Ivan Konovalov: historian and military journalist. Ivan Konovalov: “A huge number of foreign ships and planes are swarming near our borders Ivan Konovalov military observer

A specialist in the field of PMCs on why Wagner cannot be called a "private army", and Russian soldiers are "soldiers of justice"

“The US military budget is over $700 billion, while in the Russian Federation it is only $46 billion, so Russia can only give asymmetric responses to the challenges of the Americans,” said Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, the expert explained why the time we live in cannot be called peaceful, what ex-Minister of Defense Serdyukov can be credited with, and for what reason private military companies are treated badly in Russia, although they have great prospects.

Photo: kremlin.ru

"WE RESPOND TO THE AMERICANS 200 PERCENT FAIRLY AND THE AMERICANS UNDERSTAND IT"

- Ivan Pavlovich, can we say that we live in peacetime? Or will future history textbooks write about our era in some other way?

— Of course, our time can hardly be called peaceful. For too long we thought that the cold war that once unfolded between the Soviet bloc of states and the American bloc was a thing of the past. And now I, and many other people in Russia, are forced to state that we have returned to approximately the same format of relations with the West. Moreover, it is the Americans who are doing everything to return to the era of the Cold War. It is clear that now there is no Warsaw Pact, which means that our forces for confrontation are no longer the same. The Soviet Union was much stronger than the Russian Federation. Now Russia is virtually alone in the face of the collective West. However, there is also China, which the United States also considers as its adversary.

In general, a curious situation is emerging: neither Russia nor China officially consider the United States their enemy and opponent. But for some reason, Washington believes that both Moscow and Beijing oppose it on the world map. And he does this for one simple reason - because the Russian Federation and the PRC do not want to dutifully follow in the American wake, in contrast to, say, London and all of Europe. For Europeans, this is comfortable, and, in fact, they need such vassalage. But do we need it? Hardly. And for this displayed obstinacy, Moscow and Beijing have been declared enemies. But this only confirms the fact that the United States does not want to lose its status of world hegemon, which it appropriated to itself in the 1990s.

China, by the way, has no such goal - to destroy the United States. It's just that over the past years, from a spoiler partner, they have gradually turned into a rival partner for Washington and may well crush the Yankees economically. Therefore, today they are trying to portray Beijing as the capital of a sort of new "evil empire."

What has always been a symbol of the Cold War? These are indirect wars, when the interests of strong rival countries are traced behind the clashes of small groups and states. We saw it in Georgia in 2008, we saw it in the Donbass and most recently in Syria. All this is a product of US foreign policy, a conscious policy that goes back to the times of the Cold War. At the same time, the Americans are very fond of accusing Russia of opposing them. Although in those areas where we really oppose them, we do it quite rightly. Not just fair, but 200 percent fair, and the Americans themselves understand this.

Mirror the same situation is repeated in relation to China. This can be read from the situation with the islands in the South China Sea, where the American destroyer USS Stethem entered last summer. The Chinese consider these territorial waters to be their own, so they drove off the intruder with the help of warships and fighters. The Americans are doing the same with respect to the Black Sea. Here, there are countless examples of ships flying the Stars and Stripes flag, the last case was this February, when the destroyer Ross and the ship Carney appeared in the Black Sea waters. And how does NATO behave in the Baltic, where the North Atlantic Alliance periodically conducts military maneuvers? A huge number of alien ships and planes are swarming near our borders!

- But the Americans constantly emphasize that they act within the framework of international law, and we, they say, are violating it.

- They have only one law - this is the law of all Anglo-Saxon ethics. This ethic is quite simple: kill, deceive, betray, as long as it is in Anglo-Saxon interests. Now this is manifested in everything, up to the Olympics in Pyeongchang, where the same technologies are used against us.

Is this a manifestation of hybrid warfare, which has been fashionable to talk about lately?

