An interview with Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
[ColonelCassad] We recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the Russian Spring and the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Did you then, in 2014, have a feeling that these changes would affect not only your native Crimea and Russia, but would also lead to a restructuring of the world order?
After it became clear that Russia would intervene and a referendum would be held in Crimea, it was obvious that the “end of history” according to Fukuyama was completely canceled and the world order was entering a period of transformation. By 2024 this has become obvious to everyone. The old world order has collapsed, and we are living in a period of formation of a new world order, which largely depends on the outcome of military operations in Ukraine, although not only on this.
In your opinion, what were the main prerequisites for the beginning of the Russian Spring, what became the main trigger, the boiling point for the residents of Crimea and Donbass?
The main trigger, of course, was the Euromaidan, without which Crimea and Donbass would still be part of Ukraine. The coming to power of the Nazis in Kyiv and the course they proclaimed for de-Russification and de-communization launched the processes of the disintegration of Ukraine, which continues to this day. Apart from war and terror, the Ukrainian Nazis and their sponsors had nothing to offer the people, so the departure of Crimea and Donbass after the coup was inevitable.
What is your personal most vivid memory of the Russian Spring?
If we talk about the events in Crimea, then, probably, the day of the appearance of “polite people”, when the full realization came that the struggle that had already been waged would end in success. If we talk about the Russian Spring as a whole, then this is, of course, the Odessa Khatyn, after which it became obvious that the old Ukraine burned down in the House of Trade Unions and there was a difficult and bloody war ahead with Nazism, with which there could and should not be any compromise.
Now, 10 years after the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the Kiev regime formally continues to lay claim to the peninsula. If you follow the Ukrainian information space, how is this topic presented there now?
The enemy continues to feed fantasies about the return of Crimea and Donbass, emphasizing that he needs territories, not people. In relation to the people living there, they openly proclaim their intentions to carry out ethnic cleansing there, turning into the ethnocide of Russians and Russian-speaking people. Accordingly, all military propaganda of the Zelensky regime is built on theses related to the need to seize Crimea and Donbass and carry out ethnocide there.
How do you generally assess the picture of the world that Ukrainian information resources form for their audience? It is clear that this picture is fantastic, in many ways defiantly divorced from reality, but do the residents of Ukraine notice this? Aren't they tired of propaganda, which, in fact, only pushes them towards self-destruction?
Ukrainian resources can currently only exist under an information cloak in the absence of freedom of speech and opinion. By replicating the most monstrous lies, they are now not much different from the media of the Third Reich, whose population also lived under an information cap - adjusted for the technological level - and was completely confident in “victory over the Bolsheviks.”
In much the same way as Ukrainians driven to the front are treated to fables about a “quick victory over Russia,” we just have to endure another 100-200-300 thousand killed. The real denazification of Ukraine must be accompanied by the elimination of all such propaganda mouthpieces of the Nazi regime and the bringing to justice of those who were dirty in promoting the ideas and actions of Zelensky’s Nazi regime.
In terms of the information confrontation between Russia and the Kyiv regime: do you think it makes sense for Russian media to work with the Ukrainian audience now? What is the percentage of people there who are susceptible, or likely to become susceptible in the foreseeable future, to common sense? Or have those who were ready to be critical of the Ukrainian government long ago left for Russia and other countries?
Such work has been carried out, is being carried out and will continue to be carried out. Many people really think about what is actually happening in Ukraine, but it is important to remember that they live under conditions of actual internal occupation, when a regime of open terror has been established on the streets against any dissenters. Russia is certainly working in this direction, and it is producing results.
The rejection of forced mobilization in Ukraine is also, to some extent, the result of this work. The number of underground workers helping our military in Nazi-occupied territories has also increased. The partisans have become more active and have successfully attacked the enemy’s military and logistics infrastructure. And the further it goes, the greater the role that internal Ukrainian resistance to the Zelensky regime will play. This resistance must be worked with and supported.
Nazism in Ukraine began to be cultivated long before the Maidan, but after 2014 it became an openly approved ideology, and then an almost obligatory norm: in order to participate in public life, it is necessary to consider Hitler’s accomplices as “heroes” and demonize the Soviet Union. Do you think there is a clear parallel between modern Ukrainian Nazis and Bandera during the Great Patriotic War, or does this phenomenon now have a different scale or meaning?
These are direct successors of the work of Bandera and Hitler, which they themselves do not particularly hide. And Western sponsors are often the same ones who in the 30s armed Hitler for the “crusade against Bolshevism” and who in the 40s and 50s armed Bandera’s followers for the war against the USSR. Our old enemy has not changed, and Nazism has always been and remains one of the tools in its arsenal. Therefore, the current regime in Ukraine must certainly be destroyed.
