«Навички, які наші жінки отримують зараз за кордоном, будуть дуже потрібними при відбудові України», — Ольга Луць

Following the announcements about the next year’s support reduction, Germany sent additional weaponry to Ukraine, among them are new Anti-aircraft weapons, UAVs, rifles and ammunition. But the amount of funds Germany will dedicate to Kyiv’s defence needs in 2025 remains unknown until Autumn.

What is the current mood within the government and the Bundestag? Will the support change, and could the successful raid in Kursk have an impact? Furthermore, how might the latest findings from the investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline explosions affect relations with Ukraine? These and other questions were addressed in an exclusive interview with Sestry by Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the largest opposition faction, the CDU/CSU, in the German parliament.

Aid to Ukraine vs «Nord Stream»

Maryna Stepanenko: The German publication Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAS) reports that Germany will limit its aid to Ukraine in the near future. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already called this information manipulative, stating that negotiations regarding the budget for next year are still ongoing in your country. Last time, after lengthy negotiations, the funding level for 2024 was raised from 4 to almost 8 billion euros. What about next year? What is the current mood and thinking in the Bundestag?

Roderich Kiesewetter: The Bundestag and the government have differing views. The government would like to limit aid to Ukraine, with plans to cut it in half in 2025 and finance it outside the federal budget. This is not just indicated by the government itself, but also by the German Chancellor's Office.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence are advocating for increased support, but Scholz's office has instructed the Ministry of Finance to freeze it. We have an annual budget of around half a billion euros, and debates are focused on the 17 billion that are missing from the federal budget for next year.

And now, to compensate for those funds, the support for Ukraine has to be reduced, especially the military support

This reflects a lack of priorities and a clear position. The problem is that the government, particularly the Chancellor's Office, wants to cut aid to Ukraine for internal reasons. To justify this decision, one could tie it to the leaked information that Ukraine might have destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines. If this is the case, it is not even a punishment but a strange framing of incorrect, reckless information from certain investigative journalists. This does not seem like a coincidence.

It seems intentional that, in the same week when two different groups of investigative journalists try to blame Ukraine for the destruction of the Nord Stream, which could be a covert action by Russia, budget cuts that harm Ukraine are being discussed.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation into the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines suggests the alleged involvement of Ukrainian officials - President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and then-head of the Armed Forces, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi. What are your thoughts on this?

The WSJ article came out in competition with a piece by the German publication Spiegel, which was released a day earlier. Both publications seem to be steering toward the conclusion that Ukrainian officials gave the order to destroy Nord Stream.

The WSJ investigation is indeed puzzling because it claims that Russia was earning billions of euros from Nord Stream, which is not true. Since July 2022, not a single gallon of gas has flowed through the pipeline, and even in the preceding months, only 40 per cent of the promised supply was delivered. So, if Ukraine had destroyed it, they would have essentially been «killing a dead horse». Why would they expend their efforts on that?

Secondly, if Zelenskyy was unable to communicate with the team that received the order to destroy the Nord Stream, why was this team reachable via satellite phone? That also does not add up. Thirdly, there is mention of a person referred to as Volodymyr Z. (in German publications - Wolodymyr Z. or Wladimir S., depending on the transliteration - Author) with a Ukrainian passport, but no one mentions that he could have had other passports, like Diana B. (another suspect according to the investigators' version - Author). She was the owner of the company that rented the yacht «Andromeda», but she also held a Russian passport. She lived in Crimea and is now in Krasnodar, so she is Russian, not Ukrainian. Furthermore, there are no witnesses, there are only secret sources. In my opinion, the WSJ story is inconsistent and implausible.

I do not believe this because if Ukraine had done something like this, it would have become public knowledge and would have caused harm to Kyiv. Therefore, I can not imagine that the Ukrainian government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines or ordered such an action

The former head of German intelligence, August Hanning, previously suggested that Poland could be involved in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. In response to the ongoing investigation, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk advised all initiators and patrons of the blown-up pipelines to «apologise and keep quiet». How do you assess such a statement?

Hanning does not question the findings of these questionable investigative groups, which annoys me, but it does not surprise me. Many former high-ranking officials in Germany have very close ties with Russia and a longstanding pro-Russian tradition, which we need to take into account. Russia uses pro-Russian voices in science, media, economics, and politics for its information warfare and can use them for deeper psychological operations. These individuals may appear authoritative but, in reality, become tools of a hybrid war in favour of Russia.

