{"id":1401945,"date":"2026-06-05T18:21:48","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T15:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prm.ua\/we-need-to-create-conditions-for-russians-that-will-make-their-pain-unbearable-roman-kostenko\/"},"modified":"2026-06-05T18:25:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T15:25:03","slug":"we-need-to-create-conditions-for-russians-that-will-make-their-pain-unbearable-roman-kostenko","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prm.ua\/en\/we-need-to-create-conditions-for-russians-that-will-make-their-pain-unbearable-roman-kostenko\/","title":{"rendered":"“We need to create conditions for Russians that will make their pain unbearable”: Roman Kostenko"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

Russia continues to dominate the battlefield, maintains the initiative, and issues us ultimatums. Its rhetoric reveals no desire for peace. Russia is attempting to terrorize the civilian population to provoke internal tensions and force Ukraine to capitulate. Ballistic missiles remain the only trump card for the Russians to terrorize our rear. The rate of production suggests that the Russians are capable of resorting to massive shelling of Ukraine no more than a few times a month. Roman Kostenko, Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense, and Intelligence and SBU Colonel, discusses this and more in an interview (recorded immediately after the June 2 shelling<\/a> ).<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Host: Greetings, Mr. Kostenko. We planned to discuss the announced reform of the Armed Forces and the new armor regulations, but I wouldn’t forgive myself if we didn’t begin with an analysis of the latest brutal, large-scale attack. Many cities were damaged: the capital, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia. Almost all the cruise missiles were shot down, but not all of the 33 ballistic targets were intercepted. We understand that this is due to a shortage of specialized equipment, specifically Patriot systems. Furthermore, Russia has launched eight Zircon anti-ship missiles. According to several open sources, Russian industry continues to increase their production. Clearly, such attacks will be repeated. How, in this situation, can we encourage our partners to provide us with the air defense systems we need? Or perhaps we ourselves are failing in some way?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Roman Kostenko:<\/strong> These are very complex questions, but I will try to answer them as simply as possible.<\/p>\n

Regarding attacks on us: you’re right, we’ve already had significant success shooting down cruise missiles. We typically destroy 90% to 100% of Kalibr and Kh-101 missiles. We have the necessary resources for this: old Soviet air defense systems (for example, the S-125 Pechora), man-portable air defense systems, and our F-16 pilots, who are very skilled at this task. So we can effectively counter cruise missiles.<\/p>\n

Another class is the Tsirkon hypersonic anti-ship missile. They have incredible speeds\u2014from 6,000 to 10,000 kilometers per hour. They were developed for launch from ships, but Russia adapted them for strikes against land targets because it is experiencing problems with the effectiveness of the Kalibr missiles. They are very difficult to shoot down. Unfortunately, today they have achieved their intended purpose.<\/p>\n

Regarding drones: Russia is constantly increasing their numbers, but we have also found effective countermeasures. There are four main approaches. The first is army aviation (helicopters with machine guns that use radar to detect and destroy drones). The second is mobile fire teams. The third is counter-drone systems (interceptor drones), which are currently being actively developed by the Unmanned Systems Force and other units: they simply fly up to the Shahed missiles and destroy them in mid-air. The fourth, very powerful approach is electronic warfare (EW) units, which spoof the drones’ coordinates and force them to fly in a different direction. Thanks to this, we intercept about 90% of drones. The Russians understand this, so they are trying to scale up their attacks, launching 100, 200, or 300 drones at a time, just to make sure at least something gets through.<\/p>\n

The most complex type of weaponry is ballistic and aeroballistic missiles, particularly the Iskander. They are virtually impossible to intercept without specialized anti-missile systems. Ukraine currently has the world’s most extensive experience in shooting down such targets with limited resources. Our air defense units have learned to operate very economically: where our partners’ standards require three or four missiles, our fighters manage to shoot down targets with one or two.<\/p>\n

