EU member states convinced that Ukraine is a European country that must one day be a member of the European Union.

This is very good news for Ukraine. A few years ago, this prospect did not exist. Today, it is a reality materialising before our eyes.

What demands will Poland have in the negotiations with Ukraine? What will prevail - partnership or competition?

Ukraine is negotiating not with individual countries but with the European Commission.

The process is managed by the European Commission and the Directorate-General for Enlargement, which negotiates on behalf of all member states. The main idea is that the EU wants to expand and eventually accept Ukraine.

However, EU countries have different approaches to specific issues related to Ukraine's accession, depending on their own situations. There are countries where agriculture is a crucial aspect of the economy and is strong, such as Poland, France, and Italy, and there are those where agriculture is marginal, like Luxembourg.

Therefore, challenges like the ones posed by Ukrainian agriculture to the EU are crucial for some countries and less important for others. The same applies to other sectors.

Each member state analyses this through its own lens and provides the European Commission with specific comments and proposals regarding their preferences or concerns. It involves preserving the interests and positions of certain sectors and groups - entrepreneurs, farmers, the financial industry, the automotive industry - both in the EU and in Ukraine. Therefore, it is a process of reconciling very narrow details and specific technical issues.

In some respects, the negotiation process may seem like a step back for Ukraine. Due to the war, Ukraine suddenly became part of the European market at an accelerated pace, as the EU decided to help the Ukrainian economy by removing trade barriers. However, this was a temporary measure, driven by the Russian invasion and the desire to ensure Ukraine's survival.

Meanwhile, the war drags on, and we are facing a precedent where a country that is not in the EU has de-facto gained the same prerogatives that member-states have

This also applies to work permits and the free movement of people. During its negotiations with the EU, Poland particularly struggled with this issue, and we were unable to obtain the ability to freely operate in the European labour market from the first day of membership.

The only two countries that allowed us this opportunity at the time were the United Kingdom (which was then in the EU) and Ireland. All other EU countries imposed a seven-year transition period, meaning Poles could not work in EU countries without additional permits and procedures related to their employment.

Ukrainians, due to the war, have been granted the ability to move and work freely. In Poland, they receive a PESEL number, which means they can legally work, pay taxes, and, importantly, do not need to obtain any additional permits.

This would not have happened if it were not for the war.

How can Poland help Ukraine during the negotiations?

I believe Poland can do two things for Ukraine. First, we have gone through a similar process, so we have fresh practical experience to share. We negotiated our EU accession from 1998 to 2003. The people involved in this process are still active today. They can be asked for consultations, for example, as advisors to the Ukrainian government, to make the process as professional and efficient as possible.

Second, Poland, clearly interested in Ukraine's EU membership, can act as a bridge for Ukraine. Not all EU countries have such a clear vision of the future EU with Ukraine inside. There is a will, but some countries have significant reservations about how Ukraine functions and what it truly offers.

For example, Germany has many doubts. So today, Poland can play the role of a bridge, also connecting the cultural and historical closeness of our peoples. We can fulfil a similar role to the one Germany played for Poland in the late 1990s.

They wanted expansion and helped Western Europe not only recognise its inevitability but also see the benefits. Today, Poland can do the same for Ukraine.

What are the main lessons or advice you would give to Ukraine based on the Polish experience?

First and foremost, Ukraine needs to understand that everyone sympathises with it regarding the war. War is a terrible thing. But negotiations are different. Despite Ukraine's resistance to Russia, it will not receive special preferential treatment in the negotiations. It must become an EU member and accept the rules of this organisation.

Ukrainians have become very demanding. They feel they deserve everything because they are at war. This mindset is highly undesirable in negotiations. Ukraine must understand that it is joining a pool of countries that have agreed on a certain way of functioning, and excessive pressure and a lack of compromise will only lead to one thing - prolonging the negotiations.

The quick path to Ukraine's victory is joining NATO. However, the latest summit showed that NATO countries are not ready to offer Ukraine membership now. What should our actions be, and what are the prospects?

Firstly, continue fighting. Ukraine must withstand. No one knows how long - one year, two years - how long it will take. As long as the war in Ukraine continues, NATO will not accept Ukraine because the Alliance itself would be in a state of war.

After the end of the war, Ukraine’s situation will change - the Ukrainian army will be very experienced in combat and will be able to train the armies of the member-states itself. Accession to NATO will definitely be a step that will strengthen the Alliance.

We do not know how events will unfold in the United States and who will win the elections. However, an important part of thinking about Ukraine's future will be considerations about ending the war.

While Ukraine fights, Europe must remilitarise at an accelerated pace to provide Ukraine with enhanced assistance. Everyone here is racing against time, but not only us - Russia too. Look at the impact of sanctions - they have already led to Gazprom having negative financial results, meaning Russia's monetary resources for waging war are slowly running out. The faster their economy declines, the fewer funds Putin will have to finance the war, and the sooner it will end.

At some point, Russia will realise that it is not going to win this war and will come to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the negotiations will boil down to demands for Russia to retain the occupied territories and for Ukraine to be recognised as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

This situation is unacceptable for Ukraine and for the West.

Countries from the so-called axis of evil, along with some countries from the Global South, are helping Russia survive despite sanctions. How do we deal with this?

This is a matter of Western diplomacy, but the news is not so bad here. Look, in our camp, we have Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

Regarding other countries, we must negotiate and cooperate. Indeed, Russia is not alone and has its friends, allies, and countries it communicates with. But these are not always countries hostile to the West. These are often neutral countries or even partners of the West, like, for example, India.

Recently, we saw photographs of Prime Minister Narendra Modi visiting Putin. From India's perspective, this meeting was desirable, but the West perceived it negatively. Europe and the USA must be very active in the countries of the Global South. Not only transmitting our narrative and our vision of the war but also putting concrete proposals on the table that are more attractive to these countries than what comes from Russia.

Russia does not have much to offer, only cheap energy resources and weapons. We can provide a better offer.

In 5-10 years, what Europe will we live in?

It depends on us and our decisions, as well as whether we will yield to the pressure we are put under. Europeans are not used to living under constant threat.

After World War II, Europe, not having war on its territory, became accustomed to the idea that economic issues are the most important and that there are no other threats.

Now, Europeans live in constant stress - economic inequality disappoints people, and the international situation causes fear. Suddenly, it turned out that Russia, which seemed like a normal country, is not. All this is a kind of foundation for anxiety, disappointment, protests, and anarchic behaviour, and all this means that we can be internally destabilised.

Europe has found itself in between two polarities. One - is inner anxiety and disappointment because of the inner and outer instability. Second - the desire to assemble and work together

Which path will prevail and what does it depend on, while Europe is still at a crossroads?

I think people will not want to go back to the past and live worse. Our world is shaped by values, but also by the way of life and certain habits we have - for example, moving freely, living a safe, prosperous life, being together and cooperating in situations of increased threat.

We are going through tough times, and they require the implementation of cooperation mechanisms within the EU and across the entire European continent.

A lot depends on the leaders here. I see hope in the fact that in democracies, there are not just one, three, or five heads, but many, many people who have good ideas. This is much more powerful than the principle of action in authoritarian systems, where everything is decided by the leader and his will.

We can count on many wise heads and many wise concepts. We are already doing this, all because the war in Ukraine has accelerated certain processes. We see significant internal changes in the European Union. NATO expansion is ongoing, the EU enlargement process has begun, the coordination of the EU's military industry has been strengthened, and a Commissioner for Defense has been appointed.

Ukraine is our catalyst for positive change. Europeans have always emerged from crises stronger.

20

хв

Ексклюзив

Ексклюзив

Ексклюзив