fsfd
Interview of the Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, Doctor of Military Sciences, retired Captain 1st Rank of the Russian Navy, Konstantin Sivkov to Dimitris Konstantakopoulos for DefendDemocracy.Press and Militaire.gr.
There are no prerequisites for the use of nuclear weapons, and we will not use nuclear weapons against Europe. Those who call for the use of nuclear weapons are simply irresponsible publicists without military training seeking self-promotion. A nuclear conflict, even if only between France and Russia, would simply lead to the disappearance of Europe, but would also see Russia lose one-third of its territory and population. So why go to nuclear war?
This is the answer given to us in his interview by retired Captain of 1st Rank Konstantin Sivkov, Doctor of Military Sciences, with prior service at the Center for Military Strategic Research of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences (RARAN), former President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, and regular columnist and commentator in military journals.
One reason we requested this interview, except discussing of course the conflict in both Ukraine and Western Asia, was in order to have an authoritative comment from a renowned Russian military and geopolitical analyst of what various Russian analysts are saying, the most well-known case being Mr. Karaganov, who proposes the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against European cities, to prevent, as he writes, the further strengthening of Ukraine by the West and in order to “restore” Russia’s “deterrence capability.” Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical, because “deterrence,” by definition, serves to deter, not to provoke what it seeks to prevent.
We do not know why Mr. Karaganov and others in Russia make these statements, even going so far as to relativize the terrible consequences of a nuclear war, as well as offering a series of arbitrary reassuring predictions regarding the potential Western response to such a nuclear strike. In any case, such statements emanating from Russia objectively serve to support the foolish and utterly unfounded Western narrative that Russia supposedly wants to “conquer” Europe — something the Russians did not do when their troops were in Berlin, and they have far fewer reasons or possibilities to do it today.
Such statements contribute also, to discuss mainly in the West the supposed “Russian threats” and not the unfortunately very specific and very serious indications that it is, on the contrary, the extremist Western (and Israeli) “war party” that seeks to create conditions for a victorious nuclear war, and also that it is trying to push Russia into a first use of nuclear weapons. Look for an example to the way Paul Mason and the founder of the notorious Integrity Initiative speak about probably provoking Russia into launching a nuclear weapon https://thegrayzone.substack.com/p/leaks-show-paul-mason-secretly-advised. Or try to explain why the USA have abandoned all arms control treaties they were considering fundamental for avoiding a nuclear war(ABM, START, IMF, Open Skies) or why Britain seems to orient itself to a “first strike” nuclear doctrine (https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/is-london-shifting-from-nuclear-deterrence-to-war-fighting/). Due to the seriousness of this issue — that is, the preparation for transiting into a nuclear war by forces in the West and not in the East” — we hope to soon have the opportunity to present this question in detail in another article. We should note that this extremist western party of war would be very satisfied if Russia were to make a first use of nuclear weapons, provoking an uprising of all humanity against it and being held responsible for whatever follows. In any case, these positions have already caused concern and an official reaction from the Kremlin, which indirectly but clearly disapproved of them days ago, with a statement by the spokesman of the Russian President, Mr. Peskov: “Russia will never start World War III, because it is a very large and responsible country. If you remember history, Russia never started a world war. But when they started one against us, we responded to the end. Moscow has a nuclear doctrine that is very clear and very understandable. If something threatens the existence of the Russian state, then nuclear weapons will be used. Otherwise, they will not be used.” https://www.defenddemocracy.press/europes-worst-mistake-donbass-liberation-nuclear-escalation-kremlin-comments/ .
Captain Sivkov also comments on the evolution of the war in Ukraine, as well as in Western Asia, speaks about Trump and the global situation, and also about what will happen to Israel in the event of a nuclear war, and about relations with Turkey. He gives us a picture of views that have had serious support within the Russian elite until now, but are now receiving considerable criticism, due to the evolution of the conflict in Ukraine, and also because the image of Trump as a champion of peace, a fighter against globalization (although surrounded by the richest people on the planet) and a friend of Russia, is also suffering serious blows. The same is also happening with the assumption that Europe is pro-war and the US is pro-peace.
The interview was taken in the beginning of July. In the meantime, there has been an escalation of Ukrainian attacks against Russian cities and tankers carrying Russian oil, as well as an escalation of Russian counter attacks on ports and strategic points in Ukraine. We must wait to see if all that represents a radical shift in Russian military strategy.
