SPEAKER_02: 0:39

We're back and we're back for this very special moment in the Friday night in our program, Labor, that is related to very, very special persons. You know, sometimes these very special persons are persons that are well known over all the world. It's this Oscar Winner director, it's this ballerina, it's this singer that is known in the whole planet. Sometimes we have people that are only well known in their countries, and we are very interested in people, knows persons coming from other countries that has a very high level, but unluckily they are known only in their own countries. And sometimes, even we had very special people who are well known in some regions, some town, some part of a country, and we are interested. They are very well known over all the work. Our guest of tonight is an exceptional person. I have read several of his books. They are extraordinary, well researched, well-studied books, and now he's teaching at the School of Political Studies and the Conflict Studies and Human Rights Program at the University of Ottawa, Canada, but he held academic positions in the past at Harvard University, the State University of New York at Potsdam, the University of Toronto, and the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. I have read several books of our guest of this of tonight, and he's a person with an incredible and deep knowledge of the history of Ukraine, but of today's Ukraine. And his last book, I have it in my hands, is The Russia-Ukraine War and its origins from the Maidan to the Ukraine War. I introduce you to Ivan Kachanovsky. Mr. Kachanovsky, very welcome to LaVoz.

SPEAKER_01: 2:57

Thank you for the invitation and for the great introduction.

SPEAKER_02: 3:01

First question: Why are you so interested in Ukraine history and also in the today's Ukraine crisis? That's why you were born in Ukraine, or there are more interests than only the birth?

SPEAKER_01: 3:20

Yes, I'm uh originally from Ukraine. I uh was born in Western Ukraine, Poland. But uh I interested in this uh topic of the conflicts in Ukraine and politics and um recent history of Ukraine because I research these issues as a scholar, as a political scientist, and I do this since I wrote my and the fact that my PhD dissertation at George Mason University in the United States in 2001. And I publish many books and many peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic. So this is the main area of my research, and I follow uh the current war in UK very closely. I publish an open access book, which is free for anybody to read and download and translate in any language. There is already interest to translate my book in Spanish language from Spanish professors. So this is, I think, uh main topic of my research, and this is also very important because Confink in UK and Boy in UK is uh uh has significant implications not only for future of UK but also for many other countries, including uh countries outside of UK, including Spain or uh and other European countries and countries even in Latin America and Asia and so on.

SPEAKER_02: 4:41

Um Mr. Kachanovsky, I must confess that I have discovered you reading your work about the Euromaidan. I was really surprised because you were offering a very different view of the popular view broadcast by the Western media. Um when you when you look at the Euromaidan crisis, uh what have you found? A mass protest, a revolution, a coup d'etat, or a regime change?

SPEAKER_01: 5:16

Uh yes, I publish also a book on this topic called Um The Maidan Massacre in UK, the mass killing which changed the world. And in my book, I present various evidence, and in my recent book, I also present evidence that this Maidan was not only mass protest, as was presented by the media, according to the dominant media narrative, but this was also a coup at and also this was a United States-led regime change. And I do this based on a variety of evidence, in particular about the Maidan massacre of the police and Maidan activists in February of 2014. And the evidence is clear that this massacre was conducted not by the Yanukovych government uh forces, but it was conducted by elements of the Maidan opposition, including far right, including uh neonazi and radical nationalists who shot both police and Maidan activists to falsely blame Yanukovych forces and to take power in Ukraine, and they succeeded in this uh four flag massacre. And this massacre had very significant implications for Ukraine and for the future of Ukraine because this massacre led to Overslov Yanukovych government, and Yanukovych fled Ukraine because of this massacre and because of assassination attempts. And there was also um evidence that the United States government supported, uh de facto supported this uh overslovak Yanukovych government, and there was admission even by uh former President Barack Obama who said after Maidan massacre that the United States uh helped to uh in uh transition of power in UK after the Maidan massacre and before Yanukovych fled Ukraine. So this is uh I think very clear based on my research that this is uh this mass murder led to of the Soviet Yankovic government, who was falsely blamed for this massacre, including even by based on testimonies and Maidan massacre trial, testimonies of majority of wounded Maidan activists who testified that they were shot from locations which were controlled by Maidan opposition, not by not by government forces. And this was even admitted by a verdict of Ukrainian trial. And this massacre escalated into the Russian annexation of Crimea, into civil war and Russian interventions in uh Donbass. And finally, this uh massacre uh led to finally led to the Russian invasion of UK and war between Russia and UK. This is a kind of escalation, and this is was a trigger of this conflict between um Russia and UK, and also between uh Russia and the West, and also within UK, between pro-Russian regions like Donbass and Crimea, and other regions of UK. And Crimea and Donbass wanted uh most people in Crimea and Donbass wanted to secede from Ukraine after the Maidan massacre, according to my research and according to public opinion. This is why this is very important to understand what happened in UK in 2014, in order to understand the current war and uh and how it was possible to avoid and prevent this war and how it's possible to resolve this uh conflict in Ukraine.

