«The skills our women are currently acquiring abroad will be crucial for Ukraine's reconstruction» - Olga Luc

Why do you and your organization show such interest in supporting and even developing Ukraine’s economy? I understand that your foundation supports the charitable organization "Economists for Ukraine," which unites experts from various countries to assist Ukraine in this area.

It is crucial to remember that war is an economic action. What does that mean? You have resources that need to be efficiently allocated to outmaneuver the enemy. Whoever uses their resources most effectively will prevail. A strong economy is essential for waging a prolonged war. People must remain productive, production capacity must be high, and society must function.

That’s why we look for ways to grow Ukraine's economy even during the war and maintain employment levels. One way to achieve this is by creating ecosystems where people can identify problems that need solving and work on them without significant capital or infrastructure investments. We provide laboratories, equipment, academic expertise, scientific experts, venture capital, and funding.

Ukraine's economy relies on external aid, but its defense is funded directly from its own budget. Thus, when the economy grows, more funds become available for the front lines. Conversely, if the economy weakens, so does the front

It’s a straightforward and direct relationship. So, if the Ministry of Economy approaches us with questions like how to increase tax revenues by 2025 or reduce debt burdens, we help find solutions because we have a network of economists and actionable ideas.

We engage in extensive work in the economic field, including sanctions and policy development. Having the right processes in place in society is critical – not only introducing the right technologies but also building the proper institutions and structures for this work.

What sectors of Ukraine’s economy are you focusing your support on today?

I’ve been to Ukraine four times since the beginning of the full-scale invasion – twice this year, once last year, and once in 2022. I’ve observed how the situation has evolved, how needs and dynamics have shifted. Initially, it was mostly about internally displaced persons – people relocating from one city to another. The situation was uncertain, and we didn’t know what to expect next.

By 2023, the situation had significantly stabilized. We could better understand where people could live, how to live and work, and how to build their lives amidst the realities of war. By 2024, however, we see more serious geopolitical shocks: uncertainty in the United States, hesitation from some European allies, tensions between China and Taiwan, and North Korea's involvement  –  all adding to global instability while Ukraine keeps holding on.

This pushes us to support Ukraine in the areas of greatest need, which extend beyond the economy alone. Sestry.eu has already written about our collaboration with the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the Kyiv School of Economics.

During my latest trip, I visited Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, and Vinnytsia. I also went to Mykolaiv and Odesa, as we have teams in all these regions. I try to visit every few months to meet with the teams in person, so they know we’re not just sitting on the other side of the world but truly care and want to see how programs are working. What’s effective, what’s not, what needs to change, what we should consider, and whether new opportunities have arisen.

In Kyiv, we’re opening a hub dedicated to what we call recovery science. Recovery science encompasses all innovations necessary for winning the war and building a strong post-war country. This includes infrastructure, clean energy, demining, restoring hospitals, and institutional rebuilding. It can also cover defense, such as drones, surveillance, and other wartime needs.

The second part of my trip focused on new initiatives. One of these is our collaboration with the Sumy city council to develop sustainable internet infrastructure.

Due to air raids, power outages, and disruptions in education, people in Sumy are increasingly forced to take shelter. Unlike Kyiv, where few people leave their homes in the middle of the night, in Sumy, this remains a necessity. This makes life, work, and education much more difficult in the city. The internet has become one of the primary tools for maintaining communication, sharing information, and understanding what’s happening. However, Sumy has faced severe challenges in ensuring internet access during the war. We are working with Cisco to bring new radio equipment to the city, expand the number of Wi-Fi hotspots, and provide free internet access.

In Vinnytsia, we are focusing on agrotechnology, creating an agrotechnical hub. Technologies from international partners will be consolidated in one scientific space in a region already rich in agricultural expertise. Vinnytsia is an agricultural city, as it has always been a farming region. It boasts some of the world’s most fertile soils – chernozems. It’s logical to tackle Ukraine’s agricultural challenges in a place like Vinnytsia. The idea is to gather all the necessary resources in this city, engage the community, young scientists, businesses, and universities. Vinnytsia is home to six universities, remarkable for a city with a population of 300,000!

