(Translation of Vladimir Kozin's interview; original in Russian was released on November 27,2024; preface is written by Ukraina.ru)

December 10, 2024

Volodymyr Zelensky may receive nuclear weapons from the West, but he will not press the "Launch" button. In turn, Russia has every right to use any weapons to stop NATO and Ukraine. Corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences of Russia, historian, diplomat Vladimir Kozin told in an interview with the website Ukraina.ru about where the next Oreshnik, Kinzhal and Iskander missiles will fly if the West does not stop its aggression.

NATO is discussing the possibility of carrying out preventive high-precision strikes deep into Russian territory in the event of an armed conflict, said Admiral Rob Bauer, head of the Alliance's Military Committee, at a press conference in Brussels which was broadcast via YouTube channel on November 25, 2024.

Earlier, on November 21, The New York Times reported that officials from the USA and Europe suggested returning to Kyiv the nuclear weapons that Ukraine renounced after the collapse of the USSR.

Q: The West is talking about the possibility of transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine. If this happens, what steps are possible on our part? After all, Zelensky wants to provoke Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine in order to isolate us in the world.

A: Firstly, as of today, November 27, 2024, neither Joe Biden, nor the US Secretary of Defense, nor the US Secretary of State have made any statements about the possible transfer of American nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

Since Ukraine and NATO are waging undeclared large-scale aggression against Russia, statements like the one that got into The New York Times are quite natural. There might be information or disinformation.

However, we must take into account any such leaks: it does not matter whether they are related to nuclear technologies, conventional weapons or nuclear arms delivery vehicles.

Secondly, the Americans have never transferred nuclear weapons even to NATO allies under their full control. Yes, they have deployed their nuclear weapons on the territory of four European countries and the Asian part of Turkey, but total control over the nuclear button, so to speak, remains in the hands of the United States.

Therefore, I am not sure that the Americans really plan to transfer nuclear weapons to Zelensky with the right to press the "Launch" button to strike Russian territory. This would be a gross violation of Article 1 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the United States and Article 2 by Ukraine, which, let's say, would agree to accept weapons of mass destruction on its soil. Of course, such things should not be conveyed under any circumstances to the mentally unstable ex-president of Ukraine, and nowadays an ordinary citizen Zelensky. This is extremely dangerous.

Q: But let's imagine that such weapons have been handed over to Zelensky. What’s then?

A: First. In this case, Ukraine will use nuclear weapons and launch its first nuclear strike on Russian territory. Then – and this is beyond any doubt –
 it will be totally destroyed as a state by a retaliatory nuclear strike.

In this case, we will not be talking about the destruction of some plant in the sphere of military-industrial complex (MIC) or the presidential Administration located on Bankovaya Street in Kyiv – the entire military machine of Ukraine will be destroyed. I believe that we should make a special statement about such a possibility.

Second. We can use our nuclear technologies in accordance with the updated nuclear strategy called "Fundamentals of the State Policy of Russia in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence." And the result for Ukraine will be exactly in the same way as in the first case.

We have the right to do this. Ukraine initiated aggression first in Donbass, and later against Russia. By the way, our November 19, 2024 nuclear strategy uses the word "aggression" [of the West, Ukraine] everywhere. We need to take this into consideration in all political statements made by Russia.

What else is important? As is known, nuclear weapons and other non-nuclear arms are mainly delivered to Ukraine by NATO military transport aircraft. Therefore, Russia should declare all Ukrainian airspace as a ‘no-fly-zone’ or zone closed to flights by any military aircraft. Except civilian ones, of course.

Then NATO and Kyiv will clearly know that any military transport aircraft that are carrying artillery shells, long-range missiles, tanks and APCs for the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be destroyed by us when they cross the air border in the western part of Ukraine.

By the way, the F-16 aircraft that Denmark and the Netherlands are going to transfer to Ukraine on behalf of the NATO Alliance are certified for delivering tactical nuclear weapons.

We do not know whether Ukraine received all such aircraft or only some of them; one was even shot down by Ukrainian own AAD units. But there were no official statements from Kyiv. It is quite possible that the full F-16 aircraft package has either already been transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or they are planned to be delivered – as NATO did before by sending other combat systems.

Q: But, the war is not with Ukraine, but with the West. What will change if we deliver a strike on Ukraine, no matter what kind? After all, the USA and Europe are not hit, and they don’t care…

A: The nuclear strategy updated on November 19 provides for strikes against those countries that use any type of weapons against us. The USA uses long-range ATACMS systems, the UK and France employ Storm Shadow/SCALP. Moreover, Macron announced that soon after we issued a corresponding warning about our retaliatory strikes.

To ensure that our words are not just empty political statements, without real material consequences, we must take up actions. We must, as we used to say, resort to our power, and not just call someone for any order.

Unfortunately, we have repeatedly spoken about various ‘red lines’ and have taught the West with such statements that there are no specific actions on our part behind them.

Q: What practical measures can we take, in your opinion?

A: There is a military airfield in Rzeszow in Poland, where American military transport aircraft land. Why does this hub still exist peacefully? Why do U.S. heavy strategic bombers that deliver nuclear weapons land on the territory of the Czech Republic?

And in general, on the territory of 19 NATO member countries, the U.S. European allies, American heavy strategic bombers essentially use so called ‘air Schengen’ or visa-free entry and overfly rights, without any preliminary notifications. The U.S. aircraft land, fly, and patrol European airspace without any prior warnings.