SPEAKER_02: 8:36

If we are facing really a coup d'etat and a coup d'etat well created by nationalists in Ukraine and also a foreign intervention, uh which was the reason of this coup d'etat? Uh put Ukraine under the wing of the West to go more than one inch from the frontier uh of Germany to Russia. Exactly which was the reason of this coup d'etat?

SPEAKER_01: 9:10

Yes, the reason was geopolitical reason. Uh the reason was to um again uh turn Ukraine into anti-Russian state, anti-Russian Bulwark against and use again against Russia and and also to uh have uh de facto to make UK into client state of the United States, and this is what happened after the Maidan, Ukraine became a client state, and it was used as a proxy in the proxy war, also between uh Russia and the West in Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. And this is uh based on a variety of evidence which I cite in my book, even admissions by uh former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Bernice Johnson, who admitted that this is a proxy war, and also admissions uh and statement by uh head of Pentagon in the Biden administration, who said that the goal of the United States is to weaken Russia after uh United States and United Kingdom blocked a peace deal which was very close to being signed and finalized between Russia and UK to end this war in Istanbul in the spring of 2022.

SPEAKER_02: 10:17

Um after the coup d'etat in Euromaidan, there's a very important uh situation that is the Russian annexation of uh Crimea. Well, to the West, the the official story, the official tale is this was a totally unjustified uh annexation by Russia, this was uh a show of Russian imperialism, this was a long-standing plan to take away to snatch uh Crimea. But in reality, what has happened after the Judomaidan, who has that has moved uh Russia to go into Crimea, has faced Russia a real opposition of the people living in Crimea were identified with Russia?

SPEAKER_01: 11:14

Uh yes, this is uh also based on my research and uh surveys which I examined, and they show and I examined such surveys in the 1990s and also in uh before and after uh the Russian annexation of Crimea and all such surveys show that uh there was uh majority support for joining Russia or seceding from UK in Crimea in the 1990s, and also uh after the Maidan massacre in UK, after the Yankovic government, and uh also after the annexation of Crimea by Russia. And such opinion polls are conducted uh not only by Ukrainian uh public opinion companies but also by Western uh public opinion uh companies. Uh this is uh again uh very important to understand. Even so, this was illegal annexation under international law, but Russia used precedent of Kosovo, recognition of Kosovo by uh the United States and other Western countries as independent state from Serbia. And so uh and this is uh how Russia justifies this annexation. But uh uh population of Crimea was different from population of Ukraine because it was uh mostly populated by ethnic Russians. Um other regions of UK, with uh partial exception of Donbass, in which there was priority of Russia ethnic Russians, uh they had a majority of ethnically Ukrainian population, even Russian-speaking regions in eastern and southern Ukraine. But in Crimea, this Crimea was um region in which was dominated by ethnic Russians and it had different history from Ukraine because Crimea was given to Ukraine by then head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, uh Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. Uh again, this was given from the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union to Ukraine, and for this reason, the people in Ukraine again, and people in Crimea have often very different views, and and and this is a conflict which became an open conflict after the violent overflow of the Yankovic government with support of Western countries. And it was predictable and it was again avoidable because I wrote about this in the 1990s. I wrote about this in my PhD dissertation, which I published, and in subsequent papers and subsequent publications, but uh there is still denial that um that people in Crimea and the abuse and uh this uh narrative that um uh that uh again contains to evidence. And this is why it's important to understand this conflict, even uh and what happened in Crimea and how it was uh triggered by the Russia by uh it was uh triggered by the Mayan massacre and Oversov Yanukovych government. And uh Barack Obama, then president of the United States, as I mentioned in his interview to CNN, uh he stated that Russia reacted to the Oversov Yanukovych by uh uh by annexing Crimea. So this is was reaction by Russia. This was not there is no evidence that this was planned before the Maidan massacre. This was again uh this is very clear that this annexation by Russia started with uh majority support of the local population in Crimea after Soviet Yankovic government, after the Maidan massacre, which was supported by the West. So this is I think based on my research and based on evidence.

SPEAKER_02: 14:43

Um the the war in Ukraine has begun in 2014, a kind of civil war.