We are establishing scientific and development centers where people can come together, generate new ideas, create businesses, and access all the necessary structures to implement those ideas. Often, when building a business, it’s challenging to find the tools, workers, and capital required. We aim to simplify these processes so that people can experiment, quickly test ideas, and bring them to market.

We already have over 100 international technology partners who want to come to Vinnytsia to test their developments and share expertise. University partners are also interested in collaborating with Vinnytsia’s agricultural researchers. We hope to create a very vibrant and productive community.

When do you expect the first results of your activities?

We anticipate that by June 2025, several projects will have already been launched, and the hubs in Vinnytsia will be operational, working with test farms around the city. We’re already introducing three new technologies into Ukraine’s agricultural sector, one of which is particularly interesting.

About the algae that cleans soil after explosions?

Yes, this technology allows for the rapid restoration of soil contaminated by explosions. Explosions on agricultural lands cause several problems. First, high temperatures create scorched areas unsuitable for farming. Second, explosive substances contain toxic chemicals hazardous to humans, such as mercury, cadmium, or even radioactive materials. This can render such fields unfit for cultivating food crops for over 10 years.

Sometimes you see photos of people growing cabbage or beets in abandoned tanks or near them. This is extremely dangerous, as such vegetables can accumulate toxins, causing long-term harm to health

One of our partners involved in the Vinnytsia collaboration developed a technology for cultivating special algae. These algae, similar to marine varieties, grow rapidly in industrial tanks through fermentation, allowing for the production of large quantities.

This technology facilitates soil detoxification by breaking down heavy metals and toxins. Thanks to it, the land restoration process is reduced from decade to three years. After this, the soil becomes suitable for agricultural production.

Ukraine faces many challenges now. For instance, farmers’ fields still have active mines. There are also issues with logistics, safe grain storage, and other critical matters that need addressing.

Additionally, being a farmer in Ukraine is extremely challenging – it’s not a job where one can get rich quickly

Thus, it’s necessary to find balance and create solutions that help farmers, heal the agricultural system, and speed up recovery from soil contamination and the overall impact of war. The idea is to bring as many innovations and technologies as possible to agriculture.

In addition to the open projects in Kyiv and Vinnytsia, our ultimate goal is to establish similar centers in other regions, such as Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, and Kharkiv. This is relatively easy to implement.

By the way, regarding Kharkiv. I wanted to ask you about the educational project you are implementing in this city. On your foundation’s page, I saw a call to support your initiative: only $35 – a safe learning opportunity for children in Kharkiv for one day.

Regarding Kharkiv, we are implementing a joint project with the Ministry of Education aimed at supporting schools and creating assistance centers for children. The idea is to modernize the education system, which in Ukraine has largely remained unchanged for a century. The war and the COVID-19 pandemic have further highlighted the need to adapt learning to contemporary challenges.

Many children are falling behind in their studies, especially in fundamental disciplines like reading, writing, and mathematics. The overall educational level has significantly decreased – by an average of two to three years compared to pre-war times. While there are many educational centers in Ukraine, most of them resemble childcare facilities. They offer a few hours of lessons, games, or English classes, which are helpful for the community. However, we aim to go further – to introduce new, effective approaches to education.

In collaboration with the Ministry of Education, we have opened educational centers in Kharkiv, Sumy, Okhtyrka, Mykolaiv, and Odesa. These centers serve as platforms for experimenting with modern teaching methods. We’ve engaged international specialists in early childhood development, psychologists, and other experts to create innovative approaches. For example, my son in the United States attended a preschool that used the Reggio Emilia approach – an Italian methodology that teaches children to solve problems through collaboration in groups without direct teacher involvement. This approach focuses on fostering teamwork and collective learning.

