Maryna Stepanenko

The West had all the tools to foresee Russia's war against Ukraine - and chose to ignore them. Even before 2014, analysis reached NATO's highest offices: the annexation of Crimea, the threat to Mariupol, the Russian Federation's dominance in the Black Sea. The forecasts were accurate, but most member states opted for the illusion of partnership with the Kremlin.

Are changes still possible? What is required to achieve them? And can NATO remain an effective security alliance in a new era of threats? These and other questions were addressed in an interview with Sestry by Dr Stefanie Babst - one of the most influential security strategists in Europe, who worked at NATO for over 20 years, including as Head of the Strategic Foresight Team. Today, she is an independent analyst, the author of a book on the West's «blind spots» in its strategy toward Russia, and an active participant in international discussions on war, peace and security.

Ukraine, Russia and the strategic miscalculations of the West

Maryna Stepanenko: You led NATO's Strategic Foresight Team. How do you assess the West's ability to foresee Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine? Were there signals that were simply not heard, or perhaps deliberately ignored?

‍Stefanie Babst: There were many warnings that went unheeded. Allow me to explain. In international relations, it is crucial to accurately assess the mindset, capabilities and intentions of another actor. NATO failed to do this with Russia. As the Head of Strategic Foresight at the Alliance, I issued the first serious warning in 2013 - a few months before the annexation of Crimea. I presented an analysis outlining Russia's malicious intentions and its military preparations against Ukraine.

It was reviewed by the Secretary General and discussed with member states, but no action was taken

Some countries - the Baltic States and Poland - took the analysis seriously. Others - notably Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom - preferred to maintain the NATO-Russia partnership. From 2014 onwards, we intensified our analysis, forecasting actions such as the seizure of Mariupol, dominance in the Black Sea and the use of Donbas as a staging ground. These forecasts were presented at the highest levels, including the NATO Council, but were ultimately dismissed.

In 2015 and 2016, we broadened our focus to include China and its ties with Russia, offering future scenarios and forecasting so-called «black swans» - high-impact events that are hard to predict, seem unlikely but could have serious consequences if they occur. Again, many perceived this only as «intellectual exercises». Thus, NATO possessed the tools of foresight - and chose to ignore them. And that comes at a very high cost.

In your work, you call for a review of the West's strategy toward Russia. In your view, what «blind spots» remain in Western approaches - particularly regarding support for Ukraine?

Three years ago, I called for a powerful, multifaceted deterrence strategy to help Ukraine not just freeze the war but win it. I invoked George Kennan's Cold War approach, urging the use of all available instruments - economic, diplomatic and military - to push Russia out of Ukraine. But apart from some Baltic and Northern European countries, no one took this seriously.

NATO and the EU still lack a defined end goal. If Ukraine's victory were the objective, a corresponding strategy would have been developed

Instead, Western leaders underestimated Ukraine's resilience and failed to act decisively even after Russia crossed countless red lines. President Biden, despite his commitment to Ukraine, framed his approach around what the United States would not do: we will not provoke Russia, we will not give Ukrainians long-range weapons, we will not do this or that. This is not a strategy. Now, with Trump’s return, many European governments are passively hoping for a US-Russian agreement that merely freezes the war - something I believe is dangerous both for Ukraine and Europe.

My main criticism is the lack of political will in the West. Too many still see this as Russia's war against Ukrainians. But it is our war too

Stefanie, why do you think Europe failed to prepare effectively for Trump’s presidency?

Planning within NATO and European governments is often difficult, as politicians typically focus on short-term goals, usually only a month ahead. In times of emergency, particularly due to Washington's unpredictability, Europe must abandon crisis management mode and stop reacting to every event, such as a new tweet.

Europe must be firm with the United States, clearly communicating that their actions - including threats to countries like Canada and Denmark, withholding intelligence from Ukraine and halting cyber operations against Russia - are unacceptable. These decisions had deadly consequences, and member states should not be afraid to hold the United States accountable for violating the fundamental principles of the Washington Treaty.

Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, recently visited Florida to meet President Trump, hoping to impress him with defence spending figures. He praised Trump’s leadership and even claimed that Trump had «broken the deadlock» in relations with Russia. However, this is detached from the reality of ongoing Russian attacks.

If the NATO Secretary General lacks a clear message, the best approach is silence, focusing on supporting member states and protecting them from any threat. We do not have time for empty words and political games.

Europeans must remain immune to American political theatre, focusing on strengthening defence capability and supporting Ukraine’s defence industry so it can resist Russian aggression

Migration and war

Germany is no longer the EU leader in asylum requests from South American and Middle Eastern refugees. At the same time, in the first quarter of 2025, applications from Ukrainians rose by 84 per cent. What does this indicate?

It is entirely understandable that many Ukrainians have chosen to leave their country for personal and professional reasons - this is natural, and no one should be blamed for it. But this migration has political consequences in Germany, particularly when far-right parties exploit it by portraying Ukrainian refugees as a burden on the social system, regardless of their skills or motivation. These sentiments are especially strong in eastern Germany, where parties like AfD and certain left-wing populist movements have gained support.

What concerns me is the lack of strong counteraction from the federal government in Berlin - clearer messaging and political leadership are needed

If more Ukrainians arrive, I hope the next government will take a positive stance, recognising that many of them can significantly contribute to the German workforce. This would mean reducing bureaucracy, accelerating integration and facilitating their employment. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

Continuing on this topic, in recent weeks, some districts in Germany have publicly declared that they can no longer accommodate Ukrainian refugees due to overburdened social systems. How do you assess these sentiments?

It is true that local communities across Germany still face difficulties in accommodating refugees - an issue that arose after Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open the borders, leading to a large influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. Many municipalities remain overwhelmed by demands for housing, language training and integration support. However, Ukrainian refugees do not pose the same challenges.

Ukrainians generally integrate well, bring strong skills and education and do not contribute to social tensions

In contrast, some refugees from the Middle East struggle to adapt to liberal democratic norms, which fuels far-right narratives, particularly in eastern Germany. Parties like AfD and figures such as Sahra Wagenknecht exploit this, promoting anti-Ukrainian, pro-concession rhetoric that ignores the reality of Russian occupation.

Unfortunately, mainstream democratic parties are not doing enough to push them back. With growing support from American right-wing populists, such as those connected to Trump or Musk, this polarisation may deepen further, posing a serious threat to democratic cohesion in Europe.

Europe on the brink of war

Amid full-scale war in Ukraine, initiatives have emerged in Poland and Germany to prepare schoolchildren for emergencies. Does this indicate a deeper shift in Europe's security culture, where defence is no longer solely the army's responsibility, but that of the entire society?

Although some defence-related courses have begun in Germany, they remain insufficient, and the wider public remains largely unprepared - both mentally and physically - to play a defensive role.

Serious debates are now underway about reinstating military conscription, but surveys show that two-thirds of people aged 20 to 30 would refuse to serve, with many saying they would rather emigrate than defend the country.

This reflects a deeper issue: decades of political messaging have conditioned Germans to believe they live in peace, surrounded by allies, and need not prepare for conflict

As a result, Germany also lacks bunkers for emergencies, civil defence training and basic resilience measures for the population. Changing this mindset will require strong political leadership. Without it, the Bundeswehr will remain under-equipped and unable to contribute significantly to efforts such as a potential coalition in Ukraine.

We see civil defence becoming part of public policy, from educating children to testing alarm systems. Is Europe beginning to think seriously about its own resilience in the face of potential escalation beyond Ukraine?

Undoubtedly. Some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Poland and the Baltic States, have prioritised both military capability and societal resilience in recent years. In cities such as Riga and Warsaw, the Russian threat is well understood. However, countries like Germany, Belgium, Portugal, France and others still view Russia’s war against Ukraine as a regional issue.

Fortunately, leaders such as Kaja Kallas are advocating for a long-term strategy against Russia. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, I have argued that we must prepare for a protracted conflict, as long as Putin’s regime remains in power, Russia will continue to pose a threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe.

Strategic vision

Given your views on NATO's evolution and the need for a new coalition, potentially the so-called «coalition of the willing», how do you envisage its structure? What strategic or institutional frameworks will be important to effectively counter Russian aggression, considering internal challenges within NATO, particularly due to the influence of populist leaders, including Trump?

During my time at NATO, I was proud of my team’s ability to anticipate challenges before they emerged, especially regarding NATO’s enlargement. I was actively involved in the admission of new members, including the Baltic States, Slovenia and Slovakia.