SPEAKER_01: 14:55

Yes, and this uh war uh took place in Donbass, another region which was uh Pro Russian region, but not only Pro Russian region. They uh most of the people in Donbass supported uh various forms of separatism, either joining Russia or independence from uh uh Ukraine or autonomy in uh in Ukraine within a federal state, which was rejected by the central government of UK after the Maidan massacre and after the overthrow of Yanukovych. And this is based on my uh survey, which I mentioned already, which I commissioned uh for my academic research and which was uh conducted by Ukrainian uh Kiev Institute of International Institute of Sociology in all regions of Ukraine, including Donbass. And uh this war is classified in my studies and in studies conducted by most Western scholars as a civil war with a Russian military intervention. So Russia supported separatists in Donbass who were Russian uh after uh after the war started, and also uh Russia supported this indirectly, but then uh there was also evidence of direct Russian involvement in this war in uh August of 2014 and uh winter of 2015 when Russia covertly sent their military forces into Donbass to support separatists in Donbass. But most fighters in Donbass uh were uh local uh residents, they were uh Ukrainian citizens who opposed uh overthrow the Ukrainian government and wanted to succeed because they were Russian in terms of their ideological orientation and views. And this is uh again uh also important to understand how this conflict started and how it uh uh and its nature of this conflict because this war is misrepresented often as a um as a war between Russia and Ukraine. But this actually there was Russian involvement in this war, but it was a civil war, which again started actually the uh Western Back uh Obersov-Yedukovych government by means of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine.

SPEAKER_02: 17:00

Um there's an aspect that is really uncomfortable to the West, and it's the way the Ukrainian nationalists have reivindicated the role of uh characters like Bandera and other uh Ukrainian nationalists during World War II. They had become national heroes, and there's a common accusation coming from Russia in the sense that Ukrainian nationalist is permitted, is uh very influenced by a kind of neonazism or far right movement. In reality, which is the real role of the far right in in areas like Euromaidan, the Maidan and Odessa massacres or the Donbass War. There was really an important role of the far right of Ukraine, of this is a kind of legend.

SPEAKER_01: 18:06

Yes, I think this is also a very important issue which is represented by the media and politicians in the West, because based on my research, which I published in academic venues, in uh peer review journal articles in my academic books. Uh, and Ukraine is not neonazi state, contrary to what Russia claims. But uh far right, including open neo-Nazis, like Omazov movement, they have uh oversized power in Ukraine, a disproportional power in Ukraine, because they rely on violence. And uh they took part and participated and were involved in the Maidan massacre, in other cases of violence during Maidan protests, uh during Euromidan in Ukraine in 2013 and 14. They also took part in the Odessa massacre and they admitted this publicly, but never they were never persecuted, never investigated. Uh, because they joined the Ukrainian government, they were integrated in the Ukrainian uh police, security service forces, and military and far right, and including open neonazis and from Azov uh battalion, which now became uh uh Azov regiment, now became degraded and now even expanded even more. They participated in these cases of violence, and they also were very actively involved in the start of the war in Donbass, in the start of the civil war in Donbass between uh Russian and Russian supported separatists and uh central government of UK because they established their own military formations like Azov Battalion and um Right Sector, uh Army, and they uh for this reason they have uh weapons, they they know and they are on violence, and for this reason, far right and including open neo-Nazis, I think, uh have become very powerful in Ukraine because they were also able even to openly threaten Zelensky, who was elected on the platform of peaceful resolution of the war in Donbass, but they threatened him openly that he would be killed if he would reach a peace with Russia or would uh make a peace deal with uh separatists in Donbass. So this is uh now a very important issue, and this is very clear that uh, including open neo-Nazis, are very powerful in Ukraine, but Ukraine is not a neo-Nazi state, uh, contrary to what Russia claims.

SPEAKER_02: 20:42

How is it possible that President Zelensky, who is himself a Jew, could be so tolerant to this kind of movement?

SPEAKER_01: 20:52

Uh he I think he's um politician who is very uh interested in only in himself, in his own interest, so he was elected on a peaceful uh platform, but because of far right threatened him, so he became afraid. And uh so he basically came to far right and tried to placate them, tried to integrate them into Ukrainian government and Ukrainian forces. And uh he basically adopted a lot of ideas from the far right, including uh slogan of Slava Ukrainian or glory to Ukraine, glory to the healers, slogan which was first adopted uh by the on by their faction of organization of Ukrainian nationalists in 1941 in Nazi-occupied Poland in their Congress. And they based this uh slogan, this gueting, uh based along with uh like fascist hand salute, uh it was based on uh similar gettings of the Nazi Party or uh Fascist Party in uh in Italy and other fascist um organizations and uh during World War II and before World War II. So now Zelensky basically uh adopted a lot of kind of ideas and and and even symbols of the far-right, and he tried to kind of uh uh support uh far-right organizations, including Nazi Azov, because they uh uh they can overthrow him, they have power to overthrow him, like they did with uh Yanukovych, and they rely on violence, and they're also um uh very powerful, and they are also very ideologically motivated. So that's why they uh uh play important role now in fighting against Russia because they are very ideologically motivated to do this. Continue to many Ukrainians, ordinary Ukrainians who uh need to be mobilized by force and taken by force into um mobilization uh centers and many of them uh desert uh after doing this or try to resist such mobilization. Um Mr.

