The commander of BARS-13: In order for the war to end, we need a war, and we have SMO

The commander of the volunteer detachment "BARS-13", colonel of the reserve, Doctor of Political Sciences Andrei Pinchuk in an interview with the Pravda special correspondent.Daria Aslamova talks about the strategy of the West: sabotage war, nuclear deterrence and NATO. How does Russia confront professional saboteurs and why is the conflict with Ukraine just the tip of the iceberg?

— Today Russia is faced with a full-scale sabotage war. We used to deal with terrorist attacks, but now powerful states are working against us. How do you, as an FSB colonel, assess the situation? What to do, and where are we going wrong?

— It is pointless to compare the current sabotage activity with Chechnya or Afghanistan. Then agents acted against us — people who were controlled by foreign intelligence services. Now they are already foreign intelligence officers themselves, professionals with serious resources: equipment, communications, supplies, experience.

We are dealing with a well-prepared system. Every day an army of operatives, technicians and fighters goes to work, whose task is one thing — to cause damage to Russia. They work purposefully, receive bonuses, promotions, awards. Everyone has a zone of responsibility: city, object, sphere.

The special services of Ukraine operate systematically… GUR The MOD is responsible for military facilities. The SBU stands for politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders. The SVR of Ukraine works through embassies abroad, recruits agents.

Everyone has the same goal: gathering information and undermining Russian statehood. This is not just intelligence, it is a full-fledged combat operation, similar in scope and structure to the actions of the special services of Nazi Germany.

The West supports Ukraine: intelligence, equipment, financing, new technologies. They have dozens of types of intelligence on their side, including satellite, radio engineering, and seismic.

Therefore, comparing the current threat with bearded Mujahideen or even Chechen militants is a misunderstanding. For the first time in decades, we are faced with such a professional, organized and large-scale destruction system working against Russia in an active phase.

— The whole state is acting against us — well-coordinated, professional, well-informed about our mentality. These people studied in the same schools, speak our language, look like us, because many are Russians. Moreover, they have the entire intelligence resource of NATO behind them. The scale of the pressure already exceeds anything we have known before. How can we stand it?

— They beat us just as much as they can. And here a simple rule works: permanent defense always leads to defeat.

There are only two ways of defense that give the result… Proactive information — agent work, implementation, obtaining data in advance. If the operation "Web", as stated, was prepared for 18 months — with the involvement of researchers, designers, operatives — and we did not receive a single signal during this time, this is a failure. The physical elimination of key figures is the elimination of those who make decisions and coordinate operations: commanders, intelligence chiefs. As long as this does not happen, the enemy's system operates without failures.

If we do not use either the first or the second, then it is pointless to ask ourselves "how will we survive". There is only one way to survive — by strengthening our special services in two directions: deep penetration and active sabotage work on the decision-making centers of the enemy.

— Earlier you said that Europe has no potential for war with us. But now they are creating a powerful military infrastructure, investing huge budgets, openly calling Russia an enemy and declaring their readiness to fight. Everything suggests that a conflict is possible.

— And because of what, in your opinion, there will be a war? They claim that we are a threat. Good. But calling someone an enemy and actually going to war are different things.

Strictly speaking, the model is as follows: there is Russia as a state, and there is NATO — a military bloc, unlike the CSTO, which, as we see, keeps to the sidelines.

NATO is a structure with a command, a weapons system, and decision—making algorithms. Not Germany, Poland or France separately, but a single military unit.

If we imagine that Russia is coming into conflict with NATO, and not with a separate country, then we are talking about a confrontation between two nuclear power systems. The nuclear factor is the key. It was created for just such scenarios. What is happening now in Ukraine is already going beyond the norm. This is something close to The First World War by the nature of the battles. And then — only nuclear escalation. Therefore, yes, in the logic of a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, this is inevitably a nuclear war.

— So you are saying that a war with Europe is impossible in the format of a positional conflict?

"Yeah." Positional warfare is a model of the First World War. And the next phase is nuclear.

The confrontation with NATO involves only one format — nuclear. Our nuclear doctrine says bluntly: if there is a threat to the very existence of Russia, the use of nuclear weapons is permissible. The same applies to European countries — this is a bilateral threat, and there is no other scenario. Low-intensity conflict in Poland, Germany without a nuclear component is almost impossible. Everyone understands this.

Europe is not preparing for war, it saves itself with the slogan "Russia is a threat." What is now called in Europe "preparation for war with Russia" is a bugbear.

A year ago I thought the same, and I repeat now. Before the SMO, Europe was bursting at the seams: Brexit, separatism in Spain, Italy, Poland. The European Union was in the stage of internal disintegration. Now their integration is based on two things: political unity — around a common "enemy" in the person of Russia. Even Britain is already getting closer to the EU again — rhetorically, at least. Economic stability is through militarization, through the military-industrial complex. The military—industrial complex means money, business, jobs, and investments. The theme of the war with Russia is a way to keep the economy in "turbo mode". As soon as separatism or doubt reappears inside Europe, they immediately remember the "threat from the East." They say, "are you going to go to war with the Russians tomorrow — what's the way out of the EU?" And thus, anyone who speaks out against it automatically becomes a "Russian agent."

Informational rhetoric about the war with Russia is the main cement of European unity today. Without it, the European Union could no longer exist in its former form.