In any case, with this interview, our readers have the opportunity to get a first-hand taste of the ideas and discussions taking place among the Russians themselves, and not from their foreign interpreters. The conclusions are yours.
D.K. We see in practice a frozen front in Ukraine. Is it a conscious choice or an objective necessity?
K.S.: Let us start from the beginning. First of all, I must state that there is no frozen front in Ukraine. There is forward progress, even if very slow at present. Currently, according to official data, a grouping of more than seven hundred thousand personnel of the Russian armed forces has been deployed on the territory of Ukraine. Seven hundred thousand people. This corresponds in size to two fronts of the Second World War. These forces are fully sufficient to conduct a strategic offensive operation to encircle and destroy the enemy troop grouping in the area of the Konstantinovka–Druzhkovka–Slavyansk–Kramatorsk fortified region. The reason why the Russian armed forces are not conducting a strategic offensive operation is that our leadership seeks to avoid a direct clash with NATO. The Russian armed forces, in their current state, are capable of resolving the issue of defeating the NATO armed forces today. However, according to NATO military doctrines, if the NATO armed forces suffer defeat, NATO may resort to the use of nuclear weapons. It is precisely for this reason that the Russian armed forces, seeking to avoid a clash with NATO and to prevent a transition to the use of nuclear weapons, have chosen this cautious strategy of waging war in Ukraine. The aim of this strategy is to exhaust the enemy, to knock out the most combat-capable and active part of the enemy, the ideologically charged Nazi element, and then to force the enemy to accept Russia’s terms for ending the military conflict.
D.K.: But I have the impression that Ukraine is acting as an instrument of war for the West.
K.S.: You are absolutely right. Ukraine is merely an instrument of the West. The West, using Ukraine as its tool, is waging a hybrid war against Russia. The purpose of this war is to inflict defeat on Russia and the Russian armed forces on the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, thereby achieving destabilization of the socio-political situation inside Russia itself, and thus triggering a color revolution on Russian territory. That is the West’s strategy.
D.K: If this is the West’s strategy, then the West is not interested in what happens to Ukraine. It is interested in continuing the war. Why would the West stop this war?
K.S. : The West will not stop this war. But if, on the territory of Ukraine, which is after all a sovereign state, events occur involving the defeat of its armed forces — not immediately, by means of the strategic operation I mentioned, during which the Ukrainian armed forces could be defeated within about two months, but gradually and in stages, through the exhaustion of Ukrainian society and its reduction to a situation in which the Zelensky regime could be swept away — the preconditions for this exist. And precisely as a result of Ukraine being forced to sign a peace treaty, this will knock out of the West’s hands (I do not mean just the West, but Western Europe) the ability to wage hybrid warfare against Russia in the form in which it is currently being waged — that is, with Ukraine serving as the battering ram against Russia.
D.Κ.: But this strategy does not seem to succeed.
K.S.: That is not entirely correct. I want to remind you that after the Ukrainian armed forces were defeated in 2023 during their offensive operation, which they called a counteroffensive — in fact it was an offensive operation by Ukraine, also a strategic offensive operation — within the framework of our defensive operation, we crushed the main forces of the Ukrainian armed forces. And after that, incidentally, serious destructive processes also began in the West. I want to remind you that after it became obvious in 2024 that the enemy — I mean the collective West — had suffered a heavy defeat, the hybrid blitzkrieg that had been prepared did not materialize. And then internal destructive processes began in Europe and in the United States of America. I want to remind you that in the United States, following the results of 2024, Mr. Trump came to power. As a result, today there is no single West; it is split. There are the United States of America, led by Trump. And Trump is not only a personality; he is also the forces that stand behind him. These forces are very serious; they are anti-globalist forces. Europe, on the other hand, is precisely under the control of global financial magnates, the globalists — those who regard the United States, Europe, and all other countries as provinces of their global state. This is not some conspiracy theory; it is reality. Because if they control up to 80% of global financial flows, then of course they crave regimes and governments in the respective countries that are loyal to them and subservient to them. So this is a normal picture. Thus, following the results of 2023–24, the Western blitzkrieg failed. Today the West is making a different bet. It is betting on trying to destabilize the situation in our country through strikes on Russian territory using cruise missiles and drones. But this strategy is not justifying itself today, at the present time. And considering that Russia is striking Ukraine, which lacks an air defense system, with far more