- The term "hybrid war" was coined by the Americans themselves. In relation to the indirect conflicts that I spoke about above, this sounds fair when there is an indirect confrontation between strong powers in different parts of the world, on different occasions and in different weight categories. In principle, it cannot be otherwise: Russia can only respond to attacks against it asymmetrically. Especially when you consider that the US military budget is over $700 billion, while ours is only $46 billion ( this is the declared Russian military budget for 2018 — approx. ed.). Military spending is slightly higher, but that doesn't change the ratio. How can Russia act in such conditions? Just asymmetrical. Americans call it hybrid warfare. But, excuse me, 5 billion dollars were invested in the same Ukraine in order to carry out a coup! This is recognized even across the ocean. Now about $700 million has been invested in the Ukrainian military machine. Currently, they are transferring lethal weapons to Kyiv, that is, in fact, leading the conflict to a dead end. For example, Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak recently assured that his country would receive Javelin anti-tank systems from the United States in a timely manner.

The conflict in Donbass is also commonly referred to as a manifestation of a hybrid war. But doesn't it seem to gentlemen of the Americans that they use this term to justify their own political failure? It was not a hybrid war that happened in the Donbass, but an uprising of people who do not agree with the nationalists and scum who came to power in Kyiv, and there are many such people. And the entire Crimea does not agree with the coup in Kyiv, and Odessa. Well, are they all fighters of the invisible "hybrid" front? No, it's just that the Americans did not go according to their scenario. It seems that they successfully carried out a coup d'état, but several Ukrainian regions rebelled against it at once. How to explain it? In Washington, they decided to hide behind a term coined on the spot: hybrid war.

Think Irangate in 1986. The American company Enterprise, headed by retired US Air Force Major General Richard Secord, secretly supplied weapons to Iran and supported rebels in Latin America - Nicaragua and other countries with the proceeds. So who has the right to talk about a hybrid war? Americans do this all the time.

“ALL WHO ARE FOR RUSSIA ARE NOW TOGETHER. WHITE AND RED SIT IN THE ONE TRENCH"

- And yet, war has now taken on new forms: it is no longer only hot and even not only cold. It involves not only people in uniform who swore allegiance to the Motherland, but also those who, it would seem, do not wear shoulder straps: from experts and analysts to journalists and so-called Russian hackers. In this regard, the question is: who should be considered the defenders of the fatherland today?

- Arguing on this topic, you can go far. I will say one thing: today, in the face of an obvious enemy and obvious pressure on our country, both whites and reds in Russia have united. Everyone is now in the same trench, we all understand that we have no other way out. Everyone who is for Russia is now together. It is clear that there is a fifth column, but these people, as a rule, do not hide their convictions.

- The fact that the Whites and the Reds united was evident even in the Donbass: Strelkov with his white ideas here for some time peacefully coexisted with the National Bolsheviks and anarchists.

- Igor Strelkov never hid his views, close to monarchist, White Guard, etc. And the people who were with him could adhere to Bolshevik and other red views, but this did not prevent them from fighting together. As for journalists... I am a journalist myself, it is embarrassing for me to discuss this topic. All the same, the hero is primarily the one who goes on the attack or fights back in the trench.

“The Americans did not go according to their scenario. It seems that they successfully carried out a coup d'état, but several Ukrainian regions rebelled against it at once. How to explain it?
Photo: BUSINESS Online archive

- Nevertheless, you are a former military reporter for Channel One. You have been to Chechnya, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia and Kosovo. You saw the war with your own eyes. Was it difficult to return to civilian life later?

- It is obvious that people at war see the injustice of the existing world order - this is true. And they often see an opportunity to solve complex problems with simple means. When you return to everyday peaceful life, where there is a housing and communal services system, law enforcement agencies and a life routine in general, it is difficult at first to perceive. I know a lot of friends who found it really hard. But, on the other hand, I have observed many times that people who have returned from the war are becoming more just. They turn into the best arbiters because they know the price of life, death and the price of a given word.

They talk about the "difficult military past" ... But not everyone considers their life in the war difficult. I talked with former "Afghans" and "Chechens" - and so, for many of them this is the best part of life. Then they felt most needed, and their life was one for which it was worth living. These people then retain their strong-willed qualities for a long time - they are turned to for advice, they are counted on, because they know that they are strong, they will not betray.