There is a group in Germany trying to make Ukraine the scapegoat to justify halting support. I can not explain Tusk's role, and we must be very careful not to resort to insinuations or accusations

I know that the German federal prosecutor is very upset about this story because it jeopardises his own investigation - the leak likely came from politically responsible people in the Chancellor's Office. He can not work as he should because those who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines are now warned. And that is where the danger lies now.

If these individuals are in Russia, they are breathing a sigh of relief since Germany believes that Ukraine destroyed the pipelines. Therefore, we must be very cautious with Hanning's statements, Tusk's remarks, and, in general, with any hasty accusations.

Friends of Russia in Germany

The German prosecutor's office has issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian suspected of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. Two other suspects are also believed to be Ukrainian. Beyond military support, could this impact other areas of cooperation between Germany and Ukraine?

Those who spread these likely fake news stories about the Nord Stream pipelines aim to end German support for Ukraine, undermine trust, and force Ukraine into capitulation. However, they disregard Ukraine's will and strength and fail to consider the Ukrainian population, which does not want to live under a frozen conflict or Russian occupation.

Ukrainians would leave their country if Kyiv were forced into a ceasefire. This is because, on the other side of the border in Russia, brutal violence is being committed against civilians. Ukraine, therefore, does not want to be forced into a ceasefire, as some in Germany, like the Chancellor and others, might prefer. We must be very careful to ensure that no forces on the ground undermine Germany's willingness to support Ukraine.

We have upcoming local elections in Thuringia, Saxony (on September 1), and Brandenburg (on September 22). In these three federal states, there are forces influenced by Russia: the Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which are partially funded or influenced by Russia. Thus, we must be very cautious about any context that benefits the Russian Federation. There is no direct funding, but people from these parties receive money for their personal interests and work within the parties.

There is indeed competition within our country between those who want to see the strengthening of an international order based on the rule of law and those who support the principle of «might makes right» - the power of Russia - and who see Ukraine as a necessary sacrifice for peace with Russia

But they do not realise that Russia does not want peace. Russia considers Ukraine a legitimate part of itself. Therefore, the Russians will continue the war against Ukraine and their hybrid war against Moldova and the Baltic countries. There will be no peace. This is the imperial mindset of Russia, which is not understood by those who wish to stop supporting Ukraine.

Returning to the budget and aid, if German lawmakers allocate no more than 4 billion euros to Ukraine in 2025, what will this mean for Ukraine's defence capabilities?

First of all, Germany is not the only supporter and not the strongest one. Other countries that provide more aid relative to their GDP are Denmark, Norway, Poland, the Baltic states, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom. So, there are other, much more reliable partners.

Secondly, 4 billion euros are already planned. They will be invested in spare parts, ammunition, air defence, and so on. But there is no room for additional support from the regular budget. Therefore, it is crucial for Germany to provide Ukraine with additional assistance ranging from 4 to 10 billion euros next year. The government claims that the interest rate on frozen Russian assets should serve Ukraine's interests.

However, there is still no unified position on this in the European Union. This issue is absolutely unclear and depends, for example, on Hungary's support

In any case, the entirety of frozen Russian assets already belongs to Ukraine. This does not replace the necessary support from Germany and other countries. Therefore, the German government's argument is a kind of distraction, an excuse, and an evasion of responsibility.

On February 16, the German Chancellor, together with President Zelenskyy, signed a security agreement. On that date, he committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as needed, within its 1991 borders. But that signature is not worth the ink it is written with if Germany does not increase its support, and the security agreement holds no real value.

Kursk offensive and German Taurus

In February, in one of your interviews, you said, «the war must be brought to Russian territory», and that «Russian military facilities and headquarters must be destroyed». Six months later, the Ukrainian Armed Forces began an operation in the Kursk region. What was your first reaction?

It was a sigh of relief because, in February, I demanded that we allow Ukraine to transfer the war to Russian territory, cut off Russian strongholds and supply chains, and strike Russian positions, ammunition depots, and those responsible for the war - their ministries, command centres, and logistics zones. For this, I was criticised by my party colleagues and some media. Now, I feel vindicated.

Such operations make sense from a military strategy standpoint, are permitted under international law, and, if successful, provide operational advantages. I am a former military officer. Before entering our parliament, I worked for almost 30 years in international organisations, NATO, the European Union, and the Armed Forces. I have a good understanding of what war entails and what is necessary to deter it and conduct successful operations.