devastating blows, Ukrainian society will be exhausted much faster and, accordingly, one must expect serious internal processes there much sooner. In addition, one must not forget another important point: United States of America are interested in ending the war in Ukraine. And the reason is very simple. The United States of America, led by Trump, which is now beyond the control of the globalists, is defending the interests of the United States of America themselves, not the interests of the globalists. It is in the interest of the United States to split the Russia–China alliance and make Russia an ally of the United States. If Trump succeeds in making Russia an ally of the United States, then this will truly be a Pan-American peace. Since the nuclear potential of Russia and the United States, as well as the most powerful army in the world today — the Russian army — and the American army, would be in one alliance. That would be precisely an alliance that would control the world. Moreover, considering that the economic potential of the United States surpasses that of Russia, the leading role in this pairing would be played by the United States. That is precisely the policy Trump has been pursuing. Therefore, he will resolve the task of stabilizing the situation in Ukraine and ending the conflict there. In addition, it is very important for Trump, due to domestic political circumstances, to end this conflict, because he suffered a heavy defeat in Iran. One must not forget another important point: the high-tech weapons systems supplied by the West to Ukraine have now been largely exhausted. Especially considering the fact that a huge amount of this high-tech ordnance was used and expended by the United States in Iran. And today, the capacity to replenish this stockpile to a level at which they could provide stronger support to Ukraine does not exist in Europe or the United States, because first they need to refill their own arsenals of weapons and military equipment. Therefore, they are going down the path of using these drones, which are the simplest designs and can be produced, generally speaking, at enterprises manufacturing civilian products. That is the whole essential point. The Russian air defense system is very successfully handling the task of destroying drones, because the percentage of destruction of aerial targets is approaching 98-99%. Imagine, a few days ago a strike was carried out using about a thousand drones. They were all shot down, with the exception of a few units that managed to break through to their targets. There you have the effectiveness. The West does not have such an effective air defense system. And, let us say, Iran demonstrated this directly…
D.K: But these single drones caused very severe damage.
K.S.: That is not so. No serious damage occurred. This is, to a large extent, Western propaganda that does not correspond to reality. I can tell you this: there are photographs, there are videos posted on the internet showing a fire at various enterprises; these fires were extinguished long ago, within literally a day or even a few hours. And these enterprises are now operating. But if you look at the consequences of Russian strikes on Ukraine, I can tell you that over all this time, the Ukrainians have managed to damage only one train and one locomotive with such strikes. Yes, one locomotive driver died. But in the period from January to March 2026, our colleagues analyzed data from Ukrainian social-media pages, and during this time, in just three months, the Russian army destroyed or damaged 472 railway trains in Ukraine, put 209 diesel locomotives out of action, and about 1,000 railcars. All these data were extracted and obtained from the analysis of Ukrainian social-media pages. Fifty railway stations were damaged. The Russian army does not give exact data on where it fires and what targets it hits. Well, for example, do you know that an American Patriot surface-to-air missile went off course — it was a 1985-production missile — and it fell on the territory of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, damaging and causing fires in the church there? But at the same time, no one talks about the fact that in Kyiv, 42 military targets of various types were struck. There was a response report that a massive strike was carried out on the territory of Ukraine and targets were hit in 142 districts — I emphasize, 142 districts. In each district, not just one target was hit, but significantly more. What targets were hit there, the Russian army does not report. Time will pass, and we will get this data again from the same Ukrainian social-media pages. Therefore, Russian strikes are far more devastating than those that Ukraine inflicts on Russia. Those individual strikes that reach their targets — those individual drones — are heavily publicized, but in fact their military and economic significance is negligible. Therefore, I can say with full responsibility: you can walk around Moscow, take a look, there are no disturbances or anxieties in Russia. There are certain problems, but these problems are connected not so much with the strikes as with the domestic political situations in our country. And the Russian leadership is resolving these problems.
D.K.: I would like to ask this. There are some articles and some noise on social media that Russia might be the first to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to end the conflict in Ukraine. What do you think about that?