One of the moments I had hoped to witness was seeing Ukraine’s flag at NATO headquarters, but I no longer believe that is a realistic goal

Instead, I believe Ukraine should focus on building a new coalition with like-minded countries, rather than pursuing NATO membership. The Alliance, particularly under the influence of destructive politics, is becoming increasingly divided.

If I were advising President Zelensky, I would recommend not wasting energy on NATO accession but rather focusing on strengthening a broader, more flexible alliance to counter Russian aggression. This would allow us to move beyond the status quo and prepare for the future.

Considering the current dynamics within NATO, how long do you think the Alliance can maintain its current structure before significant changes become inevitable? Do you have a timeframe in mind?

When President Trump was elected, I predicted he would undermine the rules-based order, and we are already seeing significant damage done to NATO, especially concerning the US commitments. European countries have started discussing enhancing the European pillar within NATO, planning to prepare for a potential US withdrawal within five to ten years. However, I believe that timeframe is overly optimistic - we may have only five to ten months before we witness new disruptions.

Looking back, it is clear NATO missed the opportunity to prepare for these challenges. In 2016, I prepared a document for the Secretary General outlining potential harm Trump could cause, but it was dismissed at the time. The issues I raised remain relevant today, and NATO's bureaucracy is too risk-averse to plan for unforeseen scenarios.

If the Alliance fails to act, it risks becoming a reactive organisation that merely responds to Trump’s tweets instead of proactively working toward the future

I hope that countries such as France, the United Kingdom and Northern European states will cooperate with Ukraine to create a new joint alliance capable of better confronting future challenges.

Cover photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/East News

This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation

‍

‍

Negotiations in Riyadh, agreements on navigation in the Black Sea, and now the White House's attempts to achieve a truce by April 20th - all these steps create the illusion of diplomatic progress. But is this truly a step towards peace or another political manoeuvre?

Russia, despite its promises, continues to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The West, meanwhile, is considering easing sanctions against the Russian agricultural sector, even though Moscow has made no concessions. All this is happening against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s attempts to use the war for its own geopolitical game.

Does the White House have a clear strategy, or is it merely an attempt to secure a «success» before Easter? Is diplomacy turning into a tool for weakening sanctions that ultimately benefits the Kremlin? This is the subject of an exclusive interview with John Bolton - American Republican politician, diplomat and former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump (2018-2019).

The negotiation process

‍Maryna Stepanenko: Last week, we saw another round of negotiations in Riyadh. How would you assess their progress?

‍John Bolton: Certain agreements were reached regarding a ceasefire in the Black Sea in terms of the conditions under which commercial vessels may freely cross the Black Sea without being attacked. Commercial vessels must not be used for military purposes. And I believe we have generally returned to what was being discussed with Turkey back in 2022.

This may be progress, but I believe Russia is as interested in this as Ukraine, so that they can transport part of their agricultural products. I do not believe this necessarily guarantees progress in ceasing hostilities on land or towards a more comprehensive ceasefire, let alone a final settlement.

We witnessed Russia breaking its promise to stop strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Moreover, the attacks have not only continued but intensified. Now we have agreements aimed at ensuring safe navigation in the Black Sea and preventing the use of commercial vessels for military purposes. How can the United States guarantee that Russia will honour any agreements, given its history of violating international commitments?

I do not believe any guarantees exist. That is precisely why President Zelenskyy is so adamant about security guarantees - he understands Russia’s track record all too well.

An agreement can be reached on almost anything, but a Russian signature will not prevent a third invasion if Moscow decides to launch it

Many of these errors were made in 2014, ultimately leading to Russia’s second invasion. But the damage has been done, and the idea that the simple signing of a document ensures lasting peace and stability is fundamentally flawed - especially if the agreement leaves certain territories in Russian hands, making it inherently inadequate.

The United States announced its intention to support the resumption of Russian exports of agricultural products and fertilisers, including by lowering maritime insurance costs and improving access to ports and payment systems. Does this not contradict existing sanctions policy, particularly given the lack of Russian concessions toward achieving real peace?

Yes, I believe this reflects a relaxation of sanctions that provides Russia with more economic opportunities than it previously had, without any clear justification. Ukraine has been relatively successful in exporting its agricultural products from Odesa via the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus.

I am not certain it will truly benefit from this agreement. It offers certain assurances that vessels will not become targets, but ultimately, the real beneficiary of the Black Sea deal may very well be Russia.

Does this initiative not set a precedent whereby Moscow can use diplomatic negotiations as a tool to ease sanctions without altering its aggressive policies?

Russia's short-term diplomatic strategy is quite clear: to lift as many restrictions and as much pressure as possible while continuing to wage war, particularly as they believe the battlefield dynamics favour them.

Their primary objective is to ease the economic pressure they are facing. Although this pressure has not been as severe as it could have been, it is still significant enough to prompt them to seek relief

The real question is why the United States should provide such relief if Russia is not changing its behaviour. If they are not making meaningful concessions on a ceasefire or demonstrating genuine intent to end the war, then there is no justification for reducing pressure. Thus far, they have shown no signs of doing either.

Peace by Easter

The White House is seeking to broker a ceasefire agreement by April 20th, which this year coincides with Easter for both Catholics and Orthodox Christians. In your opinion, does the Trump administration have a specific strategy for this?

No, I do not believe there is a specific strategy. At best, Trump has moved from claiming he could resolve the war in a single day to postponing the timeline to April. By Easter, there may be a declaration of progress so that he can claim success, but I would be very surprised if a comprehensive ceasefire were achieved by then.

As I see it, the Kremlin does not consider a ceasefire to be in its interests. They are willing to humour Trump because they have already secured major concessions from him on long-term matters - no full restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, no NATO membership and no NATO security guarantees. The Russians do not wish to risk losing these advantages. Therefore, while they may engage in negotiations, there is no real indication that they intend to alter their long-term objectives.

US Special Representative Steve Witkoff identified the greatest obstacle to resolving the war in Ukraine as the status of Crimea and the four regions of mainland Ukraine occupied by Russia, calling them the «elephant in the room» in peace negotiations. Are there realistic scenarios for reclaiming these territories? What diplomatic, military or economic instruments might support this aim?

I believe there are alternatives, but they will likely involve a protracted war. The key issue is whether Ukraine can continue to fight if the United States again suspends military assistance. That is the leverage Trump possesses.

As for Witkoff, I believe he is frequently influenced by Russian propaganda, and what you have just mentioned is a prime example of that

The four regions and Crimea were not some internal issue - they were the targets of unprovoked Russian aggression both in 2014 and 2022. If anything, they are Russia’s problem, not Ukraine’s.

US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz proposed the idea of beginning negotiations to freeze front lines «where they currently stand». What consequences might this have?

Well, I am very concerned. One of the main issues I have with a ceasefire is that if it is declared along the current lines of contact and negotiations begin in Geneva, Vienna or even Riyadh, that line of ceasefire could quickly become a de facto border.

The longer the negotiations drag on, the more Russia will work to consolidate its presence - establishing administrative structures, integrating the occupied territories into its governance system and treating them as though they are part of Russia.

Eventually, they will claim that returning these territories is impossible. That is why I believe a ceasefire in this context poses a serious risk for Ukraine

Trump and Putin - a reset in relations

Russia speaks frequently of resetting relations with the United States. Is this realistic? What are the long-term security implications for the United States and NATO of Trump's growing trust in Putin?

Putin manipulates Trump with remarkable ease, relying on his KGB training and clear understanding of Russia’s strategic interests. Unlike him, Trump appears not to recognise any significant American interests in this situation.

He is willing to abandon Ukraine’s position because it simply does not matter to him

Trump sees his relationship with Putin as personal, believing that if he gets along with the Russian leader, then US-Russian relations must be strong. But Putin does not view it that way. This overly simplistic and naive approach to foreign policy - where everything is reduced to personal dynamics - is precisely what Putin exploits to achieve his own goals at Ukraine’s expense.

Recently, Bild published a rather dramatic report suggesting that Russia might invade Lithuanian territory as early as this autumn. How realistic is this scenario?

From a military standpoint, Russia could attempt such an operation, perhaps to secure a corridor to the Kaliningrad exclave. However, I do not think it is likely. Putin is eyeing several other parts of the former Soviet Union - Central Asia, the Caucasus and Moldova - where he might see opportunities to reassert Russian control.

If a ceasefire were reached in Ukraine, I believe he would prioritise these regions over the far riskier step of a direct invasion of NATO territory

However, if Trump continues to weaken NATO, Putin may eventually decide the risk is worth taking.