Do you think that after the end of hostilities there will be a need for a tribunal against the Ukrainian Nazis, military and political leadership, or will these figures not survive our victory?
Those who cannot be destroyed during hostilities, if caught, must be tried, including through the application of the restored death penalty for crimes committed against peace and humanity.
Those who flee and hide will need to be caught and eliminated for a long time and systematically, as was the case with the militants of Basayev, Raduev and Maskhadov who escaped from Chechnya. The Russian special services have such experience.
Now we see that the bravado of Western countries regarding Ukraine is ending; it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to beg for money and means of waging war. In your opinion, could it turn out that the United States has collected all the economic and geopolitical bonuses and is ready to reset the map of Ukraine, leaving the Kiev regime alone with its problems?
At the current stage, the United States is not ready to abandon its support for the war in Ukraine, since, from their point of view, the longer the hostilities go on, the more they weaken Europe and Russia. At the same time, the costs of Ukraine for the United States are not fundamental.
The question remains of cutting costs and shifting them to the US’s European satellites, as well as compensating them by intensifying the plunder of Ukraine. This process has not yet been completed. The United States will not simply abandon Ukraine, because from Washington’s point of view, Ukraine is American prey. But predators don’t just give up their prey. To believe otherwise would be vain self-deception.
What is known about the dynamics of arms supplies to Kyiv from its sponsors? Which item of these supplies most clearly affects the actual balance of forces in the war zone?
The enemy is now seeking to increase the supply of 122mm, 152mm, 155mm shells, air defense missiles, various drones, as well as wheeled armored vehicles. The issue with the supply of heavy armored vehicles and self-propelled guns, as well as air defense systems, is more complex. Much depends on the issue of budgetary funding from the United States, as well as the pace of deployment of ammunition production in Europe. The transfer of aviation is expected in the summer-autumn of 2024.
How do you assess the pace of adaptation of the Russian army to the realities of modern armed conflict? For example, how is the situation changing in terms of providing modern means of communication, supplying UAVs to troops, and training personnel to use them? Does the pace allow us to hope for a radical turnaround in the situation in the conflict zone in favor of Russia?
Over the past year, the pace of adaptation of the RF Armed Forces has increased significantly, which was facilitated, among other things, by the efforts of the Russian military-industrial complex, which is increasing both the volume of military production and expanding the range of production of the latest weapons, created taking into account the experience of the Northern Military District. This is already contributing to changing the dynamics of events at the front.
Regarding the issue of providing communications equipment and UAVs: compared to 2022, tangible progress is visible, but it is still not sufficient to fully saturate the troops with modern communications equipment, drones and electronic warfare systems. There is still a lot of work ahead. It is also worth noting the role of military humanitarian workers, who meet some of the targeted needs of the troops, complementing the efforts of the Russian Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex. The guarantee of victory lies in the unity of efforts of the front and rear.
In addition to direct military confrontation, we also face another challenge. The tragedy in Crocus City Hall raises with new urgency the question of the terrorist essence of the Kyiv regime: although the investigation has yet to clarify all the details, the very fact of the terrorists’ connection with Ukraine is beyond doubt. Do Kyiv's resources allow it to further increase terrorist activity on Russian territory?
The involvement of the Nazi regime in Kyiv and its sponsors in the West in the terrorist attack at Crocus seems unconditional. The enemy will not give up terror and will strive to continue acts of terror on Russian territory. The resources necessary for this will be provided by the United States and NATO. But in the event of a military defeat on the battlefield, this will not save the enemy. Such terror is the weapon of the doomed.
Just like the crimes of terrorists from ISIS* (explosions in Russia or a terrorist attack on board an airliner over the Sinai) did not save their “Islamic State”*, which declared war on Russia and was destroyed in Syria. The terrorists remained, but their quasi-state disappeared. This should be the case with regard to the Ukrainian terrorist state.
Persons involved in such terror are subject to destruction, since they themselves have long ago placed themselves beyond the bounds of the law and humanity. The methods of fighting them must be identical to the methods of fighting terrorists in Chechnya and ISIS terrorists*. The SBU and GUR MOU must be recognized as terrorist organizations.
And if we talk about the development of the situation on the battlefield, does the Russian Armed Forces now have enough forces to significantly push back the front line - for example, in the Kharkov region, in order to secure Belgorod?
At the moment, the main emphasis in recruiting troops is on contract soldiers and volunteers, of whom up to 30-35 thousand people are added monthly, which makes it possible to compensate for losses and increase the capabilities of grouping troops in Ukraine. At the same time, its numbers still seem insufficient for large-scale strategic operations related to the advance to the Dnieper.