K.S.: First of all, I want to note that, although our forces are acting unhurriedly, Konstantinovka has now been practically fully captured.
D.K.: No, no — I am talking about Karaganov’s statements about the use of nuclear weapons…
K.S.: Let me finish my thought. Do not interrupt me. So, Konstantinovka has now been almost completely captured. The issue of bringing Druzhkovka under control is now being addressed; fighting is ongoing there, and our forces are approaching Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. This is the last fortified area that Ukraine possesses. There are no more such areas. The capture of this area will effectively lead to the Ukrainian armed forces losing the ability to conduct effective defensive operations. This must be clearly understood. Therefore, there is no objective necessity to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. The transition to the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation is defined by a document called the “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence” (http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/51312 ). This document has been approved by the President and is the main document that determines when and under what conditions the Russian Federation will use nuclear weapons. This document is colloquially referred to as the Nuclear Doctrine. At present, none of the conditions defined in this document for a transition to the use of nuclear weapons have materialized. There are people whom I consider irresponsible, who say that nuclear weapons should be used. I criticize these people harshly; their calls for the use of nuclear weapons will not lead to any use of nuclear weapons, because there are no conditions for this whatsoever for the Russian Federation, and the Russian Federation will never use nuclear weapons in the current situation, no matter how much these people demand it from the President. That is utter nonsense. These people who demand it have no military training, no understanding of when and how and under what conditions nuclear weapons may be used, and they speak about the use of nuclear weapons exclusively for purposes of personal self-promotion. They want to present themselves on the Russian political arena as figures who are very decisive and radical. These people talk about nuclear weapons in the run-up to the upcoming elections in Russia in order to gain certain political dividends. Their talk has no real significance for changing Russian policy in the sphere of armed struggle in Ukraine, let alone in the sphere of nuclear weapons use. I tell you this with full responsibility. Moreover, I want to say one more thing: the use of nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine under the current circumstances is extremely undesirable for the Russian armed forces. Since our armed forces are conducting offensive operations very successfully, the use of nuclear weapons there would lead to all our offensive actions being derailed, because zones of radioactive contamination would simply arise, which would be very difficult and problematic for us to cross.
D.K: But Mr. Karaganov suggests using nuclear weapons not in Ukraine, but in Western Europe.
K.S: That is an even more incorrect statement, since there are no prerequisites for using nuclear weapons against Europe. We are formally not in a state of war with Western Europe at present. The supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine by Western Europe is not grounds to consider Europe a participant in the conflict under international law, since, under formal conditions, Ukraine buys these weapons from the West, even if it does this with money allocated to Ukraine by the West in separate tranches. And this weaponry produced by Europe is used by it to replenish its arsenals, is sold to Ukraine, and can be sold to any other country. Therefore, there are no serious grounds even for striking Europe with conventional weapons; Russia has no such grounds, and Russia will not act in that way. Moreover, striking with any weapons — I am not talking about nuclear, but conventional — on European territory would mean opening a new front for Russia, which is of course absolutely unacceptable for Russia. Thus, even conventional weapons will not be used by Russia against European territory, because that would simply be suicidal.
As for nuclear weapons. At present, only one country in Europe possesses nuclear weapons. That is France.
D.K.: And Britain too…
K.S. : British nuclear weapons, deployed on British nuclear-powered submarines, are under US control. These are Trident II D5 missiles, whose flight plans and the launch authorization itself are in American hands. Everyone knows this perfectly well, so the weapons on British nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines are American, under American control. The British could never use them without American agreement, and the Americans would not provide such agreement under current conditions. So we are talking only about French nuclear weapons. The total number of available French nuclear warheads is estimated, according to various assessments — for example, according to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) — at between 250 and 300 nuclear warheads, of which about 60 are on air-delivery systems. The remaining 200–250 are on French navy nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines. These are modern missiles — M51.2 — intercontinental, with a combat range of over 10,000 km. In the event of a nuclear war, these missiles are capable of destroying up to one-third of the population of the Russian Federation, destroying almost all major Russian cities. But in that case, Russia, possessing an arsenal — according to the same SIPRI data — of 6,600 nuclear warheads, of which roughly half are on strategic delivery systems and half on tactical-range delivery systems, the so-called…
D.K.: Excuse me, when you speak of strategic weapons, do you mean weapons that reach the United States?
