Editor Koshkina discusses her stunning interview with Syrskyi on Ukraine's military challenges

— I want to start with a slightly unusual question. Recently, we've had some communication with the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff...

— Can I interrupt? How did you manage to do that?

— That’s not the point. We have to submit topics for approval, and they decide what will and won’t be discussed. What topics did the General Staff rule out?

— Not specific topics, but there are definitely no questions that need approval. However, in the process of communication, some additional questions and clarifications arise.

We had some topics removed, but these weren’t things I was told not to mention. Rather, I realized that some things just can’t be shared at this moment. But for context, I asked and got answers. I compared them to what other senior military officials had shared. Unfortunately, none of them suggest a quick end to the war, despite what some politicians promise. They remain very realistic, calm, and balanced. They’re confident in our ability to stand firm on our land and defend it, which was reassuring to hear.

— The commander-in-chief doesn’t give many interviews, although he’s become more media-friendly recently. In your conversation with him, you asked about the issue of commanders hiding information about the number of soldiers at the North-Eastern Front and other issues. Syrsky mentioned this as a key problem. Did he offer any solutions?

— I did ask him about solutions. It’s important to understand the nature of this issue. Preparing for this interview took quite a bit of time — thorough preparation, consultations with military personnel from various branches.

Everyone agreed that one of the army’s main problems is fictitious reporting, particularly regarding personnel. For example, you might be told there are 10 soldiers on the ground, but in reality, there are only three, and not all of them are in good condition. This kind of artificial reporting happens across the board, and the leadership is aware of it. They’re working to address it based on the situation at hand.

But it’s critical that they’re aware of the issue and not turning a blind eye. These problems also impact mobilization efforts. While some numbers are announced, the real situation might differ. It’s a process that needs continuous oversight and regulation, as Syrskyi emphasized.

— You asked tough, relevant questions, but when military or top officials respond, they often say: there are problems, but they’re being solved. The situation is difficult, but manageable. What were the most revealing parts of your conversation with the Commander-in-Chief?

— The six points you mentioned were covered, and four of them were substantive. Unfortunately, for security reasons, we can’t go into technical details about fiber optics.

One of the more surprising revelations came when we discussed our offensive in Kursk and the counteroffensive that followed. It was shocking to hear that, at the start of the operation, some commanders refused to act, arguing it would be “illegal” to cross the border into Ukrainian territory during martial law. I was shocked at first and didn’t immediately connect it to specific people. Later, I learned who he was referring to, and it was even more surprising. Life is complicated, and I can’t name names, but that was a particularly unsettling episode.

— You’ve mentioned the case involving generals and commanders supposed to be responsible for the defense of Kharkiv Oblast. On May 10, 2024, the Russians launched an offensive there and quickly captured more than 10 settlements along the border. What did you learn from Syrsky about this?

— We discussed this in detail, but most of it remains behind the scenes. To briefly summarize, those in charge of this area knew about the offensive in advance and had time to prepare. However, there were reports of inaction when it began, and the enemy was able to advance quickly along certain sections without significant resistance. That’s the main problem.

— Syrskyi mentioned suspicions of treason, which are being investigated regarding those commanders under investigation by the SBI. Did he provide any more details on this?

— He didn’t specifically mention treason in our interview. What he referred to was failure to carry out orders during wartime. There was a mismatch between what was reported and what actually occurred. For now, law enforcement needs to investigate whether these actions qualify as treason or if they are due to some other issue. I won’t make this public yet, but I can confirm that the focus is on non-compliance with orders.

— There’s been talk about transferring specialists from different branches of the military into the infantry. Syrskyi said it “justifies itself.” However, some experts have argued that this has led to fewer mobile brigades and increased casualties, especially with Russian drone attacks. Do you understand why this transfer is happening?

— Syrskyi explained that, given the limited mobilization resources in Ukraine, this transfer makes sense. Russia has a massive mobilization pool and is increasing its army every month. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s pool is smaller. So, some personnel, especially those serving in the rear, are being reassigned to front-line positions to strengthen the military’s capabilities. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s necessary given the circumstances.

He did emphasize that specialists with rare skills are not being moved. However, as we both know, that’s not always how things play out in practice. They’re working to address this.

— Regarding fictitious reporting, there’s a belief that it comes from the top, with leadership only hearing “victorious” reports. Is there a connection between this and the problems with reporting?

— I can’t answer that definitively. From a journalistic perspective, it would be wrong to make sweeping conclusions. Military experts and analysts may have opinions, but it’s important to base these on specific quotes or cases. We can’t make assumptions without more concrete evidence.

— Finally, there’s been talk about replacing the commander-in-chief. While you didn’t ask Syrskyi about it, what is the general mood? Is this something that could actually happen?

— From my perspective as a journalist, the situation is stable. I don’t see any signs of a move to replace Syrskyi. Although there was some discussion when Zaluzhnyi was dismissed, Syrskyi’s candidacy was considered, but so were others. As of now, I haven’t seen any indication of dissatisfaction or a push for change at the top levels of command. It’s a complex issue, and I haven’t observed any immediate plans for a personnel change.