How would a potential US retreat from active European engagement under Trump affect the regional balance of power, and could the EU compensate for this security vacuum?

I believe that a US withdrawal from NATO would be a catastrophic mistake for both the United States and Europe.

Even a significant weakening of the Alliance would have serious consequences. Putin understands this well

He knows Trump is only in office for four years, and he may see this as an opportunity. Encouraging Trump to take steps that weaken or even dismantle NATO could bring long-term benefits for Russia. But Putin also realises that this window will not last forever - he cannot count on more than four years. That is why he is trying to manipulate Trump, seeking through diplomacy and political influence to achieve what the Russian military has so far failed to accomplish in Ukraine.

Given the current tensions in relations between Canada and the US - something few could have predicted - do you believe Canada might strengthen its cooperation with Europe to form a NATO-like alliance without the United States, in order to enhance European security?

Canada may attempt to do so, but it would be a serious mistake - for Canada, for Europe and for all interested parties. If the United States withdraws from NATO or if Europe effectively pushes the United States out, it will be a major blunder. Despite the damage that Trump has already caused and may yet cause, we must take a long-term perspective. He has 46 months left in office, but security relations between Europe and the United States will endure for decades. During the Cold War, one of Russia’s key objectives was to divide the West, but it never succeeded.

We now risk doing this to ourselves. It is absolutely vital to avoid that

It will not be easy with Trump, but we must remain focused on the long-term objective.

Trump’s approval ratings and another scandal in his administration

Although Trump's approval rating is at a personal high, it still remains below the 50 per cent threshold, and a slight majority of voters (51 per cent) currently disapprove of his performance. How focused is the American public on the White House's policy regarding Ukraine? Is there potential for public pressure on Trump to continue military support for Kyiv?

I still believe that is possible. Trump's approval ratings are declining, but for years, people have noted that he has what is often referred to as a «high floor and low ceiling» - meaning his ratings tend to remain within a narrow range.

At the same time, although Trump is the newly elected president, he is also a «lame duck» president, as he cannot run for a third term. This means his approval ratings could fall even further during a second term than they did during the first.

It is unclear how events will unfold, but for now, his ratings are gradually declining. If tariff uncertainty continues to affect the economy, this trend may persist.

Mr Bolton, during Donald Trump's first term, you served as his National Security Advisor. What was your initial reaction when you learned about the scandal involving the addition of The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a closed chat where the topic of a US military strike on Yemen was discussed? What does such a precedent signify?

It was truly shocking. I cannot imagine why anyone would even consider using an unsecured, non-government communication channel. Signal is unlikely to replace the highly secure network that the US government has spent vast sums to develop over many years. No one has offered a reasonable explanation for this - because, frankly, I do not believe one exists. This is a serious issue for the Trump administration. We shall have to wait and see whether it dissipates or not.

But one thing is clear - when high-ranking American officials act so recklessly, it only encourages America’s adversaries to intensify their espionage efforts

During our conversation, you emphasised that Trump’s time in office is limited to four years and that he will eventually leave the White House. Do you believe JD Vance might be a contender to succeed him in the future? What would such a figure in the White House mean for America, the world and global security?

It is far from certain that he will even receive the Republican nomination. His chances will largely depend on how popular the Trump administration is two to two-and-a-half years from now. If the economy slips into recession due to tariffs, it will damage anyone associated with Trump's presidency.

Meanwhile, although the Democratic Party has shown little momentum in the four months since the election, it may field a strong candidate in 2028. There are no guarantees that Vance will win the nomination or become president.

Historically, only two vice presidents have been elected president immediately after their vice-presidential terms: George H. W. Bush in 1988 and, before him, Martin Van Buren in the early 19th century. It is a rare occurrence. Some vice presidents have won presidential elections later in their careers, but direct successors to the president they served with are extremely rare.

This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the Education for Democracy Foundation

‍

‍

A herald of apocalypse or a much-needed disruptor of the current world order? Donald Trump spent his first three weeks as US president in turbo mode. Dozens of decisions and executive orders, even more statements and extended interviews - he has dominated the global news space and is ready for decisive action.

The absolute priority of the new Administration is ending the war in Ukraine. Is a swift peace possible, and how long-lasting might it be? Senior fellow and adviser at the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), British writer and journalist Edward Lucas answered these and other questions in an exclusive interview with Sestry.

A spring truce

Maryna Stepanenko: According to The Independent, Donald Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine by spring. How realistic is such a plan?

Edward Lucas: I do not think even Trump himself seriously believes he can end the war by spring. He may be able to initiate some negotiations. Perhaps he will manage to alter the current parameters of the war, but he will not end it.

The US president has repeatedly stated that he will exert pressure on Moscow, including through sanctions, should the Kremlin refuse to negotiate. We can see that the first threat - lowering the price of oil - has already begun to materialise. Trump said that reducing prices would affect Putin’s ability to finance the war. How effective could this approach be, considering Russia’s ability to diversify its energy exports, for example, to China or India?

A collapse in oil prices is a good idea in terms of increasing economic pressure on Putin. However, I doubt that it will be a decisive factor. I think the Russian economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience, both in terms of physical endurance against Ukrainian attacks on infrastructure and in terms of its export stability, import substitution capability, and overall ability to cope with sanctions. Thus, I would be surprised if low oil prices forced Putin to the negotiating table in a weak position. Nevertheless, I still consider it a good move.

Do you believe that Trump’s «carrot-and-stick» strategy - combining pressure on Moscow with open offers of negotiations - could force Putin to make concessions?

It is possible if you have the right sticks and the right carrots, but I am not an optimist.

I believe there is a significant risk of wishful thinking. It is entirely possible that Putin will irritate Trump to such an extent that the latter will return to supporting Ukraine with all the necessary weaponry, apply real pressure on Russia, and deal the Kremlin a decisive defeat on the battlefield. We would all be delighted by this, but I think the chances of it happening are rather low.

It is more likely that America will huff and puff but will not fundamentally change the situation. I think it is quite probable that Trump will tell the Europeans: «If you are so concerned about Ukraine, then fix the situation yourselves». Meaning they will have to provide more money and weapons instead of coming to the United States expecting Washington to solve all their problems.

This fully aligns with Trump’s worldview. He needs one major deal in the coming months because he wants to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. And this could be a deal that at least temporarily halts Russia’s war against Ukraine

However, it could also be a deal between the Israelis and major Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. Thus, he is searching for a large-scale agreement, but it does not necessarily have to involve Ukraine. And I believe that a peace deal concerning Ukraine will be much harder to achieve than one in the Middle East.

So, if the new Administration fails to make progress in resolving the war in Ukraine in the coming months, what are the most likely scenarios? Could Washington lose interest? 

If Trump does not consider European security important for America and believes that Europeans should handle it themselves, then Ukraine, as a key issue of European security, may fall out of his agenda.

Europeans will have to make considerable efforts to convince Trump of Europe’s importance, as he perceives it rather negatively and seeks to exert pressure for economic and business reasons

Could one imagine Trump addressing Congress to request another 100 billion dollars for Ukraine? It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. Therefore, large volumes of American aid for Ukraine this year seem unrealistic. 

At the same time, Putin believes he has the advantage on the battlefield and that the West is losing unity. He sees a gradual decline in morale in Ukraine and is not inclined to negotiate. If he is convinced he can win by military means, why would he agree to talks? 

Coincidentally, in Putin’s recent statements, we hear that Russia is supposedly ready for negotiations. The Russian president is also flattering Trump, speaking about his «good relations» with the current US president. What signals is Moscow thus sending to the White House? 

I do not consider Putin an idiot. And he knows it is important not to offend Trump. Of course, he will say he is ready for negotiations. 

However, I do not believe that Russia currently sees a need for serious negotiations. I suspect that Putin will sit at the negotiating table and say: «We want a demilitarised Ukraine. We want guarantees that you will never join NATO». And another two or three demands, including the incorporation of temporarily occupied territories into Russia. 

Would Trump consider this unacceptable? Perhaps not. Would Ukrainians consider it unacceptable? Almost certainly. Would Europeans be willing to support Ukrainians in their continued resistance? Possibly. But I am not sure.

But I believe that this is the most likely scenario. From Ukraine’s perspective, we will see quite an unreasonable negotiating position from Putin. And this is not the same as the beginning of real negotiations

What can Ukraine do?

Trump has said he is ready to meet with Putin at any time. Is there a risk that Ukraine’s fate could be decided behind Kyiv’s back? 