SPEAKER_02: 22:53

Kachanovsky, we must talk about the origins of the Russian Ukraine war. Uh if we listen to the Western media, the Western politicians, this war is only due to the Russian imperialism and well Russia is wanting to create the annexation of Ukraine, of conquering Ukraine, and after this the Russian tanks uh could arrive till uh Lisbon or Gibraltar. This would be in a very sample way the story told by Western media and politicians. If we listen to Russian media, the idea is we are uh stopping the advance of the NATO, we are uh protecting our borders against the expansion of the NATO, against the promises that the West has made to Mikhail Gorbachev and as well Baris Yeltin. Which is the truth in these two stories? Which of these stories is closer to the truth, to their reality?

SPEAKER_01: 24:12

So again, I based my research about these issues on evidence, and evidence is clear that NATO enlargement and NATO accession of Ukraine became a major issue, and it was used as a security threat by Russia because Western countries uh tried to uh turn Ukraine into uh uh bulwark against Russia, into proxy against Russia, into client state against Russia, after uh the Western supported uh violent overthrow of Ukrainian government during Maidan in 2014. And so this was a real uh issue, a real threat. Uh but Russia inflated this issue because uh Ukraine could not join. There was no real chance of UK joining uh NATO membership, but I think and there was no kind of any immediate plans to do this. But um, this was most important issue. This was a major factor of the Russian invasion because this was a real threat uh to Russia, and they regarded this specifically that UK became a client state of uh United of the United States, or and it was used uh such to weaken Russia. So this was a real issue, most a major factor of uh of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And uh I also cite in my book and research this issue of Russian imperialism, which was also an important factor, but it was less important, much less important than uh than uh uh NATO expansion and uh and uh turning Ukraine into um uh US client state because uh uh Russia, Russian invasion did not have a goal of occupying and annexing the entire Ukraine. Russia did not have even military uh large enough to do this. Uh so uh the initial goal of Russian invasion was to uh basically force Zelensky and his government to accept Russian demands of NATO membership of neutral Ukraine and uh demilitization of Ukraine and uh basically do a regime change in Ukraine into gamet, which would be pro-Russian or neutral government in Ukraine from a gamut which was a client state of the United States. And uh and also they wanted to support um uh Donbass separatists and uh and and to either annex uh Donbass or to make it independent or to uh leave uh Donbass as a pro-Russian region within uh federal Ukraine. But uh uh Russia also viewed uh parts of UK in the east and the south, specifically Crimea, especially Crimea and Donbass, but also neighboring regions as a part of uh Nova Russia and New Russia, and uh and they uh and they regarded them as a historically Russian region. So this is was another issue of why Russia annexed this region, uh these regions, but this uh happened only after the failed uh negotiations, uh peace talks between Russia and UK in Istanbul, which were blocked by the West. Um uh even so UK and Russia claim uh came very close to reaching a peace deal then in the spring of 2022. And as this as a part of this peace deal, basically Russia agreed to withdraw their forces from the entire territory of UK, with the exception of Donbass, whose status was to be determined during direct peace talks between uh Putin and Zelensky, and also Russia even agreed to have a Crimea uh status of Crimea to be uh recognized as uh basically uh decided later uh uh after the end of the war. Um uh again as a part of Russia, but uh it again Russia basically agreed and withdraws their forces from uh Kiev region as a part of this peace deal. So there was no initial goal of basically occupying the entire UK, and even uh there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia wanted to invade other countries, including Baltic states or Poland, or uh countries uh which are located in um in Europe, other countries located in Europe, including like Portugal or Spain or uh France and so on, or Sweden. So this is a pure propaganda. Uh there is no such evidence whatsoever. And Russia does not even have such power to do this, uh to occupy entire Ukraine, even if they wanted to do this, because their size of military force is not sufficient to do this, uh, even to take uh entire UK. And that's why I don't think that this is again uh this is based on any ideal evidence.

