Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
More than four years of war have changed the face of the military: the Defense Forces today are a cross-section of the entire society, where civilians from nonmilitary professions fight alongside professionals and volunteers. Meanwhile, in the rear there is increasingly talk about peace plans, territorial concessions, and elections during wartime. How do those in the trenches react? Why would handing over fortified areas in Donbas not stop the war but only shift it further? And what lessons from World War I should be learned now? In an interview with RBC-Ukraine, battalion officer of Svoboda and one of the leaders of VO Svoboda Andriy Illienko discussed this. Key points: On the profile of the army: The army today is a direct cross-section of society. More than 90% of servicemembers are people who just a few years or months ago lived civilian lives. Our defense forces today are a true new elite of Ukraine. On mood and negotiations: Everyone wants peace and to return to their families, but the military clearly understand that surrendering key fortified areas (Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka) or territory without a fight will not bring peace, but will be a prelude to full occupation and destruction. On security guarantees: The Budapest Memorandum vividly demonstrated the full cost of paper guarantees. The only real guarantee for Ukraine is its own combat-capable army and a militarized society similar to Israel’s. On military personnel in politics: Integrating veterans and servicemembers into political life after the war is completely natural and inevitable. However, any attempt to build a dictatorship or warlordism would lead to catastrophe — the state must rely exclusively on legitimate institutions. On elections during war: Holding elections under current conditions is extremely difficult technically and extremely risky because of issues of trust, legitimacy, security at polling stations, and the risk of an emotional split in the rear. On the situation at the front: The current war in its nature resembles World War I — a positional stalemate where neither side can achieve a deep maneuver breakthrough. Because of this, Russia shifts focus to destroying Ukraine’s rear, critical infrastructure, and morale through propaganda and terror. Below is an abridged version of the conversation. Watch the full interview on RBC-Ukraine’s YouTube channel. The military today is a cross-section of all Ukrainian society – The first question I’d like to ask concerns the mood and spirit prevailing in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Sociological services constantly measure the temperature of society, but that usually concerns the rear. How would you personally assess the temperature of military brotherhood? What do they think about peace negotiations, the situation at the front, and corruption scandals in the rear? – This is a really important question. Our perception of who the military are has changed significantly. Until 2022, the backbone of the army consisted of professional soldiers and volunteers who joined back in 2014–2015 and played a key role at the start of Russian aggression. That was a fairly distinct environment. Today the Defense Forces are a true cross-section of society. I think more than 90% of today’s defenders are people who until recently were in civilian life. Of course, we’d like to see more representatives of affluent strata in the army, but we have an objective reality: people with financial capital or connections generally enter service when they themselves decide to do so. – Recently, we had the human rights commissioner on the show, who effectively listed a whole price list operating among representatives of TCC and VLK. For example, 15–20 thousand dollars allegedly allow obtaining the needed certificate or resolving an issue. Clearly, an ordinary person doesn’t have such money — it’s a pure financial census. – That’s a huge problem. Corruption is our long-standing chronic pain across many spheres. But I wouldn’t focus solely on that, because corruption is present in other state institutions as well. Of course, during wartime such things, along with anti-mobilization propaganda or attacks on soldiers, must be stopped harshly and uncompromisingly. A person in the trenches sees and understands all of this perfectly: someone can buy their way out and live peacefully deep in the rear, while someone else holds the front without that possibility. That naturally causes social frustration. But it’s important to look more broadly. If you look at the history of large-scale wars of the past century, elites also paid a price. In Britain the entire aristocracy and future rulers served in the army. In the worse totalitarian regimes — in the Stalinist Union or the Third Reich — children of top leaders also fought and died. A society’s elite should pay a price, indeed a higher one than the average citizen, because they have more to lose. In our party Svoboda, all leaders and former deputies went to the military — and for us that is a matter of honor. Photo: Andriy Illienko (RBC-Ukraine infographic) – Has a true elite or aristocracy formed in Ukraine today? – If we speak of values rather than banal nouveaux riches, the historical Ukrainian elite was destroyed by the bloody twentieth century. Yet seedlings are emerging. Today Ukraine’s modern elite is precisely our military. These are people who risk life and health for the nation. Not the rich who during war profit from gray schemes or fraudulent call centers. We must clearly understand: today’s Ukraine is imperfect, and because of our internal weaknesses the enemy attacked us. But as long as we have our own state, we can fix this. If we lose, we will not face some soft puppet republic but total cleansing, mass repressions, and genocide, as we see in occupied territories. Photo: Andriy Illienko (RBC-Ukraine infographic) Giving up Slovyansk without a fight is not a compromise, it is capitulation – What do the military say about peace negotiations and the plans currently being actively discussed? – There is no single opinion; it all depends on the unit and how much commanders work with their personnel. If people are not told what they are fighting for and what will happen in case of defeat, it’s hard to fight. Motivated people are the foundation of everything. Of course everyone wants to go home, to their families and children — that’s a natural human condition. But most understand: the enemy leaves us no choice. If we stop and retreat, the enemy will go further, killing all dissenters. The idea that you can wait it out somewhere