There is always a risk of another Yalta (referring to the Yalta Conference of 1945, when the leaders of the USA (Roosevelt), the UK (Churchill) and the USSR (Stalin) determined the post-war world order, effectively dividing Europe into spheres of influence, leading to Soviet control over Eastern Europe, - Edit.). Trump may want to humiliate Europe and declare that he has decided everything, forcing others to accept his deal.

To prevent this, Ukraine and Europe must act as one entity and clearly state that they will not accept an agreement between Trump and Putin

Even if the US steps aside, Ukraine must demonstrate that it will continue to fight. This alone will strengthen its negotiating position. However, there are two realities: diplomatic manoeuvres and the situation on the battlefield. What happens at the negotiating table depends on events at the front. 

Ukraine is rightly asking its partners to guarantee its security to prevent another Russian attack should an agreement on a ceasefire be reached. Given the painful experience of the Budapest Memorandum, what should new guarantees for Ukraine look like, and what could ensure their real enforcement?

This is the key question: is a genuine truce possible, and how can Ukraine’s security and development be ensured? This requires strong military and security guarantees, but paper agreements do not work. NATO is not ready to accept Ukraine, and the deployment of 40-60 thousand troops to monitor the truce seems unrealistic. 

An alternative could be providing Ukraine with high-tech weaponry - for example, Taurus or Tomahawk missiles. But is the West truly ready to allow Ukraine to use them at its own discretion? This is a major question. 

My pessimistic forecast is that there will be a truce, but without reliable security. Russia will test these guarantees, they will prove weak, and the situation will eventually become even worse

The «Axis of Evil»

As soon as Trump concludes a peace agreement, a race between Russia and the West to prepare their armies for the next conflict will begin, - writes The Times, citing sources. Given the economic sanctions and the depletion of resources due to the prolonged war against Ukraine, will Russia be capable of competing with the West in modernising its armed forces? Could the Kremlin find support from a «new axis of aggressors» for this?

It is worth remembering that, ultimately, Russia has an economy comparable to or slightly smaller than Italy’s. And they have paid a terrible price for the first three years of the war. However, predictions of Russia’s economic collapse have turned out to be wishful thinking. 

Putin still has many options, both in terms of economic resilience and mobilisation. And as long as Russians believe this is an existential struggle for their country’s future, they will endure pain and sacrifices. Moreover, I think Putin sees that the West is still very weak, and he now has a great opportunity to capitalise on military successes in Ukraine, advance further, and possibly return after a ceasefire to completely eradicate the remnants of Ukrainian resistance, taking advantage of these, I fear, weak security guarantees.

He also has an opportunity to toy with NATO and the weakness of the Alliance’s northeastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states, where we still lack proper defences. There are plans, but no adequate defence capabilities. This is a very tempting target.

And it is not difficult to imagine that by the end of this year or next - Putin could secure a massive victory in Ukraine and dismantle NATO, making the economic and other pains caused by such a victory worthwhile.

Could a scenario arise in which Trump pressures China to, in turn, influence Russia into signing a deal with Ukraine?

China has a unique ability both to pressure and support Russia. But is Beijing interested in US mediation, after which Trump would take all the credit? Perhaps, if Beijing secures its own benefits.

However, China has no experience in international diplomacy that would suggest an ability to broker major deals. It prefers when Western countries ask it to influence Russia - this gives Beijing additional leverage

Given the trade disputes between the US and China, it is unlikely that Xi Jinping will consider providing Trump with a geopolitical favour regarding Ukraine a priority. 

Is there a tool for long-term containment of Russia? 

The only long-term hope is the transformation of Russia from an empire into a peaceful state. If this happens, resolving other problems will become significantly easier. However, as long as Russia remains imperial, the threats will not disappear.

NATO is no longer an effective response - it is too large, slow, and divided. Coalitions of countries that understand the threat and are ready to contain Russia in different regions are needed. This process should have begun 10-15 years ago. Now we are late, and perhaps even too late.

‍Do you believe that a coalition of willing countries could provide security guarantees for Ukraine? If NATO is not an option, could countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France collaborate by deploying their troops in Ukraine to prevent further Russian aggression? 

A coalition of allies could theoretically deploy troops in Ukraine as a deterrent force, but what happens when the time comes to actually use it? Are the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland ready to go to war with Russia over an Odesa blockade or a new offensive? 

It is doubtful. To make guarantees truly reliable, 100 thousand troops would be needed, similar to West Germany during the Cold War. Europe does not have such resources - even 50 or 10 thousand would be hard to find. 

European allies and NATO simply lack the capacity to mobilise the massive forces necessary to defend Ukraine. They could protect Ukraine through modern weaponry.

Theoretically, nuclear weapons could be placed on the frontline in Ukraine as a guarantee

However, this is associated with enormous political challenges, and I am not sure they are ready for such a level of risk. Without sufficient strength and willingness to take risks, providing truly effective security guarantees is extremely difficult. 

The future of Putin’s Russia

Russia propagates the narrative that its economy is immune to Western sanctions. The EU claims this is untrue. How do you assess the situation inside Russia? How much longer can Moscow sustain its war against Ukraine under current sanctions pressure? 

We tend to engage in wishful thinking when speaking about Russia. It has managed to mobilise its resources, even at a tremendous cost to its own future. The economy is suffering serious blows, financial system problems are accumulating, including a rise in bad loans in the private sector. Yet, despite this, Russia continues to wage war. 

We want it to collapse, so we are inclined to believe it is already happening. However, Russia continues to find ways to sustain the war: it receives drones from Iran, recruits troops from North Korea, and circumvents sanctions through China. Moreover, it still has unused resources. 

Future generations of Russians will be forced to pay for Putin’s imperial ventures. But at the moment, Russia is not backed into a corner. It is likely to endure for at least another one or two years, and even if the situation becomes critical, the Kremlin will find ways to adapt.

Has the West exhausted its imagination regarding sanctions? Are there still powerful tools that have not yet been applied? 

Of course. We have not even used all available options. The West is looking for sanctions that will strike Russia without causing pain to itself. That is why we restrict pipeline oil and gas imports but not liquefied natural gas. We block crude oil supplies but not petroleum products. As a result, sanctions create difficulties for Russia but also open up a business model for those who help circumvent them - from Russians to businessmen in Dubai. 

I would impose strict secondary sanctions, particularly against the «shadow fleet», bankers, lawyers and accountants who facilitate the evasion of restrictions. For example, I would strip them of visa-free entry to the US, Europe, and Britain. If you are a lawyer or trader in Dubai engaged in sanction evasion schemes, then to travel to the West, you will now have to queue at consulates alongside students, nannies, and asylum seekers.

A comfortable life for such people must come to an end

There are still many possibilities, but political will is lacking. And Putin sees this. Ultimately, the West has grown tired, frightened, and distracted - and Ukraine is paying the price. This fills me with both sorrow and anger. 

What might Russia’s economy look like in 5-10 years if international isolation continues? 

In the long term, Russia is increasingly turning into a dependent vassal of China. Chinese companies are buying up assets for next to nothing, investing in strategic sectors, and Russia’s economy is becoming ever more oriented towards exports to China. Trade and investment ties between the countries are only strengthening. In the end, Russia risks becoming a raw material appendage of the Chinese Communist Party - hardly the future Putin promised his citizens.

Cover photo: Deposit/East News 

The project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation under the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

In January, another group assembled by Russian special services was discovered in Poland. It attempted to influence Polish elections by spreading disinformation. However, Moscow exerts its influence over European countries not only through such tools. As a result, pro-Russian sentiments in Europe are strengthening, and far-right political parties are gaining increasingly strong positions.

German politician («Alliance 90/The Greens»), MEP (2004-2019) and Vice Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Rebecca Harms, gave an exclusive interview to Sestry, discussing the biggest challenges the EU faces due to Russia’s actions and whether Europe is doing enough to counter them.

Russia’s Influence in Europe

‍Maryna Stepanenko: In June, the EU banned European political parties, think tanks and other organisations from receiving funding from Russia. However, are there loopholes that still allow Moscow to extend its influence over European countries?

Rebecca Harms: We have a new example based on an investigation by German journalists and disinformation experts. We know that since November 2024, a systematic campaign against German politicians has been underway. It is linked to the Russian troll factory once run by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin. Investigators discovered that more than 100 fake websites had been created to conduct campaigns against Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, spreading grotesque and false information about them.

I believe something similar has been happening in most EU member states, ever since Russia decided to launch an information war and support anti-democratic and pro-Kremlin parties across the European Union

Russia is actively trying to influence countries such as Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova and Serbia through economic, political and military pressure. Why is it important for them to maintain a European orientation? How can Germany and the EU strengthen their support for these countries to achieve this goal?