K.S: Exactly, these are intercontinental missiles. As for the yield of nuclear warheads on tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons they are approximately the same. Now, Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal — which is essentially Euro-strategic, since the range of Russian tactical nuclear weapons can reach several thousand kilometers, i.e., the entire territory of Europe — this arsenal of 3,000 nuclear warheads, i.e., ten times larger than what Europe possesses, would lead to Europe simply vanishing from the face of the Earth. It would simply be physically annihilated completely. But we would not be any better off for that. You see, we are not prepared to lose a third of our population. After such a strike, Russia as an integral state could, of course, disappear from the face of the Earth. Therefore, the Russian leadership, absolutely unwilling to have this kind of nuclear war, avoids any talk — I mean by official figures — and any attempts at any armed, fiery impact on European territory. And all these speakers who demand such a strike against Europe are pure public-relations men working for their own personal political image, often clearly understanding that no such strike will actually occur.
D.K.: You know, the idea of preventive war has always been strongly advocated by Israel. It is mainly an Israeli idea — to wage preventive wars. And we know that Israel launched through the US a war against Iran which could very easily lead us to a nuclear war in the Middle East. I mean that in the West there are forces, including Israel, that may like very much the idea of preventive wars, including preventive wars which can evolve into nuclear, or even nuclear from the very beginning.
K.S.: The point is that Israel is a very small state in terms of territory, so Israel is the last country that would normally do not want any kind of nuclear conflict. Even if a nuclear reactor located in the Negev desert in the town of Dimona were destroyed on Israeli territory, the radioactive contamination zone would cover virtually all of Israeli territory. All the more so if the nuclear warheads of Israel’s own arsenal were destroyed or damaged. And Israel’s territory would become unfit for habitation, reminiscent of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Therefore, Israel is the last country that should be thinking about this. But the fact is that, despite all of Israel’s desires, there are still military specialists, responsible military personnel, representatives of NATO countries — NATO generals, NATO officers — who understand all those consequences of transitioning to the use of nuclear weapons that I have just told you about. And therefore, even if some president of some country — say, the same France, Macron — were to terribly desire to use nuclear weapons against Russia, then judging by the behavior of the French military high command, in particular the Chief of the General Staff, who warned the French population of the inevitability of large and heavy losses if they started a war with Russia, they would restrain him from using nuclear weapons. No one would listen to Israel’s wishes. As for Russia, Russia of course — I have already said this — is absolutely not interested in the use of nuclear weapons. Our weapons are the most modern and most advanced in the world, but we do not want to use them. And our exercises on the use of nuclear weapons, on practicing these issues, are precisely aimed at preventing any possibility, any attempt to use nuclear weapons, and generally at avoiding any conflict between Russia and Europe. Russia is behaving extremely cautiously. We often even accept local infringements of our interests when we turn a blind eye to certain provocations by European countries, such as the seizure of our ships. But one way or another, we try to avoid a conflict with Europe — that is the main task.
D.K.: Since you spoke about Trump, you gave a characterization of Trump’s policy… But there are people who do not entirely agree with your analysis. For example, during his first term, Trump supplied Ukraine with weapons it is now using to continue the war. And during his second term, we expect him to do what he promised to Mr. Putin in Anchorage. We now see how Trump is attacking Russia’s allies — Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. And we are waiting for peace to come to Ukraine, but so far it seems that he is using this expectation of peace to attack all countries that are more or less allies of Russia. This diverges somewhat from the analysis of the American president’s actions that you made. The question is, how do you assess President Trump’s policy in his second term? Is Trump not using the expectation of a peace agreement Ukraine and Russia, to carry out further attacks and seize whatever he likes?