SPEAKER_02: 28:33

Uh, Mr. Kachanovsky, right now we know that in 2022 it was possible to arrive at peace in the Russia-Ukraine war. There was a deal, you have talked about this in Istanbul. And in this moment, the pre the British Premier Boris Johnson visited Zelensky to tell him that he cannot stop the war, he must keep warring. And we have discovered several weeks ago, a few weeks ago, that Boris Johnson has received at least one million sterling pounds from one of the uh in industrialists, one of the leaders of the weapons industry in UK. Do you think that the war has been uh uh keeping during these uh two years, three years almost because uh this is a big business, because there are western powers who want to grab the wealth of Ukraine, or because this is a proxy war, and and NATO is using the war in Ukraine to erode the power of Russia, or maybe the three things.

SPEAKER_01: 30:02

I think that geopolitical reasons using UK as a proxy, as a client state of the West of the United States, is the main uh reason or the main uh factor in this case, not economic um factor, not oil, not natural resources, because UK does not have a lot of oil, does not have a lot of other resources. There are some um uh uh like minerals which uh were recently uh wanted by the Trump administration, but this is not a major uh reason for this, because I think UK originally was very close to Russia historically, it was linked to Russia, and um eastern regions of UK used to be part of the Russian Empire for a long time, for centuries, and then they were part of the Soviet Union, you could touch the Western UK, which used to be part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and then part of Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia until World War II, until they were incorporated by Joseph Stalin into uh Soviet Union. So um proxy war is uh geopolitical reasons, uh specifically for proxy war, was the main uh motivation of the West to uh to prolong this war after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And uh this was admitted uh publicly by many top politicians, including by Boris Johnson, who recently said in his media interview, who said that we need to admit that uh the war in Ukraine is a proxy war, that Western countries use Ukraine as a proxy, and they use Ukrainian forces as a proxy against Russia. And similar statement was made by recently by US State Secret US State Department Secretary Mark Rubio, who said the same, and also by many other politicians, and this is very clear that uh that uh Western countries use Ukraine just as a tool against Russia to weaken Russia, and they are not concerned about Ukraine, they are not concerned about UK and uh uh in any other way, uh, but they only want to use UK as a tool. Uh but the fate of UK, the fate of UK's does not do not uh like concern them, and uh and negative consequences of this again do not concern them because Ukraine has no real possibility, and it was very clear from the start that uh UK would not be able to defeat Russia. And for this reason, I I mentioned in my book and in my interviews, in my publications and social media comments that the best best option for Ukraine always was to have a peace deal, to prevent this war or to end this war via peace deal, and uh and this would have uh saved a lot of lives of Ukrainians and would uh uh again uh made UK a country which uh again which would not be devastated by the war and uh would have uh made again UK a peaceful country and uh would have um enabled UK to uh minimize its negative consequences of this war if such a peace deal were were to be reached. And uh according to my research and according to a lot of evidence which I cite in my recently published open access book um uh about the Russian Ukraine war and its origins, there was such a real possibility to reach such a peace deal in Istanbul in uh March and April of 2022, just a couple of months after the Russian invasion of UK. But according to a variety of sources, including admissions by um head of the UK delegation at this peace talks, by admissions by um two members of the UK delegation at these peace talks in Istanbul, and also admissions by uh Israeli Prime Minister, former Israeli Prime Minister, admissions by uh former German Chancellor, admissions by Turkish President and uh foreign minister of Turkey, and admissions by uh others members, uh other people who were involved in such peace talks, and even uh statement recently by Victoria Nuland, Western countries, and specifically the United States and United Kingdom, blocked such a peace deal. And they did this again for geopolitical reasons because they were interested in using UK again to weaken Russia. They uh they uh refused to provide guarantees to Ukraine, and um, and this was stated in Ukrainian media that after Boris Johnson visited UK and met with Zelensky, he told Zelensky that West would not provide guarantees to Ukraine, and he said that Ukraine needs to fight against Russia, and this is what happened. So Zelensky basically followed um uh Western policy and made Ukraine into proxy again and uh fighting the war uh with Russia as a proxy for the West without any real possibility of defeating Russia and winning this war. So this means the longer the war would continue in Ukraine, the more territory Ukraine would lose, the more people, more Ukrainians would be killed, mostly military, but also uh civilians, and also uh more damage to the economy would uh would would be inflicted on Ukraine by the Russian forces, which is also recently just recently happened when Russia uh hit um energy uh power power uh uh power stations and destroyed many of them. And there are now blackouts in Kyiv and many other cities of UK at the start of winter. So this is, I think, very clear that uh a peace deal was very close to to being um implemented, to being finalized, but it was blocked by the West again for geopolitical reasons to make Ukraine as a proxy against Russia and use it uh to weaken Russia.