We do not have a magic toolkit for these countries, but much depends on whether there is a critical mass of citizens and politicians within them who can resist. Take Armenia, for example. Pro-Kremlin and authoritarian leaders lost the elections, allowing Pashinyan and his government to come to power. This demonstrates a certain resilience, and the European Union should support it, including by keeping the prospect of Armenia’s EU membership open.

You also mentioned Moldova. Partly thanks to Ukraine’s efforts, it has not only gained the prospect of EU membership but will soon begin accession negotiations. In some cases, external support matters. However, in Georgia, challenges have increased following recent elections. Nevertheless, the European Union continues to use democratic and legal mechanisms to encourage Tbilisi to return to democratic governance.

The rise of far-right sentiments in many European countries is often accompanied by pro-Russian rhetoric. How seriously does this threaten European unity and what actions can effectively counter these trends?

The European Union cannot win this battle against Russia alone.

Resilience is needed, and at times - resistance both in EU member states and in countries under pressure. At the same time, the EU can provide crucial support

We see this happening now, as the EU increases its involvement in the Balkans, as well as in Georgia and Moldova. Unfortunately, in Georgia, the EU took too long to respond adequately to the shifting priorities of the ruling party, which is controlled by a Georgian oligarch. At the same time, President Salome Zourabichvili, whom I greatly respect, also took quite some time to take a clear stance against the government.

The EU has tools to ensure fair elections, monitor voting processes and respond to cases of election fraud. We also have mechanisms to promote media freedom, institutional independence and the rule of law. These tools are stronger within the EU, but citizens of countries under Russian pressure are increasingly recognising their importance.

Take Serbia, for example. We are now witnessing a powerful public reaction against deeply rooted corruption, which is directly linked to President Vučić and his closest circle.

Russian disinformation and elections

Early elections will soon take place in Germany. Have you noticed any further attempts at interference from Moscow, apart from the campaigns initiated by «trolls»? How do they occur?

Recent investigations confirm that Russian-controlled «bot farms» and influencers are actively spreading disinformation through social networks, using both state propaganda channels, such as Ruptly, and direct online manipulation. In addition, influential politicians promote pro-Russian narratives through media appearances. Some act voluntarily, so to speak, on a public basis, while others are likely financed by industrial empires linked to Putin.

The rhetoric of these individuals questions NATO and the EU. However, the full extent of their influence will only become clear over time

Two parties in Germany - the far-right AfD and the new party of Sahra Wagenknecht (The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, - Author) - openly promote Kremlin propaganda not only concerning Ukraine but also against Europe and democratic institutions. It remains unclear whether they receive direct funding from Russia or only indirect support. Meanwhile, within major parties such as the SPD and CDU, remnants of the old camp of «Putin-Verstehers» (a derogatory term for German politicians and experts who sympathise with Vladimir Putin and claim that Germans should understand his position, - Author) still argue that Russia is an important partner for Europe's stability and unity. This position is based on the outdated Russlandpolitik (Germany’s policy towards Russia, - Author), yet it still holds some influence.

Why do pro-Russian or openly anti-European candidates - such as Zoran Milanović in Croatia or Călin Georgescu in Romania - find support among the population? Is it linked to growing scepticism towards the EU or the influence of disinformation campaigns?

Through social networks and pro-Russian media, directly or indirectly supported by Russia, propagandists manage to convince people that the problems in their countries - from healthcare to migration - are the result of poor EU governance and insufficient patriotism from their governments. This is particularly evident in the case of migration. For example, it was the Russian Air Force, not just the Syrian regime, that caused the massive wave of refugees from Syria. The same is happening today with refugees from Ukraine. Russian propaganda manipulates this issue, ignoring the obvious fact: people are being forced to flee precisely because of Russian bombings.

It is astonishing how easy it is today, using uncontrolled media and social networks, to make people believe lies. Europe is facing a problem that is almost impossible to solve

These so-called «social media» are not social at all - they are a hub for spreading injustices and disinformation, which have devastating consequences. However, when they first emerged, the left-liberal camp saw them as a «promised land» of freedom and equality, so these political forces resisted any regulation.

Now, the same people are demanding stricter rules, but it is extremely difficult. Young people who, for instance, use TikTok, believe that restrictions threaten their freedom, although in reality, it is about banning blatantly foolish content. Previous attempts to establish rules for digital media failed due to the resistance of major internet companies. Now, we face one of the biggest challenges - to finally implement the necessary regulations.

Poland has long been and remains one of Ukraine’s key allies. What risks does potential Russian interference in the May elections in Poland pose, and how could it impact support for Ukraine in the region?

Not only is Poland as a whole crucial for Europe, but so is Donald Tusk specifically. As a former President of the European Council and an experienced leader, he is a clear target for Russian efforts to undermine stability. Additionally, Poland is one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and a key advocate for strengthening the EU’s military capacity, making it a priority target for Russian interference.

However, the Polish people must know that their newly elected democratic government, formed through a complex but legitimate coalition, is well-prepared to withstand this pressure

EU energy blackmail

Ms Harms, how successful have the EU’s efforts been in reducing dependence on Russian energy resources?

Compared to 2022, dependence has decreased. At least, according to the latest data I have seen in Germany, the situation has stabilised. Yet, if we had acted more consistently regarding sanctions, the result would have been better and faster.

It outrages me that «Rosatom» has still not been sanctioned. This company was part of nuclear terror from the first days of the war: the attack on Chornobyl, assaults and occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and now - strikes on energy infrastructure, which create enormous risks for nuclear power plants in Ukraine.

That is why every time I read positive articles about the nuclear industry in France, I am surprised that those who admire it do not mention its connection with «Rosatom». For instance, EDF, the French nuclear company, is one of its key clients, and the French energy sector remains significantly dependent on imports from Russia.

How can the European Union counter Viktor Orban’s blackmail, as he attempts to use the issue of Russian gas transit to weaken sanctions against Russia?

I believe that the European Union is capable of compensating for imports from Russia through other sources. Thus, this is a problem or a challenge that can only be resolved if Orban also wishes to resolve it. However, even Hungary can survive without Russian gas.

Ukraine’s EU membership disruption and the risks of prolonging the war

What mechanisms do you believe Russia is using to sabotage Ukraine’s European integration aspirations? Is the EU doing enough to stop these attempts?

At every event concerning Ukraine’s integration into the EU, I feel that this is the best decision I have ever witnessed. Although the EU opened its doors to Ukraine too late, it has finally happened - despite Russian aggression.

It was a bold decision both for Ukraine and for the European Union. We are now in the preparatory phase for opening the first stages of negotiations

Undoubtedly, Russian interference, disinformation and other problems exist. The European integration process is already complex. However, the war itself makes meeting the requirements even more difficult. Thus, we are facing a completely new integration process, and predicting its future is challenging.

We are now hearing many statements regarding the end of the war in Ukraine. Everyone is closely watching the actions of US President Donald Trump. While we do not yet have definite outcomes, in your opinion, what risks does a prolonged war in Ukraine pose to the economic, political and military stability of the European Union?

It is not only Trump who says it would be better if the war ended. In reality, those who have suffered, who have lost their families, homes and cities, understand far better why it is crucial for the war to end as soon as possible. They know this much better than Trump.

However, on the other hand, the conditions for a ceasefire or truce must be such that they guarantee Russia will not repeat its attack on Ukraine in the future. This is crucial both for the EU and for Ukraine

Everyone wants to move on to a period of recovery and reconstruction, but we are not there yet.

In Davos, President Zelensky stated that «Europe must establish itself as a strong, global and indispensable player». Can support for Ukraine be considered the key test for Europe as a global player?

Yes, I believe so. The European Union, particularly some leading states that stood in defence of Ukraine even before February 2022, has become a much stronger player in the field of defence and security. However, significant steps still need to be taken, and this has once again become evident after Trump took office.

It is disappointing to see that, despite all the discussions before his inauguration, Europe was not truly prepared for Trump’s return to power. Although the EU has made considerable efforts since 2022, it is still far from being able to fully protect the continent. NATO is the key player here, and Europe now needs to seriously invest in the North Atlantic Alliance and its own security and defence forces.

This is one of the most urgent issues, in my opinion. Unfortunately, if you look at the German election campaign, this issue has not been given enough attention. Even after nearly three years of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many politicians still hesitate to discuss these critical matters with their voters.