By the way, the great American director Oliver Stone, who made one of the best films about the war, Platoon, is one of those people. Although he always behaved like a man who did not seem to have fought. But I remember: when Stone interviewed Fidel Castro, he immediately asked him: “Did you fight?” He: "Yes." "Awarded?" "Yes". And then Castro shook hands with Stone. It doesn't matter that in the war they could sit in different trenches, and it doesn't matter that the director of "Platoon" by that time had long been a Hollywood man. Another thing is important: it became easier for them to understand each other. Although, in fact, people who went through the war are the same as everyone else. War is one thing, but your big life is quite another.

Here I have a little daughter, whom I love very much. For me, it is the main meaning of life. But when she was born, Donbass happened, and I went there. I could not do otherwise. And yet the most important thing is not there, but here. The most important thing is our children. Moreover, even in war the most important thing is peace.

- A world that is somewhere far ahead?

— No, a world in which one must live here and now. Believe me: the war will always be forgotten. No one will talk forever about the horrors of war. I remember mostly funny episodes, what was fun. But even these episodes are difficult to retell, because almost all of them are indecent.

“Anatoly Serdyukov simply put the military before the fact, and in general behaved insultingly towards people in uniform”Photo: kremlin.ru

"HALF OF AFRICA, LATIN AMERICA AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR PMCs"

- Former Minister of Defense Serdyukov is usually scolded in the military environment. Meanwhile, there is a version that it was he who did all the dirty work to turn the fragments of the old Soviet army into the professional Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Is it so?

- With Anatoly Serdyukov, everything is quite simple. They say a lot about him, but we must remember that the reform of the army that has begun is still the reform of Serdyukov - Makarov (meaning ex-chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed ForcesNikolai Makarov — approx. ed.). At the same time, much was done wrong, starting from the fact that Serdyukov threw in many of his reform initiatives instantly. He simply put the military before the fact, and in general behaved insultingly towards people in uniform. Sergei Shoigu corrected this situation. On the one hand, he continued the Serdyukov-Makarov reform, but, on the other hand, as a man who went through two Chechen wars and was at the helm of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, he greatly corrected this wave of changes that began in the army.

Nevertheless, no one denies the role of Serdyukov: a lot began just under him. But how did he do it? He never discussed anything with anyone. Sergei Kuzhugetovich radically changed the situation - he returned the military self-respect. Our military success in Syria is largely due to Shoigu. But we will not deny that Messrs. Serdyukov and Makarov also did something. The same financial reform of the army, an increase in the monetary allowance of military personnel, the solution of problems with housing - all this began then. But there were also some things that had to be changed later. For example, the transfer of the entire army to a “brigade contract”, as they joke in the military environment, that is, they liquidated divisions and regiments, leaving only brigades. Shoigu changed all that. The air divisions were also returned instead of the Serdyukov air bases. We can say that the Serdyukov-Makarov reform was quite formal and strove for Western models, which is far from always acceptable for us.

- In addition to the professional army, some defend the right of our country to private military companies (PMCs), which we have recently been fashionable to talk about. You have devoted several monographs to the topic of PMCs and are rightfully considered one of the largest experts in this field. So does Russia need PMCs?

“Unfortunately, it is customary for us to be critical of private military companies, because PMCs in the public mind are perceived as a mercenary office. But almost everyone in the family had someone who fought, died, or was just at war. Therefore, the conviction prevails in Russia: if you take up arms, you do it to defend the Motherland. And the PMC in this context is seen as an exclusively mercenary office that works in the war zone, that is, it takes up arms not for the sake of the Motherland, but for money. In fact, the real picture with PMCs looks somewhat different.

There are PMCs in Russia, but they operate in a gray area, because there is no federal law regulating the activities of such companies. Those that operate in accordance with the license are called PSCs (private security companies) in our country. In order to put an end to discussions about PMCs, it is necessary either to officially refuse them, or to adopt an appropriate law, which, it seems, is being tended to. Think about it: private military companies operate in all the leading countries. The total number of their employees in the world is approximately 1 million people. This is not much, but most employees are hired out of state for specific tasks. And in Russia for PMCs there is a huge potential for development.