SPEAKER_02: 35:38

Um there's a question, a very delicate question, that has been uh running during the war, and is the question related to genocide or war crimes? Uh there had been a genocide in Ukraine, there had been war crimes in Ukraine during the war.

SPEAKER_01: 35:57

Uh I think uh both Russia and Ukraine claimed that there was genocide in Ukraine. Russia claims that uh there was genocide in Donbass, of Russian speakers in Donbass, and Putin justified invasion of Ukraine for this reason. But was the Ukrainian government and media, and also many Western governments and media claimed that there was also genocide conducted by Russia during this war in UK against authentic Ukrainians? But according to my research, there is no evidence of uh either Russian genocide or Ukrainian genocide in Ukraine. And uh and this is based on a variety of evidence. Uh, for instance, the number of casualties in Ukraine, civilian casualties in Ukraine, which is documented by uh the United Nations, is about 15,000 people, civilians who who were killed during this war. And if you check into account some other um civilians like who were killed in Mariupol, based on documented evidence and uh reports from um about number of games, we have about uh about 20,000 civilians who were killed during this war in UK. And this includes about 4,000 civilians who were killed in territories which are controlled by the Russia and separatists in Donbass. So this means that um that if you're looking to compare uh civilian casualties to military casualties, this war in UK is one of the um, I think one of the we have one of the lowest and possibly lowest ratio of civilians to military casualties um in modern wars. And this is quite uh significant if you compare this to many other conflicts, like uh war in Gaza, for instance, or war in Syria, war in Bosnia, war in Chechnya, war in um Iraq, uh Iraq war, and many other wars, modern wars have much bigger, uh uh higher ratio of civilians to uh military uh uh casualties, and uh and in many conflicts uh civilians, more civilians were killed compared to military casualties, but in uh in case of UK this is opposite pattern. And uh and for this reason there is no evidence of any genocide uh in UK, but there is evidence of more crimes committed uh by different forces, specifically uh uh uh using uh in indiscriminate uh attacks by and shelling uh of by missiles and uh weapons, artillery uh which are not precise weapons, in territories and areas controlled by in which civilians live in cities, and use of such areas also by um military forces, and also executions of PRWs, and this is uh took place in different uh again in different areas, but um this clear evidence of such war crimes.

SPEAKER_02: 38:40

Uh, do we know how many casualties have suffered Russia and Ukraine during the war, more or less?

SPEAKER_01: 38:49

Uh yes, I also mentioned this in my book, and my research is based on uh on evidence which is uh uh can be documented and uh based on uh names of uh Ukrainians who were killed, military forces members who were killed, on a website which is called Ukrainian losses website. I can and uh if you if we can add number of missing in action Ukrainians, so the total number of Ukrainian forces killed would be about at least 1,800, so uh 180,000 uh killed. And uh if you multiply this uh typical ratio of wounded to uh to kill four to one, so we would have also um such number of wounded. So this again by four by number by uh ratio of four. And if you're looking to Russian casualties, uh the number of Russian casualties documented uh by name by BBC, Russian Service of BBC, is about 125, or now I think maybe slightly more in recent, uh just in recent uh days, uh, but uh uh number of Russian casualties killed would be about one hundred-five thousand at least. Uh and uh in addition to this, there was about uh 20 or 25,000 uh casualties uh uh forces, military forces members killed from separatist Donbass. So they are basically Ukrainians who fight on the side of Russia or on the side of uh Donbass separatists in this war between Russia and Ukraine. So total number of uh Russian and Separatist casualties would be at least 150,000, and total number of Ukrainian casualties would be uh uh military casualties killed would be at least uh 180, uh 180,000, and the number of wounded on wounded on each side would be um can be multiplied by four. And this is again uh very important to rely on documented evidence because media and government often have um uh just report inflated numbers or numbers which are totally unreliable, and they each side inflates casualties of of uh opponents or enemy, adversary, and this is again often misrepresented specifically to claim that Ukraine uh suffers much smaller number of casualties, and this is done or um or Ukrainian casualties are never reported, and this is done specifically to again to prolong this war and um and to pretend that Ukraine would be able to defeat Russia and uh or to uh stall Russian advance, which is again uh not uh not likely based on my research.

SPEAKER_02: 41:22

Now, if if these numbers are true, and I have not any reason to doubt this, uh it's almost impossible that Ukraine could win this war.