Cover photo: IMAGO/Andreas Friedrichs/Imago Stock and People/East News

The project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation as part of the «Support Ukraine» programme, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

Following the announcements about the next year’s support reduction, Germany sent additional weaponry to Ukraine, among them are new Anti-aircraft weapons, UAVs, rifles and ammunition. But the amount of funds Germany will dedicate to Kyiv’s defence needs in 2025 remains unknown until Autumn.

What is the current mood within the government and the Bundestag? Will the support change, and could the successful raid in Kursk have an impact? Furthermore, how might the latest findings from the investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline explosions affect relations with Ukraine? These and other questions were addressed in an exclusive interview with Sestry by Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the largest opposition faction, the CDU/CSU, in the German parliament.

Aid to Ukraine vs «Nord Stream»

Maryna Stepanenko: The German publication Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAS) reports that Germany will limit its aid to Ukraine in the near future. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already called this information manipulative, stating that negotiations regarding the budget for next year are still ongoing in your country. Last time, after lengthy negotiations, the funding level for 2024 was raised from 4 to almost 8 billion euros. What about next year? What is the current mood and thinking in the Bundestag?

Roderich Kiesewetter: The Bundestag and the government have differing views. The government would like to limit aid to Ukraine, with plans to cut it in half in 2025 and finance it outside the federal budget. This is not just indicated by the government itself, but also by the German Chancellor's Office.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence are advocating for increased support, but Scholz's office has instructed the Ministry of Finance to freeze it. We have an annual budget of around half a billion euros, and debates are focused on the 17 billion that are missing from the federal budget for next year.

And now, to compensate for those funds, the support for Ukraine has to be reduced, especially the military support

This reflects a lack of priorities and a clear position. The problem is that the government, particularly the Chancellor's Office, wants to cut aid to Ukraine for internal reasons. To justify this decision, one could tie it to the leaked information that Ukraine might have destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines. If this is the case, it is not even a punishment but a strange framing of incorrect, reckless information from certain investigative journalists. This does not seem like a coincidence.

It seems intentional that, in the same week when two different groups of investigative journalists try to blame Ukraine for the destruction of the Nord Stream, which could be a covert action by Russia, budget cuts that harm Ukraine are being discussed.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation into the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines suggests the alleged involvement of Ukrainian officials - President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and then-head of the Armed Forces, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi. What are your thoughts on this?

The WSJ article came out in competition with a piece by the German publication Spiegel, which was released a day earlier. Both publications seem to be steering toward the conclusion that Ukrainian officials gave the order to destroy Nord Stream.

The WSJ investigation is indeed puzzling because it claims that Russia was earning billions of euros from Nord Stream, which is not true. Since July 2022, not a single gallon of gas has flowed through the pipeline, and even in the preceding months, only 40 per cent of the promised supply was delivered. So, if Ukraine had destroyed it, they would have essentially been «killing a dead horse». Why would they expend their efforts on that?

Secondly, if Zelenskyy was unable to communicate with the team that received the order to destroy the Nord Stream, why was this team reachable via satellite phone? That also does not add up. Thirdly, there is mention of a person referred to as Volodymyr Z. (in German publications - Wolodymyr Z. or Wladimir S., depending on the transliteration - Author) with a Ukrainian passport, but no one mentions that he could have had other passports, like Diana B. (another suspect according to the investigators' version - Author). She was the owner of the company that rented the yacht «Andromeda», but she also held a Russian passport. She lived in Crimea and is now in Krasnodar, so she is Russian, not Ukrainian. Furthermore, there are no witnesses, there are only secret sources. In my opinion, the WSJ story is inconsistent and implausible.

I do not believe this because if Ukraine had done something like this, it would have become public knowledge and would have caused harm to Kyiv. Therefore, I can not imagine that the Ukrainian government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines or ordered such an action

The former head of German intelligence, August Hanning, previously suggested that Poland could be involved in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. In response to the ongoing investigation, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk advised all initiators and patrons of the blown-up pipelines to «apologise and keep quiet». How do you assess such a statement?

Hanning does not question the findings of these questionable investigative groups, which annoys me, but it does not surprise me. Many former high-ranking officials in Germany have very close ties with Russia and a longstanding pro-Russian tradition, which we need to take into account. Russia uses pro-Russian voices in science, media, economics, and politics for its information warfare and can use them for deeper psychological operations. These individuals may appear authoritative but, in reality, become tools of a hybrid war in favour of Russia.

There is a group in Germany trying to make Ukraine the scapegoat to justify halting support. I can not explain Tusk's role, and we must be very careful not to resort to insinuations or accusations

I know that the German federal prosecutor is very upset about this story because it jeopardises his own investigation - the leak likely came from politically responsible people in the Chancellor's Office. He can not work as he should because those who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines are now warned. And that is where the danger lies now.

If these individuals are in Russia, they are breathing a sigh of relief since Germany believes that Ukraine destroyed the pipelines. Therefore, we must be very cautious with Hanning's statements, Tusk's remarks, and, in general, with any hasty accusations.

Friends of Russia in Germany

The German prosecutor's office has issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian suspected of sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines. Two other suspects are also believed to be Ukrainian. Beyond military support, could this impact other areas of cooperation between Germany and Ukraine?

Those who spread these likely fake news stories about the Nord Stream pipelines aim to end German support for Ukraine, undermine trust, and force Ukraine into capitulation. However, they disregard Ukraine's will and strength and fail to consider the Ukrainian population, which does not want to live under a frozen conflict or Russian occupation.

Ukrainians would leave their country if Kyiv were forced into a ceasefire. This is because, on the other side of the border in Russia, brutal violence is being committed against civilians. Ukraine, therefore, does not want to be forced into a ceasefire, as some in Germany, like the Chancellor and others, might prefer. We must be very careful to ensure that no forces on the ground undermine Germany's willingness to support Ukraine.

We have upcoming local elections in Thuringia, Saxony (on September 1), and Brandenburg (on September 22). In these three federal states, there are forces influenced by Russia: the Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which are partially funded or influenced by Russia. Thus, we must be very cautious about any context that benefits the Russian Federation. There is no direct funding, but people from these parties receive money for their personal interests and work within the parties.

There is indeed competition within our country between those who want to see the strengthening of an international order based on the rule of law and those who support the principle of «might makes right» - the power of Russia - and who see Ukraine as a necessary sacrifice for peace with Russia

But they do not realise that Russia does not want peace. Russia considers Ukraine a legitimate part of itself. Therefore, the Russians will continue the war against Ukraine and their hybrid war against Moldova and the Baltic countries. There will be no peace. This is the imperial mindset of Russia, which is not understood by those who wish to stop supporting Ukraine.

Returning to the budget and aid, if German lawmakers allocate no more than 4 billion euros to Ukraine in 2025, what will this mean for Ukraine's defence capabilities?

First of all, Germany is not the only supporter and not the strongest one. Other countries that provide more aid relative to their GDP are Denmark, Norway, Poland, the Baltic states, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom. So, there are other, much more reliable partners.

Secondly, 4 billion euros are already planned. They will be invested in spare parts, ammunition, air defence, and so on. But there is no room for additional support from the regular budget. Therefore, it is crucial for Germany to provide Ukraine with additional assistance ranging from 4 to 10 billion euros next year. The government claims that the interest rate on frozen Russian assets should serve Ukraine's interests.

However, there is still no unified position on this in the European Union. This issue is absolutely unclear and depends, for example, on Hungary's support

In any case, the entirety of frozen Russian assets already belongs to Ukraine. This does not replace the necessary support from Germany and other countries. Therefore, the German government's argument is a kind of distraction, an excuse, and an evasion of responsibility.

On February 16, the German Chancellor, together with President Zelenskyy, signed a security agreement. On that date, he committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as needed, within its 1991 borders. But that signature is not worth the ink it is written with if Germany does not increase its support, and the security agreement holds no real value.

Kursk offensive and German Taurus

In February, in one of your interviews, you said, «the war must be brought to Russian territory», and that «Russian military facilities and headquarters must be destroyed». Six months later, the Ukrainian Armed Forces began an operation in the Kursk region. What was your first reaction?

It was a sigh of relief because, in February, I demanded that we allow Ukraine to transfer the war to Russian territory, cut off Russian strongholds and supply chains, and strike Russian positions, ammunition depots, and those responsible for the war - their ministries, command centres, and logistics zones. For this, I was criticised by my party colleagues and some media. Now, I feel vindicated.