On the other hand, as our defence minister said, it is quite normal for a country under attack to conduct war on the aggressor's territory. This is an entirely normal phenomenon in the world - our defence minister said last April on a talk show. But when I mentioned it in February of this year, people responded that this was warmongering. I argued that it was a necessity, and that is indeed the case.

Ukraine's operation in Kursk seems both correct and effective. We will see how sustainable its success will be, but for now, it is a significant victory for Ukraine. This is the right response to those who still believe in appeasement with Russia

Germany does not question the legality of the actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region and does not object to the use of German weapons on Russian territory. However, does the Kursk offensive change the opinions of German politicians about supplying Ukraine with long-range TAURUS missiles?

Unfortunately, no, because in the Social Democratic Party, the faction leader and a very important high-ranking politician in the Chancellor's Office oppose allowing Ukraine to destroy Russian communications, supply chains, etc. This is a deadlock.

My party, the CDU/CSU, strongly supports the transfer of TAURUS missiles, but Chancellor Scholz's office is blocking this. The defence minister wants to proceed with the supply, and the foreign minister supports it as well, but there is no political will because a unanimous government vote is required, and the Social Democratic Party is blocking this issue.

It is necessary, now more than ever, to supply several hundred high-precision, long-range strike systems, such as the TAURUS missiles. We also need to enable our defence industry to produce more tanks, more ammunition and more artillery.

However, this reflects a lack of political will and a deficiency in strategic culture and thinking. It is a spirit of appeasement, reminiscent of Chamberlain in 1938, rather than the approach of Churchill. We have yet to experience a «Churchill moment» in Germany. I am working on changing that

Pressure on Putin

In your opinion, how might the Ukrainian raid impact the situation inside Russia?

In the past, we have seen that when Putin has been under pressure, as during the Wagner Group mutiny, he has shown a preference for negotiations. At that time, he instructed Lukashenko of Belarus to help defuse the tense situation. Lukashenko persuaded Prigozhin to stop and go into exile in Belarus, but Putin later had him killed. So, when Putin is under pressure, he tends to negotiate or make concessions.

The Ukrainian raid provides an opportunity to not only create a buffer zone but also gain leverage in negotiations. For example, if there are future negotiations where Russia is required to withdraw from all of Ukraine, they might be allowed to retain the Kursk region in exchange. This could strengthen Kyiv's negotiating position, but pressure on the Donbas continues to mount. We will see whether the offensive in the Kursk region will ease the situation on other parts of the front, forcing Russia to retreat and redeploy its troops.

Ukraine is losing territory and hundreds of soldiers every day, so Western support needs to increase. In this regard, Germany is sending a very negative signal

Negative for Ukraine because Putin sees that Germany is weak in the knees. It is also problematic for the United States, as those who support isolationists, including Trump, could argue: «Why should we support Ukraine when the Germans are stepping back?» The narrative becomes, «This is Europe's issue, not that of the United States».

It would be a major failure for Germany if we were to lose the United States' support during the upcoming election campaign. That is why we need to invest more and do more. Ukraine must hold its ground and even expand its territory, it should continue the war on Russian soil to be in a better position if forced into negotiations. Ukraine needs to destroy Russian military targets such as missile launchers, airfields, and ammonia depots to limit and, hopefully, stop Russian attacks on Ukrainian critical infrastructure and civilian populations.

I see that there are people in the German government who would like to lift the artificial restriction that the United States and Germany have placed on Ukraine's use of Western weapons on Russian territory. We need countries like the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Scandinavian nations, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and others to increase pressure on Putin, as well as to press Germany to do more. At the moment, Germany is increasingly isolating itself in Europe as a country that does not act according to its economic power. We need to do more and motivate other countries to do the same.

After all, when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine, why should Germany benefit from it? The countries that have genuinely supported Ukraine should be the ones involved in Ukraine's post-war revival.

«We should all fear a weak and unprepared Germany»

Michael Giss, the Commander of the Bundeswehr's Hamburg Regional Command, recently stated that Germany must be prepared for a potential Russian attack within the next five years, given its role as a key NATO transport hub. What is Berlin currently doing to strengthen its defence capabilities?

That is an excellent question. Firstly, it is important to note that we are not talking about five years but rather two to three years. Russia is aware that the West is increasing its pace and losing time and resources. Therefore, they will intensify pressure through disinformation, sabotage and preparation for war over the next two to three years to outpace Europe's efforts.