Additionally, we work with children who have disabilities or have experienced significant trauma.

Some children haven’t spoken a word for six months after losing a parent on the front lines

Yet, after a few months of working with psychologists and other specialists, they begin to open up and talk again. Gradually, we involve them in group activities with other children, helping them share experiences and participate in learning. This is also an important lesson for other children: understanding that every member of society is unique and equally valuable, regardless of their life circumstances.

Our centers deviate from the traditional model where children simply sit at desks and listen to a teacher lecture for an hour – we strive to create an environment that fosters active learning and development.

Furthermore, we are developing educational materials for the Ministry of Education to make new approaches accessible for teacher training nationwide. Everything proven effective in our centers is formalized into methodological recommendations, explaining the necessary resources and including training sessions. We are currently building partnerships with pedagogical universities so that their students can join the work in the centers, gaining practical experience and new knowledge.

Gradually, though it won’t happen immediately, these changes will reach every school because I strongly support the idea of public education. I want to create systems that work for everyone. It’s very easy to open a private school with a new methodology, where only a small number of children will have access. It’s great – it works well, with the best teachers, technology – everyone’s happy.

But real change will happen if we can transform the system on a national level, though this will be very slow. That’s why I don’t claim we can make a big impact immediately, but it’s important that we have a mechanism for change within the education system.

The scope of your projects is impressive – ranging from economic initiatives and demining efforts to soil remediation and new educational methods. You work with city councils, ministries, and commercial enterprises?

At present, we have established partnership agreements and memoranda of cooperation with almost all key ministries in Ukraine: the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Digital Transformation. Additionally, we have an agreement with the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People.

The Ukrainian government is unique in being easier to work with compared to many other countries' governments

Often, interacting with state institutions feels like talking to a grandparent – a slow and cumbersome process. But in Ukraine, there is a completely different approach: a lot of energy and readiness for change. This is driven by the need to survive. We have no choice but to look for new solutions, try new ideas, and implement them.

Although our organization is small, we strive to build as broad a network as possible with various ministries and individuals so they can reach out to us with requests or ideas where we can be useful. Our goal is to respond to needs and help address them. Large organizations handle global tasks – delivering hundreds of generators or millions of batteries, funding schools and universities. We cannot operate on such a scale – our approach is different.

We try to be the "glue" that binds new ideas and creates space for rapid testing. We assist without spending millions of dollars. Our value lies in bringing efforts together, promoting innovation, and finding effective solutions.

Do you plan to continue providing such extensive assistance to Ukraine until its victory?

Oh, I’m sure we will actively assist Ukraine for a long time after its victory. The issue is not only about military success. After the war ends, a tremendous amount of work will be needed to restore the country to full functionality, right? We’ll need to help Ukrainians who have gone abroad return. Estimates suggest that five to ten million people are currently outside Ukraine. I expect at least 10–30% of them to return – that's two to three million people who will need reintegration.

Additionally, infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. Preserving a strong democracy after the war will also be a crucial task. In such transitional periods, a lot can go wrong, so I believe our work in Ukraine will continue for a long time.

Personally, I am also involved in defense-related projects. I invest in and collaborate with companies developing military technologies. To be honest, I believe in only one end to this war: the complete military defeat of Russia. Without this and political changes in Russia, I see no real end to the war. At best, we will have a frozen conflict; more likely, an active hot phase where the roles of China, Iran, and North Korea will only grow.

Without Russia’s total defeat, it’s hard to imagine a happy ending for the world. Despite Trump’s statements, I don’t see how he can end the war by 2025, as he promises. Unfortunately, this will be a long fight. Many of Ukraine’s future resources have already been spent to defend the present.

I only hope we won’t sell that future for nothing by seeking a short-term resolution to the war. I believe Europe and the U.S. must seriously invest in Ukraine – providing proper protection for cities and creating opportunities for frontline advances. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next two to three months.

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

‍

‍

‍

‍