K.S.: The first thing I must note is that no president can act outside the political field of his country. The political field of his country dictates the actions, the nature of the actions, of the president himself. In his first term, when Trump came to power, he did not fully control the American political field. He did not have his own team, and he himself was, let us say, not fully prepared to perform the duties of the US president. Therefore, he was forced to act, in essence, within the trends dictated by the force commonly called the deep state, and among other things, supplied weapons to Ukraine and struck Russia’s ally — Syria. We remember that very well. But when he came to power for the second time, by then he had managed to form his own team and began to act more clearly and decisively according to his own plan. His plan was very simple: the reindustrialization of the United States of America — the restoration of US industrial potential and gaining access to global resources. First and foremost, minerals and rare-earth materials. We are talking about materials necessary for the production of microelectronics, above all. That is precisely why he spoke about the possibility of seizing Greenland and even Canada. But despite the fact that he eventually formed his own team and clearly formulated a policy, resistance from the deep state continues. And Trump has not managed to crush this deep state and bring it under his control. Therefore, he is forced to act within the limits available to him. In fact, if we talk about Trump’s policy, the entire policy of Trump, from the beginning of 2025 when he took office to the present day, is a series of failures and losses. In essence, he has not managed to solve a single task that he proclaimed upon taking office. That is the first point.
Next, regarding what Trump is doing — attacking Iran, Venezuela: Trump’s goal is very simple. If he claims that America should maintain its dominance in the world precisely as a state, then he needed to take control of the world’s oil centers and energy centers. Such energy centers of the world were Venezuela and the node associated with the Persian Gulf, the Gulf monarchies. The Middle East — that region. Now, in Venezuela, he managed to kidnap President Maduro and his wife. But the entire rest of the regime that existed there remained in place. And today, to say that he has brought Venezuela under control — there are no grounds for that. If only for the reason that at present American oil corporations are not in a hurry to enter Venezuela’s political field, since the regime there has in fact remained unshaken. As for Iran, this is a unique situation. Iran, a third-world country, managed to inflict a heavy military defeat on the United States of America and Israel — that coalition. Moreover, a defeat not just in a land war, not in a naval war, but in an aerospace war, which has always been considered an absolute priority of the United States and Israel. And what we have today is a failed attempt by the United States of America to bring Iran under its control.
As for Anchorage. In Anchorage, agreements were reached that fully satisfied Russia. And Trump, if you remember, gathered all the leaders of Western Europe in Washington literally the day after our president left. The difference was a day or two. That is, he literally summoned these leaders to Washington as his vassals. But they were ready to be vassals as long as the United States of America pursued a policy in the interests of the globalists. But when Trump began, in essence, to pursue an anti-globalist policy, when he began to bring the United States of America to the fore as a country that should be the master of the world, rather than supranational financial structures — that is, to push these supranational financial structures aside, relegate them to the background, and replace them with the United States with its American national elite — that is the essence of Trump’s conflict with the globalists. These European vassals of America, who are under the control of the globalists, offered him resistance. And today, relations between the United States and Europe are relations of conflict. It should be noted, however, that today’s Trumpist United States, after a heavy defeat in Iran, have begun to lose ground even in relations with Europe, yielding to European leaders on a number of fronts. In particular, talk has arisen about the possibility of the United States still supplying weapons to Europe and Ukraine. But one must keep in mind that the capacities of the American military industry to replenish the losses it suffered during the war in Iran, as well as during the preceding actions of the Biden administration in supplying weapons to Ukraine, are insufficient — they are lacking.
D.K.: But this is not Trump’s desire; it is Iran’s success.
K.S.: Yes, absolutely right, this is Iran’s success, no one objects. It is Iran’s success, absolutely correct. That is, we are talking about the fact that Trump’s United States have not been able to solve the tasks they set for themselves. Neither in Venezuela have they fully managed to bring that country under control, nor in Iran — they suffered a heavy defeat, a military defeat. Therefore, even the memorandum on ending the war, which was remotely signed by both the American and Iranian sides, is in fact a memorandum of US capitulation to Iran. It even includes the possibility of reparations, since the United States will have to restore Iran to the tune of $300 billion. But that is a separate discussion, a different sphere. One way or another, the reason why Trump is now pursuing this kind of policy is due to heavy military defeats, failures in US domestic policy, and a large overspending of weapons that must be replenished and which currently cannot be replenished within reasonable timeframes by the United States, because for that they need to radically increase their military production capacities.
In Europe — the same story. Drones can be made at enterprises engaged in the production of civilian products and dual-use products, but heavy equipment — tanks, combat aircraft, high-precision long-range missiles, surface-to-air missiles — for the Europeans to ramp up production to the required volumes is now very difficult, practically impossible in the coming years. For that, they need to radically increase their military production capacities.