Secondly, Germany experienced its Zeitenwende in 2022 (referring to Chancellor Olaf Scholz's address to the Bundestag on February 27 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where Scholz described the attack as a «historic turning point»). However, that was just a speech - it is already history.

The Defence Minister is not receiving the necessary funding. All his requests have been curtailed. He is getting less money than needed to offset inflation and increase soldiers' pay. As a result, the German Armed Forces lack the support needed to improve their position. This situation is expected to worsen in the next two to three years.

By the late 2020s, when the German Armed Forces are truly at the limits of their capabilities, we will need much more fresh funding. We are talking about an additional 300 billion euros by the end of this decade to modernise our military, but they are only receiving between 5 to 10 billion euros - a small fraction of what is required.

This will reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces and lower the morale of German soldiers. It is a victory for pacifists and the Social Democratic Party, who are deliberately weakening our military. We have Pistorius, the best Defence Minister in the last 20 years, yet he is not getting the necessary funds. He is a Social Democrat, but even he is not receiving the money needed, which isolates him. And that is very unfortunate.

One day, we may wake up to even greater pressure from Russian propaganda and increased Russian aggression. If we do not recover, we could face a situation akin to the second Jena and Auerstedt (the destruction of the Prussian army by Napoleon in 1806 - Author). Therefore, we need to raise this issue within Germany, but our friends and partners must also step up the pressure.

We need a strong Germany, as Radosław Sikorski said 12-13 years ago: «I fear a weak Germany much more than a strong one» 

We should all fear a weak and unprepared Germany because that would be an invitation for Putin.

Cover photo: Action Press/Shutterstock/Rex Features/East News

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

<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>

<add-big-frame>«The deadliest F-16 pilot» of the American Air Force, retired Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Air Force Dan Hampton, also known as Two Dogs, is among those wanting to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression. He spoke about his ambitions to fight and how F-16 will turn the tables of this war in an exclusive interview with Sestry. <add-big-frame>

Marina Stepanenko: Mr Hampton, the first F-16s have finally arrived in Ukraine - how do you assess the journey from a categorical «no» to a definitive «yes»?

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

‍

‍

‍

‍

Oresta Brit - a volunteer with over a decade of experience, head of the BON Charity Foundation and a former advisor to Valeriy Zaluzhnyy. Before 2014, she studied at the Sorbonne and worked as a runway model in Paris. Returned to Ukraine at the beginning of the Revolution of Dignity. She has 4 degrees, and speaking both English and French, she tells the foreigners all the truth about the bloody war in Ukraine at every opportunity. She worked in crisis management and attracting foreign investments into Ukraine. At the beginning of the war, she left the business and devoted herself completely to aiding the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Nataliia Zhukovska: Oresta, you have been volunteering for over 10 years now. What do soldiers ask for most often? What does the frontline need the most today?

Oresta Brit: If I were to summarise my activities over the past 10 years, from 2014 to 2016 I was exclusively focused on helping the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Later, the number of requests from them decreased because the state began to take over the process of supplying the military. And, of course, the accompanying needs of the civilian population were also taken into account by us. In general, the charity foundation was a hobby for me in my free time from work and business. Since 2014, we, the volunteers, have become adaptable to changes and challenges and have even learned to anticipate needs. Overall, our work extends to many different areas that we initiated simultaneously at the start of the large-scale war.

We try our best to support the country in its difficult times. We cover «gaps» and needs until all the relevant state institutions get on a military footing and work like clockwork

However, this charitable activity should not reach the point where the state openly leeches on it. After all, we should have already shifted to a military footing a long time ago. The only things preventing this are corruption and unhealthy competition. As for needs, the largest portion of expenses goes towards purchasing electronic warfare equipment and microchips for FPV drones. This is what saves our military on the frontlines. There are constant requests for vehicles - they are expendable items. It must be acknowledged that the Russian army is launching on an industrial scale what we are doing on our knees. And in this, we are indeed losing.

What is the goal and the mission of the BON Charity Foundation that you founded?

Today, we help both the army and the civilian population. The mission of our foundation is to accelerate Ukraine's victory and to begin cultural and educational activities around the world. You know, the Charity Union of the Nation (Благодійне Об’єднання Нації - BON) is like a community. It is not a foundation of a single person. Every volunteer feels their responsibility and knows their sphere of authority.