Such operations make sense from a military strategy standpoint, are permitted under international law, and, if successful, provide operational advantages. I am a former military officer. Before entering our parliament, I worked for almost 30 years in international organisations, NATO, the European Union, and the Armed Forces. I have a good understanding of what war entails and what is necessary to deter it and conduct successful operations.

On the other hand, as our defence minister said, it is quite normal for a country under attack to conduct war on the aggressor's territory. This is an entirely normal phenomenon in the world - our defence minister said last April on a talk show. But when I mentioned it in February of this year, people responded that this was warmongering. I argued that it was a necessity, and that is indeed the case.

Ukraine's operation in Kursk seems both correct and effective. We will see how sustainable its success will be, but for now, it is a significant victory for Ukraine. This is the right response to those who still believe in appeasement with Russia

Germany does not question the legality of the actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region and does not object to the use of German weapons on Russian territory. However, does the Kursk offensive change the opinions of German politicians about supplying Ukraine with long-range TAURUS missiles?

Unfortunately, no, because in the Social Democratic Party, the faction leader and a very important high-ranking politician in the Chancellor's Office oppose allowing Ukraine to destroy Russian communications, supply chains, etc. This is a deadlock.

My party, the CDU/CSU, strongly supports the transfer of TAURUS missiles, but Chancellor Scholz's office is blocking this. The defence minister wants to proceed with the supply, and the foreign minister supports it as well, but there is no political will because a unanimous government vote is required, and the Social Democratic Party is blocking this issue.

It is necessary, now more than ever, to supply several hundred high-precision, long-range strike systems, such as the TAURUS missiles. We also need to enable our defence industry to produce more tanks, more ammunition and more artillery.

However, this reflects a lack of political will and a deficiency in strategic culture and thinking. It is a spirit of appeasement, reminiscent of Chamberlain in 1938, rather than the approach of Churchill. We have yet to experience a «Churchill moment» in Germany. I am working on changing that

Pressure on Putin

In your opinion, how might the Ukrainian raid impact the situation inside Russia?

In the past, we have seen that when Putin has been under pressure, as during the Wagner Group mutiny, he has shown a preference for negotiations. At that time, he instructed Lukashenko of Belarus to help defuse the tense situation. Lukashenko persuaded Prigozhin to stop and go into exile in Belarus, but Putin later had him killed. So, when Putin is under pressure, he tends to negotiate or make concessions.

The Ukrainian raid provides an opportunity to not only create a buffer zone but also gain leverage in negotiations. For example, if there are future negotiations where Russia is required to withdraw from all of Ukraine, they might be allowed to retain the Kursk region in exchange. This could strengthen Kyiv's negotiating position, but pressure on the Donbas continues to mount. We will see whether the offensive in the Kursk region will ease the situation on other parts of the front, forcing Russia to retreat and redeploy its troops.

Ukraine is losing territory and hundreds of soldiers every day, so Western support needs to increase. In this regard, Germany is sending a very negative signal

Negative for Ukraine because Putin sees that Germany is weak in the knees. It is also problematic for the United States, as those who support isolationists, including Trump, could argue: «Why should we support Ukraine when the Germans are stepping back?» The narrative becomes, «This is Europe's issue, not that of the United States».

It would be a major failure for Germany if we were to lose the United States' support during the upcoming election campaign. That is why we need to invest more and do more. Ukraine must hold its ground and even expand its territory, it should continue the war on Russian soil to be in a better position if forced into negotiations. Ukraine needs to destroy Russian military targets such as missile launchers, airfields, and ammonia depots to limit and, hopefully, stop Russian attacks on Ukrainian critical infrastructure and civilian populations.

I see that there are people in the German government who would like to lift the artificial restriction that the United States and Germany have placed on Ukraine's use of Western weapons on Russian territory. We need countries like the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Scandinavian nations, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and others to increase pressure on Putin, as well as to press Germany to do more. At the moment, Germany is increasingly isolating itself in Europe as a country that does not act according to its economic power. We need to do more and motivate other countries to do the same.

After all, when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine, why should Germany benefit from it? The countries that have genuinely supported Ukraine should be the ones involved in Ukraine's post-war revival.

«We should all fear a weak and unprepared Germany»

Michael Giss, the Commander of the Bundeswehr's Hamburg Regional Command, recently stated that Germany must be prepared for a potential Russian attack within the next five years, given its role as a key NATO transport hub. What is Berlin currently doing to strengthen its defence capabilities?

That is an excellent question. Firstly, it is important to note that we are not talking about five years but rather two to three years. Russia is aware that the West is increasing its pace and losing time and resources. Therefore, they will intensify pressure through disinformation, sabotage and preparation for war over the next two to three years to outpace Europe's efforts.

Secondly, Germany experienced its Zeitenwende in 2022 (referring to Chancellor Olaf Scholz's address to the Bundestag on February 27 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where Scholz described the attack as a «historic turning point»). However, that was just a speech - it is already history.

The Defence Minister is not receiving the necessary funding. All his requests have been curtailed. He is getting less money than needed to offset inflation and increase soldiers' pay. As a result, the German Armed Forces lack the support needed to improve their position. This situation is expected to worsen in the next two to three years.

By the late 2020s, when the German Armed Forces are truly at the limits of their capabilities, we will need much more fresh funding. We are talking about an additional 300 billion euros by the end of this decade to modernise our military, but they are only receiving between 5 to 10 billion euros - a small fraction of what is required.

This will reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces and lower the morale of German soldiers. It is a victory for pacifists and the Social Democratic Party, who are deliberately weakening our military. We have Pistorius, the best Defence Minister in the last 20 years, yet he is not getting the necessary funds. He is a Social Democrat, but even he is not receiving the money needed, which isolates him. And that is very unfortunate.

One day, we may wake up to even greater pressure from Russian propaganda and increased Russian aggression. If we do not recover, we could face a situation akin to the second Jena and Auerstedt (the destruction of the Prussian army by Napoleon in 1806 - Author). Therefore, we need to raise this issue within Germany, but our friends and partners must also step up the pressure.

We need a strong Germany, as Radosław Sikorski said 12-13 years ago: «I fear a weak Germany much more than a strong one» 

We should all fear a weak and unprepared Germany because that would be an invitation for Putin.

Cover photo: Action Press/Shutterstock/Rex Features/East News

This project is co-financed by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation as part of the «Support Ukraine» program, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

<add-big-frame>After many months of preparation and pilot training, the mighty roar of F-16 engines can finally be heard over Ukraine. The first shipment of 10 American-made fighters is already performing combat missions, and their presence can be felt on the frontlines. <add-big-frame>

<add-big-frame>Our modern fleet is expected to be joined by 20 new planes by the end of the year. While Ukrainian pilots are training, Kyiv could ask NATO member states about recruiting retired pilots. <add-big-frame>

<add-big-frame>«The deadliest F-16 pilot» of the American Air Force, retired Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Air Force Dan Hampton, also known as Two Dogs, is among those wanting to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression. He spoke about his ambitions to fight and how F-16 will turn the tables of this war in an exclusive interview with Sestry. <add-big-frame>

Marina Stepanenko: Mr Hampton, the first F-16s have finally arrived in Ukraine - how do you assess the journey from a categorical «no» to a definitive «yes»?

Dan Hampton: I think snails move faster, but you know, that does not matter anymore. I wish this had happened a year and a half or two years ago, but now that they are here, the focus should be on using them as effectively as possible to win the war.

Mr Hampton, you are one of the most decorated fighter pilots since the Vietnam War. Over your 20-year career, you completed 151 combat missions in the Middle East during both Gulf Wars. From your professional perspective, what should be the main priorities for the 10 aircraft we currently have? How should we use them?

Of course, it depends on your Air Force and your government, but I am confident they will agree that the first priority should be clearing the skies over Ukraine of Russian aircraft. Once you have air superiority and control your skies, you can move freely on the ground and do whatever you need to do. The Ukrainian Air Force has done a great job and shown immense bravery over the past few years, but I think the F-16s have arrived just in time.

If Ukraine can secure its airspace, it will have many opportunities to carry out other necessary operations to drive the Russians out

‍By the end of the year, the number of F-16s in our arsenal is expected to increase to 30. In your opinion, what opportunities will this open up for us?

The real advantage of the F-16, and what truly frightens the Russians, is that this aircraft can perform so many different tasks, and the pilots are trained to execute a wide variety of missions - whether it is close air support, air combat, or taking out surface-to-air missile systems - anything. So, the more aircraft you have, the more flexibility you will have to carry out multiple missions simultaneously, depending on the need.