SPEAKER_01: 41:36

Uh yes, it was very clear from the start. I mentioned this even um before the Russian invasion of UK, and even when I said this was a real possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine, and also after the Russian invasion of UK, there is uh basically cost you zero chance that UK will be able to defeat Russia. And the reason for this is that Russia has bigger military size, um bigger manpower. Russia can mobilize much bigger size of military uh compared to Ukraine. It also Russia has um bigger weapons, larger weapons, stockpiles, and more advanced weapons like missiles and um which UK does not have. Um and Russia has uh other advantages which uh include specifically nuclear weapons, and so this would mean even in uh very unlikely case that uh UK were able to defeat uh or to kind of check uh to move to uh Crimea, for instance, as uh Zelensky promised. In such case Russia could have been uh could have used nuclear weapons or set of nuclear weapons to prevent this. So that's why there was no real possibility for UK defeating Russia, and uh for uh and this was clear from the start. But media and politicians, and and including in Ukraine and the West, pretended, and still many of them pretend that UK is winning this war, or that UK is able to uh achieve stalemate with Russia to basically uh contain Russia, uh country to the evidence. And uh and uh because of bigger casualties of Ukrainian forces, compared to Russian forces and bigger size of Russian um military and potential, Russian military potential, uh there is a very significant possibility that UK uh would not be able for a very long time to continue this war, and the front can collapse, uh specifically uh without Western support. So without Western support, you can UK could have been defeated in the very few uh in the first few months of this war, but uh Western support, military support, weapons, um, intelligence, information, targeting data, uh planning of operations of Ukrainian forces and uh and giving uh money uh to finance Ukrainian budget and uh and finance other and uh kind of uh uh other um expenses of Ukrainian, including payment of salaries to public officials, to teachers, doctors, and so on. Um uh unable Ukraine to continue this work for such a long time, but again, uh even in uh this is not can be prolonged indefinitely, and uh the and now it becomes even more clear that UK would not be able to continue this for a very long time. And so possibility of defeat is a real possibility of defeat, but I don't think that uh that this total defeat or total capitulation of UK can happen. The more likely outcome would be a partial defeat of UK, in which Russia would keep um territory, part of territory of UK in eastern and southern UK, and uh there would be also very likely change of gamut in UK because the landsky would not be able to survive after if a peace deal would be reached in UK.

SPEAKER_02: 44:41

I I agree totally with you about the question of the impossibility, the total impossibility of Ukraine winning this war, but I I must confess that I'm totally puzzled when I listen European uh officials uh telling that we're going to have a war against Russia, and Russia is going to be defeated, and Russia is going to be devised in 17 different countries, etc. etc. And you can listen this to European politicians and officials, uh not only in Poland or in the Baltic Republics, you can listen to this in Italy, in Holland. This is a totally crazy kind of talk. But anyway, uh Mr Mr. Kachanowski, uh how do you uh imagine the end of this war? Finally, there will be a kind of deal between uh United States and Russia, and Russia is going to keep uh Crime and the Donbass and Ukraine is going not to go in into NATO, is going not to join the NATO, or this is going to be a long, long war like Vietnam, for example, in with uh the West trying to erode to weaken Russia. How is the the future that you could uh imagine?