Let me say, to make it clear, very simply and visually. At automobile manufacturing plants like Mercedes, the production of tanks cannot be established. The only thing they can do is armor Mercedes trucks and make light armored combat vehicles that have limited significance for conducting high-tech warfare. And the production volumes of missile weapons by Europe, the production volumes of armored vehicles by Europe are very small, and to ensure — within the next three years, until 2030 — production volumes that would allow Europe to start a full-scale war with Russia is impossible.
D.K.: I will ask one more question. We saw that Ukrainian drones attacked one of Russia’s strategic aircraft bases. How do you assess this incident? What did they want? Since they carried out also strikes in Krasnoyarsk.
K.S.: In the Krasnoyarsk area, there are no objects of strategic significance. That is, radar stations for anti-ballistic-missile surveillance — we have such, this is known from open sources — but no such radar stations were hit. As for the strikes on our strategic aviation aircraft, first of all, they were carried out from Russian territory. This was, above all, an operation by Ukrainian special services; it was not the Ukrainian armed forces that carried out this strike. According to the Russian Nuclear Doctrine, this could be a ground for transitioning to the use of nuclear weapons. But as I have already told you, Russia is absolutely not ready to use nuclear weapons and does not intend to do so. That is, we have the capability to use nuclear weapons, but we fundamentally do not want to do so. Because the consequences — I have already spoken about this — would be catastrophic for our country and for Europe as well. Therefore, we limited ourselves to seriously strengthening the work of our special services. And after that episode, there were no similar provocations or similar strikes by Ukraine against our strategic forces. We also ensured the strengthening of air defense, and now, if they do carry out strikes, they are on a limited scale against individual enterprises — oil refineries. The tasks of providing cover against such strikes are now being addressed, and they too will be stopped, and such strikes will be ineffective. Therefore, yes, there are challenges. The enemy carries out strikes; we defend ourselves. The effectiveness of our defense against such strikes is very high. I have already said this, and that is why we are calmly addressing the tasks. Moreover, I want to say that the Russian military industry is working fully, meeting all the needs of the Russian armed forces. And to illustrate, I want to note that the American military industry — the United States of America — was able to hold out for only six weeks of aerospace war with Iran. Our industry, from the beginning of rocket shelling and drone attacks by Ukraine on our territory, which began about two years ago, has calmly endured this regime for two years already. What the Americans could not endure for six weeks, we have endured for two years. Therefore, we will solve these tasks. We are solving the task of defense; we possess enormous military potential, in particular air defense assets. And therefore, there is absolutely no need for us to transition to the use of nuclear weapons.
Dimitris: One more question about Turkey. I do not understand: Is Turkey your enemy or your ally? What is Turkey? Because it is always playing on two tables.
K.S: Turkey is our partner. Naturally, we pursue a policy aimed at preventing the escalation of conflict in other neighboring directions, with other countries bordering Russia. With Turkey, we have economic relations and certain military-technical relations. Turkey purchased Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems. Accordingly, the maintenance of this system, the supply of ammunition for this system, the training of Turkish personnel to use this system — of course the Russian Federation participates in this, since according to generally accepted norms, if any country supplies its weapons systems to another country, it assumes obligations for their maintenance and upkeep in good technical condition. That is what Russia does with regard to this S-400 system. Russia is the second-largest supplier of weapons to the external market after the United States. That is why we continue such cooperation with Turkey in this aspect as well. So, at present, there are no military conflicts or military tensions between Russia and Turkey. As for Turkey, it too sells weapons to whomever it deems fit. The fact that there were deliveries of some Turkish Bayraktars, for example, in the first stage of the special military operation in 2022 to Ukraine — that, unfortunately, is regrettable. But we take into account the nuances of foreign policy, considering that Turkey is a NATO member. We understand that Turkey is also solving economic tasks by selling weapons. Therefore, we turn a blind eye to this. We treat this aspect of Turkey’s activity exactly as we treat the fact that Europe, European countries, supply weapons to Ukraine. There is nothing we can do about it. After all, we are not going to go to war with them over this. Nor should we forget a simple fact: for example, Iran itself had Russian S-300, Tor, and Pantsir-S surface-to-air missile systems, which successfully fought against American missiles. The Americans did not start a war with us over that. This is global practice.
D.K.: All right. Thank you very much, Captain. I wish you all the best.