Making excuses for Crimea, Turchinov “hidden behind” Ilovaisk
In 2014, a 200-strong group of troops of the Russian Federation stood on the border with Ukraine in the Kursk, Belgorod, and Rostov regions. These selected units were fully prepared for the invasion of continental Ukraine, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
This was stated by Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Alexander Turchynov in an interview with the Kyiv publication Gordon.
“Not only that, as you remember, on March 1, the invasion of Ukraine was politically sanctioned. The Federation Council of the Russian Federation adopted a decision by which it agreed to Putin to send troops to Ukraine. There is a threat of loss of sovereignty and independence, just as it was 100 years ago, in 1918,” he adds.
According to Turchynov, even if blood had been shed and there had been casualties in Crimea, Ukraine in 2014 would not have been able to hold the peninsula.
“If there had been casualties, the Russians would have run away or retreated... You know, I do not operate with assumptions and myths, but with real facts and historical truth. But the facts speak of a completely different situation. Within a few months after the start of the occupation of Crimea, we were able to raise the combat capability of the army almost from scratch, create the National Guard, carry out mobilization, create a powerful volunteer movement, somehow restore military equipment and arm our soldiers. At the same time, they have already learned how to fight, and this is very important - to be able to fight, to be able to, excuse me, kill the enemy,” says Turchinov.
As an example of how a military decision on the part of Ukraine in Crimea in March 2014 could have ended, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council cited the “Ilovaisk cauldron” in Donbass in August of the same year.
“Six months later, when we had already learned how to destroy the enemy, Ilovaisk happened. There, the Russians sent against us an order of magnitude fewer of their troops than they had in Crimea, only a few battalion-tactical groups. And you know how it ended, the Russians did not run away, but closed the boiler. And in Crimea, unlike Ilovaisk, there was practically nowhere to retreat; the territory there was completely isolated. Therefore, I am convinced that there could have been a completely different scenario - tragic for the country, which would have ended not only with the loss of soldiers and officers who did not betray Ukraine, but with the introduction of troops into continental Ukraine.
In February–March 2014, we were not ready to withstand superior enemy forces. As a result, everything could have ended with the loss of independence or the loss of at least the entire eastern and southern part of the country, which at that moment was engulfed in separatist uprisings organized by the Russian special services,” Turchinov justifies his then position on Crimea.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.