Q: Okay, we will strike these airfields in Poland or the Czech Republic. But then we will be accused of being the first to start a war against NATO. And what then? How will our allies react to this?

A: We have not started this war. I want to emphasize this specifically. The war was unleashed by Ukraine on April 14, 2014 when Kyiv officially began military operation against Donbass following the Decree signed by Ukrainian president ad interim Oleksandr Turchinov who authorized to begin a massive military operation in the southeast of the country against Donbass. The is why our retaliatory actions have become defensive in nature and were aimed at protecting people of Donbass and Russian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Why should we be embarrassed like this: ‘Oh, how badly they might think of our behavior?’ I believe that we have the sacred right to give a full response to the real aggressor – insidious, evil, unyielding, as well as to its NATO allies.

Q: Earlier, General Igor Kirillov [Russian MoD] said that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have a ‘dirty bomb’ to be made of radioactive materials. This is not the first statement released by the Russian Defense Ministry about Ukraine violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Could it happen that Zelensky will use a ‘dirty bomb’ against us?

A: From a person ‘who has gone off the rails’ – I mean citizen Zelensky – you can expect anything. Moreover, he enjoys colossal military and political support from the outgoing American President Joe Biden. In conditions when the newly elected President Donald Trump keeps silence.

There are known Ukrainian research centers and industrial enterprises where ‘a dirty nuclear bomb’ can be hammered out. I believe that Russia needs to launch a preventive non-nuclear strike against such facilities – firing Oreshnik, Kinzhal and Iskander missiles. And we should not be afraid of any condemnation from outside, otherwise we can lead the situation to a dead end.

I repeat, we can be labelled as the victim of the aggression. That is why we have an undisputable duty to respond to it in any way. A hypothetical example: when you see an attacker with a machine gun next to you who can kill you, what will you do? If you do not open fire on him first, he will kill you. So, you will have to make a distinctive choice: either he will kill you, or you will have to kill him.

Another important point. We know that Zelensky gave orders to strike at Zaporoznskaya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) controlled by Russia. Unfortunately, in our information and explanatory activity we only recently reported overall figures of such strikes against ZNPP, against the adjacent territory and the neighboring city of Energodar, where ZNPP engineers live.

Ukrainian Armed Forces wanted to take Kursk NPP for the purpose of nuclear blackmailing. The same plans have been forged in Kursk Region.

The means for attacking all NPPs must be destroyed. It is necessary to develop measures to neutralize such threats.

Q: Why has U.S. President-elect Donald Trump still not commented on the missiles’ strikes deep into Russia, on recent Vladimir Putin's statements dealt with nuclear weapons and on the newest Oreshnik missile? What is behind this?

A: Donald Trump has indeed declared his readiness to end the Ukrainian crisis, as he put it, in 24 hours. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that his program for promptly ending the conflict in Ukraine remains unclear for two reasons.

First, he has not provided any details of this plan. And he is unlikely to announce them until he takes office on January 20 next year.

Second, there is a very appropriate question for colleagues who are showing warm optimism about Donald Trump's statements on the topic of Ukraine: "Are you sure that Mr. Trump is ready to resolve this problem in the interests of the Russian Federation?" I do not think he is ready to do this in favor of Moscow.

This will most likely be done in favor of the interests of Ukraine and NATO where the USA plays the party of the ‘leading violin’ in the Alliance. Therefore, Trump's optimistic attitude does not calm me down or lull me personally, but only raises many questions in my mind.

Why President-elect Donald Trump has not commented on the U.S. and the UK missiles’ strikes deep into Russian territory? If he is interested in stopping the aggression of Ukraine and NATO against us, he would have long time ago spoken out against such a move.

There is one more point that I would like to draw attention to. Donald Trump has a highly privileged friend – Elon Musk, who runs his own information and intelligence program Starlink in Ukraine.[1] And it works in the offensive interests of Ukraine against Russia.

Why Donald Trump, if he is sincerely interested in ending the Ukrainian conflict, has not advised Elon Musk to suspend his activity which contributes to the continuation of the crisis and to strengthening the Armed Forces of Ukraine? I even sent a letter to Donald Trump's son with an offer to answer this question. I received no response from him.

In addition, there is something else that worries me about Mr. Donald Trump's policy as the next President. During his last presidential term, six key U.S. military strategies have been published: national security strategy, national defense strategy, nuclear strategy (NPR), missile defense strategy, military space and cyber strategies.

They will certainly be updated when he takes office next January, but their essence will remain intact. And they will also prevent Donald Trump from resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Based on all circumstances outlined earlier, I am not sure that President Trump will take any real steps to resolve the conflict sponsored by the White House during Joe Biden’s presidency.

Q: In conclusion, a few words about how you responded to the Russian Oreshnik hypersonic missile strike on a Ukrainian military-industrial complex facility?

A: As is known, we seriously damaged Yuzhmash machinery plant, but we no longer destroy such targets anymore. However, after that we see that American ATACMS strikes followed on military facilities in the Kursk and Bryansk Regions. For the second time.

I believe that we need to clearly state on behalf of our leadership that every time the USA, the UK or France use long-range missiles against continental Russia – and it does not matter what facilities they strike: civilian or military ones – each time we will multiply our strikes on any other Yuzhmash-type plant by more than two or three times.

That is, we will increase attacks upon the number of critically important facilities on Ukrainian territory that will be hit. The only thing is that the civilians working at such enterprises should be warned beforehand about such strikes and leave the area.