The strategies of troop movement, the tactics on the best way to take back the adversary, it is all his life or almost. General Christophe Gomart, 61, successively directed the command of special operations, the elite of French soldiers, then the direction of military intelligence, the service specializing in the collection and analysis of information concerning armed operations. Of the experiences he recounts in shadow soldier (Taillandier), his autobiographical book published in 2020.
Since the start of the invasion in Ukraine, the former spymaster has been following the advance of the Russians with his expert eye for this type of operation. Always ahead of a historical reference and attentive to all the sources in free access, he notes the relative failure of the Russians, obviously surprised by the resistance of the Ukrainians. The senior officer nevertheless judges that the Russian army, which has bombed Ukrainian territory very little, compared to comparable operations such as the first Gulf War or the war in Iraq, still has several weapons to gain ground. He already imagines Vladimir Putin’s troops heading for Kryvyi Rih, the birthplace of Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president.
L’Express: Should we expect movement in Ukraine in the coming days?
Christophe Gomart: Yes, for me, the past week has been a week of operational break on the Russian side. They needed to stop to replenish their human and military resources. This week, they will want to resume their march forward. It is clear that their immediate objective is Mariupol, because this city, by its geographical position, allows them to hold the Donbass and the access to the Crimea. It is an important city that they could then keep as a “pledge” for later international agreements. They are shelling the city, bombarding it so that the population flees and they have a clear field.
There is a more symbolic reason: it is in Mariupol that many forces of the Azov Battalion, which has neo-Nazis in its ranks, are fighting. On the Russian side, it is in particular Chechen battalions that have been sent. Taking the city would give substance to the Russian narrative of the “denazification” of Ukraine.
The Ukrainians announce that they have killed more than 10,000 Russians, should we believe it?
No, I think that figure is exaggerated. That would mean more than 20% of the troops affected, counting the wounded… That would be considerable. The USSR in Afghanistan, between 1979 and 1989, is 15,000 dead… but in ten years. And at the time, there were calls from a committee of soldiers’ mothers that had been formed, for them to return. Today, the phenomenon does not yet exist. But Vladimir Putin is paradoxically attentive to his public opinion and in particular to what these committees of soldiers’ mothers say who, let us remember, pushed for the end of the war in Afghanistan in 1989, also perhaps because the army sent many Chechen and Syrian soldiers to the front.
One thing is certain, the Russians did not expect such resistance. All the indicators show it. They put a lot of means, without ending up with extremely important catches. And they have probably opened too many fronts.
Should we expect to see Russia retreat in the coming days?
No, because for all that, for me, Russia has not reached its “high point”, that is to say that they have not reached this moment when their vulnerability will increase because they cannot do better. They still have a significant capacity for resilience. As for the Ukrainians, it is difficult to know if they have major structural flaws. But I don’t rule it out.
What more can the Russians do to make Ukraine bend?
They still have very powerful artillery and ammunition is not a problem for them. I observe that they have bombed very little so far. Let me give you an element of comparison: to take Baghdad in 1991, the Americans sent 40,000 bombs the first night. The Russians in Ukraine, it’s 160 missiles the first day, and about forty a day since. They don’t do it because they don’t want to kill pro-Russian Ukrainians either, they would rather people surrender.
Does the use of hypersonic missiles by Russia in Ukraine mark a turning point in this war?
No. For me, the use of these missiles serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it is a question of trying to stun the Ukrainian adversary by opposing him with overpowering means. These missiles, the Russians are very proud of them because they are the only ones to master this technology. Moreover, the anti-missile devices seem ineffective against them. On the other hand, it is a message sent to all of the West: look at what we are capable of. It’s about scaring. But the military effect itself is limited.
The first bombings took place in Odessa, did they then target western Ukraine?
The bombings of Odessa are part of what I call the “terror strikes” strategy. The Russians want to impress the Ukrainian people and the army. At first, the Russian army cannot reach Odessa because there is a bridge between this city and Mikolaiv, where they are, 130 kilometers away. It will inevitably be destroyed. The Russians will have to make a loop which will delay them. One can wonder if the Russian army will not rather want to move towards Kryvyi Rih, the birthplace of Volodymyr Zelensky. If only for the symbol.
Does the Russian army seem capable of taking kyiv?
They seek to encircle the city, to cut the lines of communication, to break the lines of supply of armament. But I don’t think they’ll be able to take the city. Quite simply because to take a city, you need six attackers for one defender, so here six Russians for one Ukrainian. Unless we decide to destroy it entirely as Russia did in Grozny, Chechnya, in 1995. When the regular Russian army took over Grozny, there were 110,000 men against 50,000 Chechens. It is considerable. But I don’t think the Russian army wants to destroy kyiv, it has no interest.
The Ukrainian government seems to fear a Belarusian offensive in western Ukraine, what do you think?
It’s possible but I don’t know if it’s likely. I don’t have all the elements that I would have if I were at the head of an intelligence service.
What are these elements that allow intelligence to decide more easily?
I would have satellite images that allow me to know the movements of troops, interceptions of communication, human sources, open sources, closed sources…
What are these closed sources?
These are sources that belong to us, those that we own such as our observation satellites, our electromagnetic interception systems – wiretapping – or even information from hacking, the so-called offensive computer fight. From dark webfor example.
What about open sources, freely accessible data: do they really give access to strategic information?
Open sources are essential, in particular because 90% of intelligence comes from so-called open intelligence, that is to say, accessible to everyone. You still have to know what you’re looking for and then be able to cross-check it with closed intelligence from your own sources. There are a lot of images circulating, which can be false, manipulated.
Open sources allow you to have an idea but that’s it. They only give an appearance. Absolutely not the reality of things. However, this war, like many conflicts, is a war of press releases, disinformation, manipulation and intoxication. The Russians are very strong in this area, as are the Ukrainians.
As such, since the start of the conflict, we have seen very few images of combat, whether on the Russian side or on the Ukrainian side. The armies do not want to reveal their positions. They don’t want to leave things that will then allow them to do research and learn things.