The scaling tactic we saw during Iran’s attack on Israel is at work here. When the enemy launches eight or nine missiles at a single target, even the most advanced air defense systems begin to miss the targets after the sixth missile due to overload. Russia is doing the same: it tries to overload our airspace with cruise missiles and drones, defuse our air defenses, and then launch a massive ballistic attack. Furthermore, our systems are scattered across a vast territory and cannot always respond in time.<\/p>\n

For Russia, such attacks are also very costly, and it can’t quickly replenish its ballistic missile stockpiles. Analysis of the debris indicates that they are already using missiles with components manufactured very recently in Europe or China. This suggests that they, too, are having trouble stockpiling reserves, but ballistic missiles remain their only trump card for terrorizing our rear.<\/p>\n

Regarding our partners: we certainly need more Patriot interceptors (PAC-3). However, our allies don’t have many of these in reserve. Furthermore, they are forced to transfer a significant number of their missiles to the Middle East due to the threat posed by Iran.<\/p>\n

Even a large number of anti-missile systems won’t provide 100% security for any country. If the enemy sees us successfully intercepting missiles, they’ll simply increase the number of simultaneous launches.<\/p>\n

The only promising path is establishing domestic production. Although the president has spoken of the possibility of producing PAC-3 missiles in Ukraine, obtaining a license is currently unlikely. Perhaps it would be worth negotiating licenses for PAC-2 missiles in exchange for our mineral resources and subsoil, an agreement for which we have already signed. And, of course, we need to develop our own weapons, although this is a very lengthy process.<\/p>\n

Host: You very diplomatically pointed out that we’re unlikely to be granted a license to produce PAC-3 missiles. But shouldn’t we have included this requirement back when we signed the agreements to transfer our mineral resources in exchange for security guarantees? These would have been real guarantees, after all, Ukraine’s main shield is the Armed Forces. Now Volodymyr Zelenskyy is asking for these licenses, and that’s the right thing to do, but why wasn’t this done earlier? Is it possible to somehow “revise” this situation and agree on specifics?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Roman Kostenko:<\/strong> I completely agree. I was one of those who didn’t support this agreement precisely because of its lack of specifics. I insisted from the start that resources shouldn’t be given up for vague promises. It must be clearly stated: in exchange for signing this agreement, we receive specific defense technologies and weapons.<\/p>\n

We are now seeing that the Americans and Europeans are finally reaching certain agreements. Germany has declared its readiness to produce PAC-2 missiles. The Americans are holding PAC-3 technology as their main trump card, although Poland has already stated that the US will transfer the technology for producing such missiles. Since Poland is our important partner, this could become an opportunity for us to receive similar resources from our neighbors.<\/p>\n

Host: The diplomatic situation with the Poles is truly complicated right now, with some historical disputes arising. Some Polish politicians are even calling for blocking Ukraine’s path to the EU or cutting off funding for Starlink. I hope our diplomacy can resolve this conflict.<\/strong> But I want to ask you another important question. Does Russia really have the technical capability to replenish its reserves so quickly and prepare for a new massive attack? Or is this simply a means of spreading panic in the information space?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Roman Kostenko:<\/strong> They certainly have the capability to launch another swift strike. But I highly doubt it will be an attack of similar scale. To launch a strike using over 100 missiles, including 30-40 ballistic missiles, the enemy needs time to prepare and replenish its reserves.<\/p>\n

Conventional cruise missiles don’t produce the desired effect because we successfully shoot them down. Therefore, according to my predictions, they are capable of carrying out such large-scale combined attacks no more than a few times a month.<\/p>\n

Now the Russians are trying to terrorize the civilian population to provoke internal tensions and force Ukraine to capitulate. We see Peskov’s statement that Zelenskyy can end the war “even today” if he withdraws Ukrainian troops from territories that Russia has already included in its constitution. This is a blatant lie and manipulation.<\/p>\n

Even if such a scenario were to be imagined, Russia would not deter. For them, this would merely be a new springboard for further advance and the complete subjugation of Ukraine. Any concessions to the aggressor only postpone a new war, as history confirms. Therefore, attacks on our rear are pure terrorism aimed at breaking our resistance.<\/p>\n