“Sergey Shoigu, on the one hand, continued the Serdyukov-Makarov reform, but, on the other hand, as a man who went through two Chechen wars and was at the helm of the Ministry of Emergencies, he greatly corrected the wave of changes that began in the army”
Photo: kremlin.ru

- What is this potential? The fact that retired military or people involved in professional security activities in private security companies will be able to realize themselves in the field of private military companies?

- No, I'm talking about something else: our PMCs would be immediately in demand in the world. A huge number of world countries would like to see our PMCs at home: as consulting, security, training, etc. structures.

- What are these countries?

- Half of Africa, a huge part of Latin America, Southeast Asia - they all want to see our military specialists. But the Russian army, for obvious reasons, cannot do this on the territory of other sovereign states.

The discussion on this subject has already dragged on too long, although I am saying the obvious things. The State Duma has already twice tried to start considering the law on PMCs, I myself participated in one of these attempts. For the last time in the spring of 2016, deputies from A Just Russia tried to initiate consideration of the draft law “On Private Military Security Activities”. And what? Now, most likely, after the well-known events in Syria, the Duma will make another attempt.

— Are you talking about the tragic events in Syria related to the so-called Wagner PMC?

- You can interpret it that way, but I don’t want to discuss the incident itself. They must fulfill the tasks assigned to military professionals, but there is still no law in accordance with which they should act. How so?

- They say that PMC employees who take part in the Syrian conflict sign a waiver of all possible state awards in advance, and in general they sign a lot of things.

I don't know about such facts. In any case, they know what they sign under and what their rights and obligations are. For example, the American company Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR) is essentially a logistics company, it supplies the American army - from toilet paper to light bulbs. Nevertheless, in the two years of the Iraqi war, where KBR was engaged in escorting convoys, the company lost more than 300 people, and lost in battle, although it seemed to be engaged in logistics, moving its convoys from Kuwait and being subjected to constant shelling from rebels and Islamists. And these losses - only for two years, and the total - much more.

“RUSSIAN SOLDIERS ARE SOLDIERS OF JUSTICE. THEY ALWAYS FIGHT AGAINST WORLD EVIL"

— How many PMCs are there in Russia now? Are there any statistics on this?

- I emphasize: there is no official PMC in Russia, as long as there is no law. If we talk about companies similar to PMCs, then there will be about a couple of dozen of them. These are RSB-Group, Moran Security Group, Antiterror-Orel and some others. But in order to work within the framework of the legislative field, they have to enter into subcontracts with licensed Western PMCs. This allows them to operate abroad, where, by the way, they buy weapons.

As for Wagner, it is wrong to call this connection a private military company. It's just a journalistic stamp. Everyone around us now calls PMCs, but Wagner is more of a voluntary unit. We can say that it operates in the interests of the general concept of the destruction of terrorists in the framework of ground operations in Syria.

- Russia does not have its own military companies, but, as far as we know, British PMCs operate on our territory. What are they doing here?

— British and American PMCs are diversifying their business. They don't have to work in a war zone. For example, the Danish-British PMC G4S (G4 Securicor) is the largest military company in the world, they, in my opinion, have up to 3 million full-time employees. In Russia, they deal with security issues for a particular company, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, they protect dangerous zones and practically participate in hostilities. In the Russian Federation, there are mainly British, yes. It so happened that they came to our market, but the Americans were not allowed here. Here they operate mainly as private security companies.

Business in the field of PMCs can be very different. Take for example the famous South African company Executive Outcomes, which won two wars - in Angola and Sierra Leone. But at the same time they had their own television studio and travel agency. And we see everything in a very narrow way: if this is a PMC, then people with machine guns are sure to work there, who piss someone off. But this is far from true. And I hope that Russia will finally understand this.

— Who can afford to hire foreign PMCs in Russia?

