Propaganda, Petro-Blackmail and Invasion: An Interview with Capt. Szyszka

Stephen Szyszka is a retired US Navy Captain and former US Naval Attaché to Ukraine. He served as the Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs on the US Navy Staff in the Pentagon, focusing on NATO, Europe, and Eurasia, and as Deputy Commander of NATO’s Northern Submarine Command.

Are there Russian troops in Ukraine? How significant is this?

It seems undeniable that there are. There have been ample verified reports of regular Russian military personnel leading the “separatists,” conducting military operations within Ukraine’s borders, and operating major military equipment within Ukraine. This is incontrovertible. Many of the “separatist” fighters are clearly sporting Russian military uniforms and insignia. Unlike the invasion of Crimea earlier last year, they do not even attempt to disguise this fact.

It is extremely significant that we now have clear evidence that Russia has invaded Ukraine. The media and Western governments are hesitant to call it this, but there is no other word to describe what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Invasion.

How would you characterize the situation in Eastern Ukraine? Is it a civil war, a separatist movement, a foreign incursion?

As explained above, what is happening in Eastern Ukraine can only be characterized as an “invasion” — as is, for that matter, what happened in Crimea. A foreign power has sent its military into another country unprovoked and is occupying sections of it. What other word fits?

What is the state of the Ukrainian military, and what does this mean for the war effort?

Unfortunately, Ukraine’s military has been gradually weakened by inept leadership. There are several deep-seated problems that are extremely difficult to overcome in a time of war. First, under previous presidents that cozied up to Russia, the armed forces of Ukraine became riddled with people loyal to the Kremlin. Rooting out these disloyal servicemen would require a dedicated effort. Second, the Ukrainian military has been severely underfunded. This is understandable, given Ukraine’s economic challenges and the Yanukovych regime’s looting of public coffers. Equipment is antiquated or in disrepair, troops are undertrained and underpaid. Again, re-arming and re-training are challenging at any time, but in time of war they are exponentially more difficult.

In the end this means that Ukraine is extremely vulnerable. As we have seen, regular forces are doing what they can, but a significant part of the war effort is being conducted by volunteers – irregulars, if you will – who understand the gravity of the situation and are willing to fight for their country. Of course, this means a greater casualty rate, simply due to the fact that these troops are less well-equipped and less well-trained.

What are the possible long-term outcomes to the situation? Is Russia’s long-term strategy matched by a Western counter-strategy?

I’m not sure I’m smart enough to answer this, nor objective enough to provide an outcome that is not colored by my personal desires. Regarding the second part of the question, I am unconvinced that the West has any strategy at all. They are reactive rather than proactive. I am waiting for a Western leader to articulate what is an acceptable end state in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Geographically, I cannot predict what the final outcome will be. It seems most likely to me that Crimea is lost, and Eastern Ukraine may indeed end up in an Abkhazia-like state, although I think that is less likely given the recent troubles Russia is facing. I do know that the myth of Russia and Ukraine being fraternal nations has been shattered forever.

What is the biggest misconception that Western governments have about the situation in Eastern Ukraine?

The greatest misconception – and this is perpetuated by most media outlets – is that the situation sprung up as a “civil war” of some sort. There was NO significant separatist movement in either Crimea or the Donbass prior to Russian infiltration with fifth-columnists.

The second main misconception is that Ukraine is bitterly divided along linguistic lines. This East vs. West myth has been perpetuated for so long that it goes virtually uncontested in any news report or in any discussion. The ethnolinguistic situation in Ukraine is much more complex and nuanced, but the vast majority of people – definitely including Russian-speakers living in the Donbass – consider themselves Ukrainian.

What are the relevant capabilities of the US Navy?

It seems very unlikely that the US would allow itself to get dragged into this militarily. That said, the US Navy has little that would help on the ground. By international law the US cannot (and will not) send an aircraft carrier into the Black Sea. Smaller warships would not bring anything particularly useful to the situation, although there may be some extreme scenarios in which a blockade of Sevastopol could be set by US forces, or amphibious forces could be landed to assist Ukrainian troops. But let me be clear: I am not advocating such a US intervention, nor do I consider it even remotely likely.

Many Western journalists and commentators blame NATO expansion as one of the chief causes of the current standoff with Russia. To what extent is this accurate?

It is accurate to the extent that Russia’s leadership has used NATO as a boogeyman to convince the Russian people that this is so. Hence - it is so. Was/is NATO an actual threat to Russia’s sovereignty or territorial integrity? Of course not, but inasmuch as the Russian on the street believes that it is, the perception is that the threat from NATO must be dealt with. Has Germany stopped being Germany because it’s a NATO member? Greece? Italy? It’s a ludicrous contention, unsupported by any facts, but “it plays” in Moscow.

What is your take on the “balance of interests” here? How should the US balance its oil interests with Russia’s, the EU’s gas needs, and the interests of OPEC members and other energy exporting countries?

To me, there are times when economic interests, specifically petrochemical interests, should not factor into the discussion. Of course that’s not going to happen, but even taking these interests into account, Russia has repeatedly proven to be an unreliable partner. So why should the West continue to trust that Russia will become more reliable in the future? Russia’s only tool is petro-blackmail, so the West should wean itself off of any dependence (which is not that great anyways) on Russian oil. This should be taken as an opportunity to invest in and develop alternative sources of energy. There are plenty of options to consider and implement to reduce dependence on Russia. I acknowledge that Russia is large, but it is not the only source of natural resources on the planet. If Putin chooses to continue down this North-Korean-like path, he should be allowed to do so.

Bottom line: The rest of the world does not need Russia. Russia needs the rest of the world and must start behaving like a responsible member of the international community.