‍Overall, Ukraine is expected to receive 79 F-16 fighters. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has previously stated that to counter Russia in the sky effectively, we need at least 128 aircraft. So, my question is: will the promised number of F-16s be enough to impact the dynamics of the conflict and strengthen the military capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces?

Absolutely. I mean, 30 aircraft would be a very strong start. That is roughly the size of one United States Air Force fighter squadron. So, if you end up with 79 or 80 aircraft, that is almost three squadrons. You could position them in different parts of the country, allowing them to conduct various types of missions. This would give you significant flexibility to support Ukrainian ground forces and push the Russians back across the border.

In Russia, they are trying to downplay the capabilities and potential impact of the F-16s on the battlefield. Yet, recent attacks suggest that the Russians are also targeting American F-16s by striking airfields. What does this behaviour and these actions from the aggressor indicate?

Desperation. They are trying to downplay the role of the F-16 because they have not been able to control the skies over Ukraine for over two years. And they know it. They know they can not advance on the ground without air superiority. They tried to achieve this in the first 10 days of the war, but the Ukrainians completely shattered them. So, of course, they are going to say things like that. But who believes what the Russians say, right? I mean, they make everything up. They lie. It is propaganda.

If I were there with my colleagues, flying and fighting alongside the Ukrainians, they would not need to find me. I would find them myself. And I am confident your pilots feel the same way. So, it does not matter what the Russians say

United States Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has stated that he plans to ask President Joe Biden for permission to allow retired pilots to fly on Ukraine's behalf. You have previously mentioned that if you could, you would come to Ukraine and fight on our side. Do you still have that desire?

Absolutely. We are working on it. It is challenging for former officers, but I believe we will make it happen. There is a big difference between a volunteer with a rifle joining the ground forces and a former military officer flying to fight for Ukraine. So, these are political issues that, I hope - really hope - will be resolved very, very soon.

How do you feel about the idea of basing Ukrainian F-16s abroad for security reasons, for example, in Poland? There, you have good runways and maintenance capabilities. After all, Russia has kept its aircraft in Belarus and launched attacks from there.

It is no different. You know, everyone makes a big deal about not using Western weapons to strike Russian territory. But they constantly do it to Ukraine, don’t they? The Russians are using lousy North Korean ammunition, foolish drones from Iran, and other weapons. And, you know, it does not matter.

Regarding the use of Poland, it is a political issue. And since Poland is part of NATO, it makes the situation a bit more complicated. I do not have a definitive answer for you. I think Ukraine aims to have several well-protected airbases within its borders, where these aircraft can be serviced, repaired if necessary, and continue flying.

I do not think Ukraine wants to rely on anyone else, and you should not have to. And if everything goes as it should, you will not need to rely on others. You will get all the help and equipment you need, the political issues will be resolved, and you will win the war.

Do you foresee any logistical challenges in deploying and maintaining the F-16s in Ukraine?

You know, I can not give you a definite answer because I have not seen where these planes are based or what agreements have been made. I know that your government and military are smart enough to think through all of this, and they have had enough time to prepare for the arrival of the F-16s. So, I have to believe that everything necessary to keep these aircraft flying and fighting has already been established.

The United States will provide the F-16s with domestically produced missiles and other advanced weaponry, including the latest version of the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile and the AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missile. Can you tell us what this weaponry is capable of?

This is a very good decision because you definitely need this weaponry, and it makes the F-16s significantly more dangerous for the Russians. The AIM-120 AMRAAM is an active radar-guided missile, which means that the aircraft launching it does not need to keep the enemy on its radar. It can fire the missile, which has its own radar inside, and it will head towards the target and destroy it. This allows the launching aircraft to target multiple enemy planes at the same time, and the missile will do the rest.

As for the AIM-9X, it is an infrared missile with a high range. You do not necessarily need to aim directly at the target. You could be sideways to the target, and the AIM-9 will find the heat source and take it out.

So that is good. This is top-notch weaponry used by our Air Force, and I am glad we are providing it to the Ukrainian Air Force

Despite the extensive support of F-16 weaponry, the United States still prohibits strikes deep into Russian territory from these jets. What could change Washington's stance on this matter?

That is a very good question. I do not understand politicians, so I can not figure out what they are thinking. I believe it is foolish to give someone a weapon and then tell them they can only use it up to a certain point.

And if Washington is trying to maintain some sort of friendship with Moscow for whatever reason, I do not see the point. I do not care what Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin think about Western weapons reaching Ukraine. After all, they are attacking Ukraine with their own weapons and those they are receiving from other countries, aren’t they?

So, what is the difference if the situation were reversed? Russia is not going to do anything reckless, like attacking NATO or the United States Even Putin would not go that far

I would like our government to be less timid and say, «Hey, this is your weapon, use it as you see fit». What are we going to do, take it back? I do not think so. So, I believe that once you have the necessary weapons, if the situation allows it, you will be able to use them as you deem appropriate.

What do you think should be the first target if we get the green light from Washington?

Airfields from which they launch those drones at your cities, and where they base their fighters and reconnaissance planes - that is what I would target. I would destroy the airfields and take out as many of their aircraft on the ground as possible. Again, I do not have the same information that your Air Force and government do.

I am confident that right now, they are doing what is best for Ukraine, and in the future, things will only get better

How effective do you think the training of Ukrainian pilots has been, considering that its duration had to be shortened to record lengths?

Yes, that is true. It was shortened. But your pilots were not complete novices. They all flew MiGs or Sukhois and were already fighter pilots. So, it is just a matter of teaching them to operate a new aircraft, learn new tactics and adapt to new equipment. The F-16 is very different from the aircraft they have flown before, but they were more than capable of mastering it.

I believe they were very impressed with the capabilities of the F-16, and they approached it with great enthusiasm and were very pleased to be learning to fly it. And from everything I have heard from my colleagues who trained your pilots, they handled the task very well.

Was the prior experience of flying MiGs or Sukhois more of a hindrance or a helpful skill during training on the F-16?

A bit of both. I have also transitioned from one aircraft to another, and I am sure they had a similar experience. You develop habits from your previous aircraft because all fighters are different. It is not like renting a car. You can not just jump in and fly. They are all different, and you need to learn each one.

And sometimes, especially if you have spent a lot of time on a previous aircraft, you have to unlearn certain habits and develop new ones. So, in that sense, it was a challenge, but no more so than for anyone else. What really helped them is that they are used to flying at speeds of 400 or 500 miles per hour (643 to 804 kilometres per hour), thanks to their previous experience.

They are accustomed to thinking very quickly and operating a jet aircraft. So, these are all good qualities that carry over from one aircraft to another

Can you share how the F-16 has performed in other wars or against similar adversaries in the past?

I participated in both Gulf Wars (the armed conflict from 1990 to 1991, where Iraq faced a coalition led by the United States. - Author), and while those were not Russians, they were using Russian equipment and were trained by Russians. In both cases, after the first 24 to 36 hours, the enemy air force stopped taking to the skies and engaging with us because those who did never made it back home.

I do not take them lightly. I do not underestimate them, but I do not overestimate them either. They have very significant weaknesses, and we are aware of them. We have the tactics and weapons that we have passed on to your pilots to be able to combat them quite effectively.

If you compare all the weapons for the F-16 that have been provided or promised to us with the best Russian weaponry, who would have the advantage, in your opinion?

The F-16 has the edge. It has a much better radar and can deploy a wider array of weapons that we have, much more effectively than the Russians can. So, I am confident that your pilots have been trained on all of this. They know the systems, they know the weapons, and I am sure they will use them correctly. And Ukraine will be proud of them.

‍In 2022, Russia employed S-300 missile systems to strike ground targets in Ukraine. Now, Russian arms manufacturers have once again upgraded this surface-to-air missile defence system for ground offensive operations. Among your achievements is the destruction of 21 such installations. Ukrainian forces may also need to target Russian air defence systems from the sky. What are the biggest challenges in such operations?

This is a very complex question. The mission of hunting down and destroying surface-to-air missile systems is the most dangerous in any air force, in any theatre of operations. It is far more risky than close air combat or shooting down enemy fighters in the air.

The Russians, to their credit, have always had good systems, and they have many of them. One of the primary challenges in any of these situations is pinpointing their exact location. We have assets in space and other places that can locate them.

I hope that all this information will be passed on to the Ukrainian Air Force so they can use it to do what needs to be done to eliminate these air defence systems.

This project is co-funded by the Polish-American Freedom Foundation as part of the «Support Ukraine» program, implemented by the «Education for Democracy» Foundation

‍

‍

‍

‍