“A lot of us can afford it. Do we have few wealthy enterprises that, for example, need to install video cameras in their offices? Russian entrepreneurs hire foreign specialists not as PMCs, but as security specialists, as “security guards”. Lukoil uses foreign PMCs to protect fields and personnel in Iraq.

- There is an opinion that Russian PMCs have begun to really form in the Donbass.

- No, this is not so, volunteer formations fought in the DPR and LPR. These are patriots of the country who fight not for money, but for the Motherland. Another thing is that many of those who fought as volunteers in the Donbass later ended up in Syria, so they are tied into some kind of single chain. But isn't it logical that they ended up there? Aren't these people fighting as patriots in Syria? After all, they defend the same ideals in the SAR that they defended in Ukraine. In Syria, Russian citizens are fighting global terrorism, and in the Donbass they opposed nationalism and fascism. The Russian soldier, like the Russian people in general, always fights against world evil, for truth and for freedom. Our warriors are not "soldiers of fortune", but soldiers of justice.

Ivan Pavlovich Konovalov was born on December 25, 1967 in the town of Osinniki, Kemerovo Region. Russian military journalist, military expert, candidate of historical sciences. Director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture. From 1992 to 2003 he worked on Russian television channels, mainly as a war correspondent. Then he was a military observer for the Kommersant Publishing House and the RIA Novosti news agency. Author of a number of works on armed conflicts in modern history, as well as on the problems of building the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

In 1986-1988 he served in the Soviet army in Mongolia. In 1989 he entered the full-time department of the journalism faculty of Moscow State University. Lomonosov, who graduated in 1994.

Since 1992, he worked on the First Channel of Ostankino, was an editor and host of international news in the program "Morning", led his film rubric "From Mosfilm to Hollywood".

From 1994 to 2003 he was a war correspondent in the news programs ORT (1996-2000), RTR (2000-2001) and TV-6 (since 2002 - TVS) (2001-2003). Worked for the programs "News", "Vremya", "Sergey Dorenko's Author's Program", "Vesti", "Now", "Results", "Frontiers", aired on these TV channels.

Conducted several episodes of the information and analytical program "Vremya" instead of Sergei Dorenko in February - March 1999.

He worked in hot spots, including Chechnya (both military campaigns), Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia and Kosovo. He gained particular fame thanks to reports from Baghdad during the 2003 war in Iraq (Operation Shock and Awe).

In 2003–2006, he was Deputy Director of the Strategy and Technology Analysis Center.

In 2006, he hosted the radio program "Military Council" on radio "Mayak".

In 2006–2008, he was First Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Head of the Military Department of the Smysl magazine.

From February 2007 to June 2013, he was the editor-in-chief of the Socio-Political Thought publishing house.

In 2011-2012, he was a military observer for the RIA Novosti agency.

Since October 2012 - Director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture. This is a research organization that deals with issues of international security, the construction of the armed forces, the defense industry and military-technical cooperation.

In 2014, he was a consultant on Somalia for the Russian action movie 22 Minutes.

In 2016–2017, he was Head of the Military Policy and Economics Sector of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies.

From March to June 2017 - a military observer and expert on the Tsargrad TV channel.

Candidate of Historical Sciences

Moscow State University Lomonosov

In 1994 he graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

1994 - 2003 - war correspondent for ORT, RTR, TV-6-TVS channels.

2003 - 2006 - Deputy Director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

2006 - 2008 - First Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Head of the Military Department of the Smysl magazine. In 2008 - 2015 - military observer of the Kommersant Publishing House, RIA Novosti and ITAR-TASS news agencies.

In 2010 he defended his dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences.

In 2012-2016 Director of the Center for Strategic Studies.

Sphere of scientific interests Keywords: modern armed conflicts, problems of international security, arms markets, military-technical cooperation, military-industrial complexes.

Latest publications

To the pleiad of patriotic experts who abundantly dotted the benches of television studios with political and analytical programs, another significant unit has been added in the person of a courageous and charming person. Ivan Pavlovich Konovalov is a real pro in military journalism, a correspondent who has visited many hot spots on the planet, risking his life more than once to obtain truthful information about a particular event.