We give many interviews to foreign media in English and French. We try to instil the correct narratives abroad. We show that this genocide has been going on not for 11 years, but for hundreds of years, and the methodology of exterminating the Ukrainian people is not much different nowadays. It's just that this time we are lucky that the world is becoming globalised and we have the opportunity to call attention to this, among other means, through the internet.

Concepts such as «fatigue» and «burnout» are familiar to many volunteers. Do you manage to avoid them?

Physical and moral fatigue, burnout - all of this is present, but I can not afford to stop because I am doing what inspires me and gives me energy. Charity is the best niche you could possibly preoccupy in modern Ukraine, especially in recent years. As for physiological burnout, it can happen. Therefore, we have a programme within which we send volunteers for health check-ups. But this need exists for civilians even during peaceful times.

As long as we have adrenalin, we hold on. Once the acute phase subsides though, it will be really hard for us

Do you have to visit the frontlines a lot?

Now my trips to the frontline involve solving crisis issues or delivering items not accepted by mail. I travel on my own, without an escort. Only I know where and when I am going.

There was an incident in 2022 when you almost died during a trip to the front. It was near Bakhmut. What happened then?

While I was driving to the military, Russians began to break through on that section of the frontline. As soon as I reached my destination, a close-range battle began - tank and rifle. It was a miracle that I was not shot not only by the Russians but also by our own military. I saw our guys shooting along the road. I asked: «Where should I jump out of the car?». And they shouted: «What do you mean jump out? Just drive away from here». These were assault troops near Bakhmut's industrial area. It took me 20 minutes to return to the city under fire. And then another 40 minutes to drive to Kostiantynivka from there.

Has this situation changed your desire to visit the frontlines?

I am still afraid of thinking about that story. The question of whether or not I should come to the frontline appears in my head every time. If there is no need, I do not go there.

Which stories from your trips to the frontline have been the most memorable to you?

Honestly, nothing surprises or impresses me anymore. My body has switched to self-preservation mode. I've lost so many brothers and sisters-in-arms that I just find joy in everything there is to find joy in. I cherish every meeting, knowing it could be the last.

My body only reacts to joy and positivity. It's some kind of protective function

If you look through my social media, you'll see that I don't share any sad stories there. I confess it is my volunteers who go to the de-occupied territories where there are no intense battles. While I don't let them go to the frontline, they are the ones delivering humanitarian aid to those areas. I have distanced myself from such practices because I know I wouldn't be useful to the affected people. I would just cry and be anxious.

How does your family react to your trips to the frontline? Do they try to dissuade you or support you?

I have absolute support from my family. They are patient and respect everything I do. There is no resistance. My first trip to the frontline was in July 2014. My mother didn't know I had gone. Honestly, I didn't really understand where I was going either. My task was to deliver humanitarian aid to the Aidar unit and the 12th battalion. No one told me it was war. I realised everything when I reached the Luhansk region. I was a little scared, but it was too late.

Previously, you studied in Paris and planned to tie your life to the runway, but you chose volunteering instead. What influenced your decision to drastically change your life?

Let me say right away - there were no sacrifices. I had a great time marching on the runway from 14 to 22 years old. I worked for very prestigious agencies in Paris. However, at 22, I chose education because pursuing a degree at the Sorbonne (a public university in Paris. - Author) and working as a model was an impossible combination. Thanks to my parents, I learned to set priorities correctly.

Moreover, I never planned to become French or to stay in France. You know, everything in my life happens very timely. Studying abroad gave me a quality education and contacts that are now very useful. I am a crisis manager. My profile is in public relations and mediation. Now I am successfully using the knowledge I gained to fight against the aggressor.

I have never regretted returning to Ukraine. Over the years, I have acquired a wonderful new hobby called «charity»

Everyone was surprised why I returned, and no one realised how beautiful this country is, how wonderful our way of life is, and how diverse our regions are. You can go to both the mountains and the sea without leaving Ukraine.

You often communicate with foreigners. What do you try to tell and convey to them? How do they react to what they hear?

We are still losing the information warfare. When communicating with foreign businesses and on a diplomatic level, I try to convey to them the scale of the tragedy we are experiencing. So that everyone not only knows how heroic Ukraine is but also understands from our experience how to avoid this tragedy in their own country. Because this gangrene called Russia will only continue to spread if it is not amputated right now, at these stages.