SPEAKER_01: 46:23

I think it's again uh not easy to predict exactly what would happen, but based on my research, I can say that uh again, uh defeat of UK, partial defeat of UK is very likely, and there is a real possibility of a peace deal between uh UK and Russia with uh participation of Trump administration. Because Donald Trump made uh his priority during the election campaign, and after he became US president, to uh end this war in Ukraine. So this is very likely that the United States can uh play a bigger role in the end of this conflict and in reaching a peace deal, some kind of peace deal in Ukraine, but um which would again already uh Donald Trump accepted uh publicly and stated that Ukraine would not join NATO. This is now off the table, and this can be also part of a peace deal, which is key Russian demand. And he also uh said that um uh United States plans to recognize Crimea as part of part of Russia, and de facto recognize other uh territories which are annexed or occupied by uh Russia currently as um also as a de facto part of Russia without uh international recognition of this regions, uh recognition by Ukraine. But uh the question is that Russian demands are now uh uh much bigger. So Russia would not agree just to end this war on the front line, on the current front line, because Russia also claims uh control of the entire Donbass, which is now not only part of most of Donbass, which is already um kind of controlled by Russia, uh, but also uh Donbass, which is still uh controlled uh by Ukrainian forces, including uh now uh cities of Pokrovsk and uh and Medograd and Kramatorsk and uh and Slavyansk, which are which are again remaining cities under Ukrainian control, and and according to information by the media, uh Putin agreed basically to trend this war. Uh if Ukraine were to give up control over remaining parts of Donbass, but Zelensky refused to do this because uh he would uh again face uh kind of his uh his uh future as president of UK and even his life can be in danger if he would accept this, uh specifically from Faraday, including neo-Nazis. So he again uh so and Trump um could have um uh again pressured Zelensky or to make Zelensky to accept this deal, but uh uh Trump did not uh do this so far, and he tries to portray himself as mediator, but uh and he stated that he would uh want to have ceasefire along the current line uh of conflict. Uh but uh this is not very likely, Russia would not accept this, and Putin uh regards this as a uh as a conflict in which Russia has the ability to defeat Ukraine, and so he has no incentive to stop this war and accept such um just ceasefire. So Russia wants to have a peace deal on the terms which I mentioned, and it's very likely that Russia would be able to achieve such a peace deal with Western uh with participation of the United States, and uh Ukraine would become a uh neutral country with uh again with Russia taking control over a significant part of Eastern and Southern Ukraine and definitely uh definitely uh Crimea, which would remain in Russia, even so it might not be recognized by Ukrainian uh government and many other countries, and also uh Donbass, uh very lucky or almost entire Donbass or uh again or entire Donbass or most of Donbass, and with just uh some exceptions, with minor with um minor territory of Donbass, uh this exception of minor territory of Donbass would become uh uh part of Russia, would be annexed by Russia, and this would also include annexation of other parts of um of Ukraine, including uh parts of Hassan and the Frigian region. And there is a possibility that Russia can even uh take more territory of UK if the war would continue. And this might include territory in uh in uh which is now uh the Russian forces in the Dnipropetovsky region and also in the Kharkiv region. So this is uh real possibility that Russia would be able to annex even more territory, but not entire UK. So this is not likely to happen, and um and and uh so Russia would never annex entire UK, and this is uh specifically because Western Ukraine is very anti-Russian, so uh and uh central UK is also does not support Russian annexation, so in Kotashi, Donbass and Crimea. So this is why um uh again most likely outcome would be on uh the terms which I described, but there is also a possibility that this war can continue for kind of maybe um uh again uh uh not as in current form, but maybe as kind of uh guerrilla options uh after um after some kind of uh uh uh peace deal would be again violated again. And this war can uh resume uh if uh again Ukrainian government, the Western governments would uh continue to uh again to uh try to uh kind of uh try to reverse uh defeat in UK and uh try to again continue this war, uh if Russia would got this uh try to expand the influence on other states of UK.

SPEAKER_02: 51:38

Well, I I must tell you that during the last times I had been living in Washington DC, and I can tell you that there's a real dislike referring to promises made by President Trump uh related to the end of the war in Ukraine, for example, and how these promises had been not fulfilled. And this uh this has had consequences, for example, in the elections of several days ago, because a good part of the MAGA well the MAGA movement supporting President Trump is resenting the situation in Ukraine, is resenting uh the money this is uh costing to the American citizens, and how this this promise is not fulfilled, is not honor. So that while we're going to see in the future how this situation is going to develop, probably, probably is not the road that uh a good part of the European countries would like, for example, UK or France or Germany, but really in the US there's uh a real situation of people tired, really tired, because of the delay to end up the war in Ukraine. This is totally undiscussable. Well, Mr. Kachanovsky, I must thank you for your time, your patience, your kindness in having this time with us talking about this wonderful book, The Russia-Ukraine War and its origins, is a masterwork related to the war in Ukraine, but also of the preamble of the prologue of the war in Ukraine. And in other times, Mr. Kachanovsky, when these interviews were made in a studio set, in a set in radio, face to face, I was I used to give one of my books to the person who has been invited, like you. Well, signing the book and telling you have not any obligation to read it. This is only a small token of uh because we thank you your patience. But this is impossible online so that I give a music, a song, a piece uh to the persons who are so kind, so nice to give uh his time to us as your case. And I'm going to to leave you with the suite of uh a movie that now would be impossible uh to have in Hollywood. This is a movie of 1962, its title was Taras Bulba, and well the movie was very positive, referring to Russians against the Poles, and it was a very popular uh movie. I I have watched the movie when I was a little child, and I'm going to give you the suit of this movie, and I hope that we can meet together in the future again, because I'm totally convinced that you are a top specialist in Ukraine history, but also in the analyze of today's Ukraine. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Kachanovsky.

SPEAKER_01: 55:27

Yeah, thank you for the interview and thank you for uh my book. And actually, this movie is about Ukrainian Cossacks. Uh so this is a very important part of history of UK as well. So this is also very relevant to our talk. So thank you.