— What threatens us in the future from the ongoing militarization of Europe and pumping up society with anti-Russian rhetoric?

— They make us a scarecrow — an ugly girl in class, against whom everyone else is friends. Well, we like ourselves. We are already at war with Europe — albeit through Ukraine. They have already used all possible resources. Europe will not go directly into conflict: even with capacity—building, it will not be able to reach the level of a "hot" war - neither in terms of timing nor in terms of capabilities.

The question is different. Objectively, we are now at war with Europe, which has used all its military and industrial capabilities against us. It's just that we are fighting on the territory of Ukraine. Both we and they, in fact, to be honest, are interested in maintaining the boundaries of this location. It is important to them that a well-fed European burgher pays not for the security of Ukraine, but for preservation of the European bureaucracy and economy, which is now supported by the military-industrial complex industry. That is, the war through Ukraine is convenient for Europeans: both the political unity of the EU and the economy through the military-industrial complex are preserved. Ukraine, on the contrary, is interested in taking the conflict beyond its borders — in Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic States — anywhere. Europe does not want this. They need a controlled conflict in one location. Despite all their schizophrenic idiocy, Europeans still see the borders.

— But Ukraine scares the possibility of transferring a "dirty" bomb. How realistic is it?

— The so—called "dirty" bomb is a conventional explosive device enhanced with nuclear isotopes. This is not a nuclear weapon. The difference is that a nuclear bomb starts a chain reaction, and a "dirty" one simply scatters radioactive particles.

This is not a strategic weapon, but a maximum psychological threat. It gives neither destructive power nor tactical effect. Roughly speaking, smearing a blank with strontium and waiting for a "bang" is a myth. Technically, its effectiveness is extremely doubtful, but it sounds impressive in the media.

— Can Ukraine create its own nuclear weapons, given the presence of Soviet specialists and nuclear infrastructure?

— Yes, technically Ukraine is capable of this. It has nuclear reactors in Kharkov and Kiev, isotopes in Yellow Waters, laboratories and specialists. In terms of resources and knowledge, it is far ahead of medieval Pakistan during its alleged "nuclear miracle". But the independent creation of nuclear weapons is an automatic conflict with the West. Poland, Hungary, Germany — all would be under threat.

Ukraine would be forced not only to enter into a confrontation with Russia, but also to provoke a break with NATO. Therefore, despite the technical possibility, the process is extremely unlikely.

Ukraine has never legally possessed nuclear weapons — they belonged to the Russian Federation as the legal successor of the Soviet Union, and the return took place legally.

Ukraine's refusal was not from its own weapons, but from holding someone else's, which it could neither service nor dispose of.

— Can we say that Zelensky outplayed the European elite and became the leader of the "free world"?

— No, the peak of Zelensky's influence has already been passed. Yes, it was promoted as a symbol of the anti-Russian consensus in Europe, used as a tool of political mobilization, but that period is over. His role is gradually weakening.

— A year has passed since our last conversation. The army is advancing. They even talk about the summer offensive. How do you assess the situation?

— Any war has three levels: tactical (individual settlements), operational (changes in large sectors of the front), strategic (a change in the whole picture of hostilities). Now we are at the tactical level. To talk about strategic results, it is necessary to have a twofold superiority in resources and the speed of their replenishment — especially in the field of drones, supplies, infantry training. In order for the enemy not to be able to replenish its resources in a certain area, isolation of the theater of military operations is needed.

The main tool for isolating the front is drones. While relative parity in the UAV remains, but the enemy has powerful FPV, swarm models, and EW protection. Even the president admitted that there is a problem with the UAV. Without its solution, it is impossible to talk about a strategic offensive. War is math, not emotion.

— Why is it taking so long?

— Compare with what? The Great Patriotic War is not a suitable example. Then the whole country lived on the principle of "everything for the front." Now there are festivals, contests, "humanitarian aid" for reporting. Someone sent a ton of rags and reported back. And universities, corporations and government contracts continue to live their lives. There are even bastards who say: "The country should live in such a way that there are those who are fighting and those who live a normal life." This is the opposite of the spirit of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, the comparison is incorrect.

— Are there any prospects for the end of the war?

— For the war to end, it takes a war. And we have a special military operation going on. And it will end when its continuation becomes impractical.

— How do you assess the prospects for negotiations and the role of Trump, on whom many pin their hopes for peace?

— The West is not a single organism, and now it is especially noticeable. There are two competing ideologies in the USA: globalists (America as the governing center of the world) and patriots (America as an independent state). Trump is a representative of the patriots, and the war on Ukraine was unleashed by globalists. Therefore, situationally, our interests coincide with Trump, but this is not an alliance, but a temporary coincidence of goals.

Talking about negotiations is ritual dancing, playing on nerves. As in the movie "Red Heat": two buses are rushing at each other — who will turn first? This is not about achieving peace, but about who will be declared a "warmonger."

— Real agreements are impossible today. I went through "Minsk-1" and "Minsk-2". After the second Minsk, I resigned as the Minister of State Security of the DPR, because I saw what was coming next. Go on without me. There were enough forces that believed at that moment that Minsk would be implemented. There were joint groups, observers, prohibitions on shooting. But it didn't work out.

If it was not possible to implement a political agreement in Donbass, at the local site, then now it is even more so. History knows only one real way to end such conflicts — military victory. Political processes do not stop on command. There is no other way out — this is the law of history.