At the moment, he heads the Center for Strategic Conjuncture and is a candidate of historical sciences.

Brief biographical information

Vanya Konovalov was born in the city of Osinniki, Kemerovo Region, at the very end of 1967. Subsequently, the Konovalov family moved to another settlement in Kuzbass - Novokuznetsk. Like all Soviet children of that time, he regularly attended a kindergarten, and later a comprehensive school. He studied, in general, not bad in all subjects, but excelled best in the humanities. After graduation, Ivan decided to devote himself to journalism. True, it was not part of the ambitious young man’s plans to immediately enter the journalism faculty. To gain experience, he got a job at the editorial office of the large-circulation local newspaper Na Stroyke.

In 1986, the guy was drafted into the ranks of the Soviet army. He served two years in Mongolia. After demobilization in 1988, he immediately decided to work in the editorial office of the Metallurg newspaper of the Kuznetsk Iron and Steel Works.

A year after successfully passing the entrance exams, he entered the full-time department of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University. He graduated from the university in 94. While still studying at the university, starting from the age of 92, he worked on Channel One as an editor and presenter of international news. At the same time, he was a military correspondent in the news programs ORT, RTR and TV-6 (TVS) until 2003. In his arsenal, participation in the programs "News", "Time", "News", "Now", "Results", "Frontiers".

He worked during both Chechen campaigns, at the risk of his life collecting materials for publications in such dangerous places as Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Reported directly from Baghdad during the 2003 war.

After returning to his homeland, he served as deputy head of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology for 3 years.

In 2006, he was invited to radio "Mayak" to host the program "Military Council".

Later he held leading positions in such publications as "Sense", "Kommersant".

Until 2012, he served as a military observer for RIA Novosti, and in the autumn he was appointed head of the Center for Strategic Market Research, where he dealt with issues related to international security and the defense industry.

From the age of 14 he was in the thick of things in the Donbass.

• "Zhurfakovsky courtyard";
• "Sergeant and Captain";
• "Wars of the Black Continent";
• "Soldiers of Fortune and Corporate Warriors";
• "Elements of Defense";
• "Military television journalism: features of the genre".

Practical thoughts of Ivan Pavlovich

• If our news channels strive for objectivity, then the ABC is dominated by jingoistic stories. If you watch American news and Russian news at the same time, they are very different!..
• It is the Americans, not us, who are doing everything to return to the Cold War era. The only difference is that NATO survived, but the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, and the USSR was stronger than the current Russian Federation. Today, Russia is virtually alone in opposing the collective West. Among our main allies in this confrontation, only China should be seriously considered.
• There is only one law of Anglo-Saxon ethics: kill, deceive, betray - as long as it is in their interests.
• In the face of a single external enemy, both the authorities and the opposition in Russia have united - and this is good for the country. Everything is now in one trench.
• People who have returned from the war become more just, because they realize the price of life and death, the price of a given word.

• For many "Afghans" and "Chechens" war is the best part of their life, because then they felt they were most needed, and in peacetime they seem to be fenced off from them by a wall.
• Serdyukov behaved insultingly towards people in uniform. Sergei Shoigu, who replaced him as Minister of Defense, corrected this situation. On the one hand, he continued the reforms that began under Serdyukov in the army, on the other hand, he corrected most of the changes made. Shoigu returned self-respect to the military.
• Russian soldiers always fight against world evil. Our warriors are not soldiers of fortune, but soldiers of justice.
• We had a Soviet backlog (if we are talking about design ideas, about creating various types of weapons), a lot was conceived and developed under socialism. But much of what was planned was not implemented, given the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Russian army and defense industry experienced hard times for some time. Many obstacles had to be overcome in order to regain its former greatness, at least to some extent.
• Even in the United States, there has been an understanding that "color revolutions" and the change of existing regimes to new, more democratic ones, lead only to chaos.
• One can hardly expect a breakthrough in relations between Russia and NATO. At the same time, we can and should gradually move towards mutual understanding.