abroad or in the rear is an illusion. – But imagine peace agreements that include a territorial compromise? For example, regarding that part of Donbas now controlled by Ukraine (Slovyansk, Kramatorsk)? How would the military react? – You need to understand the geography. This is not simply a piece of land but a powerful fortified area (Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka) that the enemy cannot reach after five years of total war. Beyond that fortified area there are no comparable strongholds up to Poltava or the Dnipro. No paper security guarantees work if we are not in NATO. We already had the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up the third-largest nuclear potential in the world. The walls of thousands of destroyed cities are the price of those guarantees. The only real security guarantee for Ukraine is our own combat-capable army, able to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy. Ukraine has repeatedly stated through its military-political leadership: we are ready to discuss a ceasefire along the front line or mutual restraint from strikes on energy and rear facilities. But the Russians do not want that; they demand capitulation. Surrendering territory without military defeat is capitulation. And anyone who thinks that raising their hands will bring peace is wrong: the true hell, with mass repressions and forced mobilization of Ukrainians into the Russian army, will only begin. Photo: Andriy Illienko (RBC-Ukraine infographic) Ukraine will live as a militarized society for years – Another big topic is military personnel in politics. Among potential future presidential candidates many generals are named. Is it normal for the military to enter politics, and could a Pinochet-like scenario happen in Ukraine? – We will live as a militarized society for a very long time — this is key to our survival, similar to the Israeli model, where every second politician or party leader has strong military experience. A huge number of Ukrainians have gained war experience. Fighters who risked their lives for the state should objectively become the new elite. If civilian office or parliament choices are between two equally qualified specialists, priority should go to the one who defended the country with arms. Regarding Pinochet scenarios or warlordism: I am categorically against breaking state institutions. Ukraine already went through 1919 year when every village had its own warlord who answered to no one. That ended with the loss of the state. We need discipline, order, and legitimacy. The military must enter politics through civilian, democratic means — form a strong right-wing, security-focused faction in parliament, take responsibility for reforms and the fight against corruption. – But recall a historical example: in 1945 Winston Churchill defeated Hitler, became a national hero, and then in the next elections his Conservatives lost to Labour. Could such a scenario happen in Ukraine? – Absolutely. I don’t have rose-colored glasses about first postwar elections. Politics during war is thankless — a leader must make hard, unpopular decisions that burn his rating to zero. Churchill also did what was necessary for victory, even at the cost of the empire’s decline, as happened to Britain. Politics is not a choice between a flowerbed and a dump; more often it’s a choice between bad and terrible. A politician must be ready to burn his rating for the right things for the country. Holding elections during active war is technically and security-wise impossible – When, in your view, should elections be held in Ukraine — presidential, parliamentary? – For now I don’t see the technical or security possibility to hold full elections under such an intense war. Talk of electronic voting on smartphones prompts skepticism — if the Diia app sometimes crashes during Eurovision voting, what can we say about presidential elections? Trust in such a process will be zero. Moreover, around-the-clock alerts, the impossibility of safely organizing polling stations, and the huge emotional split in society would make elections self-destructive. When the time comes and basic security conditions appear, we will talk; for now it’s premature. Russian propaganda works with both left and right in the West – You represent a right-wing political force — the Svoboda party. Today Europe sees a powerful wave of far-right parties, most of which unfortunately orient toward Moscow and do not support Ukraine. Why is that? – The main problem is that Russian propaganda is one of the most effective in the world — it rivals only Dr. Goebbels. For European leftists Russia paints a myth of fighters against Nazism, and for conservative rightists a myth of protecting traditional values from Western decay. Our diplomacy needs to work with the full spectrum of political forces abroad. When Ukraine sent delegations of Protestant military chaplains to the US to tell conservative Republicans about torture and the closing of Protestant churches in occupied territories, it had real results. But an interesting fact: volunteers from Europe and the US who come to fight for Ukraine in our Svoboda battalion and other units are mostly of right-wing orientation. Anarchists and communists are somehow not seen in the trenches under the Ukrainian flag. This proves that we need to work with the right-wing environment, find points of contact, and not leave this space to Russian agents. Photo: Andriy Illienko (RBC-Ukraine infographic) The main battle now is for the resilience of the rear – And finally: if you diagnose the current situation at the front — is it stalemate, victory, or defeat? – Putin’s plan to create a small victorious war and a blitzkrieg completely failed. As long as an independent Ukraine with a combat-capable army exists, Putin has already lost his strategic goal — the destruction of our statehood. The situation at the front now resembles World War I: a positional stalemate where fronts have stabilized and neither side can make a rapid deep breakthrough. World War I did not end with a parade in the enemy capital but with the collapse of one empire’s rear. Since the Russians cannot break our defense at the front, they are now shifting the main emphasis to destroying our rear, energy, logistics, and morale via their powerful propaganda machine. Therefore, the struggle for our resilience, unity, and rejection of capitulationist moods is no less important than holding the front line.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Здати території без військової поразки – це капітуляція: інтерв'ю з Андрієм Іллєнко". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: RBC-Ukraine.