Everyone must understand that the war is close by, not somewhere far away. Today, Ukrainians are protecting the world from great evil and terror

And this is precisely the message I manage to convey all the way from Washington to the Netherlands and France. I am often invited to various French channels because the French want to hear the opinion of an unbiased Ukrainian who does not belong to any political party.

Did you foresee a full-scale war in the middle of Europe? Where were you when it started?

On February 24, I was in Lithuania, registering our foundation. I immediately bought a car for the Armed Forces and headed towards Ukraine. We didn't know exactly when it would start, but we clearly understood that something was going to happen. And I feel the same now, realising the catastrophe that could happen in Europe. Because, in reality, there is no war in Ukraine; we have a special state of events. I predict the same special state in Europe. It's not about an invasion but about conducting remote military actions, including missile attacks.

You were an advisor to the former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. How did you assist him without being a military person?

I am a person to whom the tactics of waging war are distant, but I have been closely communicating with the army for quite some time. Over the years, I have gained unprecedented trust among the military. In our times, this is worth its weight in gold. It was my international administrative resources and the unprecedented trust of the army that led the then Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to the idea that it might be worthwhile to take me on as an advisor. But in fact, these were not pieces of advice from my side. I very rarely communicated with him because I understood the level of his busyness. But at the beginning of the full-scale invasion, he did a very appropriate thing - he connected me with the responsible persons for different areas. And it was with them, side by side, for two years, that we kept our fingers on the pulse, synchronised our efforts and resolved pressing issues. As a result, I reported on our achievements, trips to the front and some weak points to the Commander-in-Chief. So, I was more of a reporter. If the level of the problem that needed to be solved was below the Commander-in-Chief, we did not take it to him. If his help was needed, then, of course, I went to him.

Do you still maintain contact with Valerii Zaluzhnyi?

Yes, of course. I was friends with Valerii Fedorovych, not just with the Commander-in-Chief. I am acquainted with his wife and have great respect and affection for the couple. Olena is a very worthy woman with a sense of dignity. She has stood side by side with her husband throughout the full-scale war. She is a true general's wife. I wouldn't wish on anyone the things they have gone through during this time. The level of responsibility and both psychological and physical stress they have endured is something not everyone can withstand.

How has the war changed you?

I wouldn't say the war has changed me. Maybe it has revealed my resilience. I can't say that I have flourished over these two years. The war has definitely taken a physical and psychological toll on all of us. Unlike myself, I feel sorry for those who had an awakening, who had to break themselves one morning. Those who used to love the Russians but now fiercely hate them. Because hatred is a feeling that destroys. I have never compared Ukrainians and Russians. They have always been a completely foreign nation to me.

I was born in 1990, and my conscious life has been spent in a whole, independent Ukraine. I am not ready to change that

What do you think we should prepare for? How long will the war last?

You know, we are prone to forgetfulness. We will begin to forget what is happening today, and it must not be allowed. Today's events should be etched in memory of many generations. We must write history correctly, monitor it, and ensure that heroism is not attributed to those who do not deserve it. We must do everything to ensure that Russians, on a genetic level, understand that Ukraine is a taboo territory, better left untouched. We must end this war ourselves. I don't want my children and grandchildren to experience anything like this.

I don't want to live in constant anticipation of our neighbour attacking us again. We must change this

Have you thought about the future? Do you plan to live abroad, where you successfully established yourself at one time, or in Ukraine?

I can live anywhere. The main thing for me is that there is order in Ukraine. Today, I cannot leave Ukraine for long periods of time. My maximum is two weeks. Last year, I went to the sea just to get some sleep, and after two weeks, I was literally running back. I want my children to see the world and feel at home everywhere. So, I don't think I will limit myself to just Ukraine. I have a rather international family, and wherever it is warm and nice, that's where I will be. But all this will only be after our victory.

How would you like to see Ukraine after the war ends?

I would like to see Ukraine with an idea, self-identification and without an inferiority complex. I would like it to be Ukrainian-speaking, with a decent level of education, and not a victim of populism. In other words, just like in all civilised countries, we shouldn't bother ourselves with questions like who our ministers are and where they are vacationing. I truly want to see Ukraine as civilised and accomplished. We have prosperous resources, and I would like to see them utilised. And I want this right of utilisation to be in the hands of Ukrainians, not those who are now, in these difficult times, trying to come in and seize a monopoly. I am confident that most Ukrainians will return home, and Ukraine will once again become a prosperous, peaceful state. But this will take time. Today, we need to unite and help the country not only to endure but to win.