The future

IWONA REICHARDT: You were in the United States during the final stages of the presidential campaign, and you witnessed the results in Ukraine. Were they a surprise to you?

TAMAR JACOBY: I was – it was a punch in the gut. But I shouldn't have been surprised. Now that I look at the results, I think we all should have seen it coming. We told ourselves it was 50-50, but it wasn't 50-50. Trump won by a significant margin. I don't blame the polling – I don’t think that’s the main problem. I think that people just didn't want to see a Trump victory coming. I certainly didn't want to see it. Now we need to accept that Americans have embraced Donald Trump. 

It's hard to understand why exactly. Is it that voters don't believe he'll do all the crazy things he says he will do? Or is it that they really just don't like the direction that Democrats were taking the country? Why this wholehearted embrace? I’m still struggling to understand it. But clearly Americans have embraced Trump, and we are going to have to accept the choice and live with it for four years. 

Speaking of the crazy stuff you mentioned, one of Trump’s promises is to end the war in Ukraine in a day, something which seems inconceivable… 

Yes, Ukrainian social media had a field day with that in the first days after the election: “The clock is ticking. Don, where is the peace?” But jokes aside, I don't think he will be able to end the war in a day. I think he will find it harder to end than he thinks.  

The big question will be what kind of deal does he propose? I'm very concerned about some of the deals that his advisors have suggested. The second question is how will Putin react? The response from Russia in the last two or three days has not been particularly forthcoming. The third question will be how seriously will Trump stick with his proposal? If you remember his negotiations with North Korea in the first term, he gave up after just a few days of talks. 

So yes, there are many questions about his promise to end the war in 24 hours. Also, when he says he's going to walk away from Ukraine – in fact he hasn't said that exactly, but people have read his comments to mean that. We don’t know what he intends. Does he mean no new weapons from the US, or an end to all support? Or does he mean that the US will continue to provide intelligence and let the Europeans provide military aid, including by purchasing US weapons?

Bottom line: there are many versions of what could happen now, and I think people should focus on making arguments that might persuade Trump to do the right thing rather than immediately assuming he’ll do the worst

What do you think success would mean for Trump when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine? 

We don't know yet. Trump is a very reactive, emotional person. So, a lot depends on how it plays out. He won’t react well if he feels that Putin is snubbing him – that could work to Ukraine’s advantage. And he won’t like it if it looks like America has somehow failed and betrayed its ally. So we just have to see. There are many unknowns and many things that need to play out. What’s important now is to try to help Trump see Ukraine in a frame that could be positive.

This gets us to the Trump-Putin relationship. Who is Putin for Trump? A friend or a foe? 

Unclear. But he is still definitely a foe for Ukraine and the rest of the West. And nothing suggests a change of attitude among ordinary Russians. Ukrainian social media monitors Russian social media very closely, and there’s been a lot of talk in recent days about how America is still Russia’s enemy and America will always be Russia’s enemy. One Ukrainian headline quoted a Russian saying, “Same jerk, different face” – meaning Trump is no different from Biden, And a lot of that attitude is fanned by Putin and his allies.

The big question about the negotiations is what will Trump put on the table?

If Putin walks away, I can imagine there would be consequences – I could see Trump hammering him hard. The question is, why would he walk away? If Trump proposes a freezing of the front line and a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO, why would Putin walk away? That’s my biggest concern. But again, we just don't know. 

Also, let’s not forget about the fourth big player – Europe. You have Ukraine, you have the US, you have Russia, but you also have Europe. And Europe has to get its act together and step up. We could see a scenario where Trump backs away but says “Europe, it’s your responsibility”. Europe then has to find the money and the weapons, and step in. Europeans have been talking about these responsibilities since the war began, but they haven't really done much to increase their military capacity. Poland is spending more, but Germany is still spending almost nothing, and the German government has just collapsed. That is why I'm as concerned about what's going on in Europe as I am about what's happening in the US. 

Do you think Europe, and especially countries such as Poland or the Baltic states, should worry right now? Does Trump’s victory mean we are more at risk of war coming to our door? 

The bottom line is that Europe has to step up. No matter who is president of the United States. Even if Kamala Harris had won, Europe would need to get going. It is not enough to talk the talk – “We have to spend more”. Europeans have to allocate the money and cooperate with each other to make every dollar go as far it can. And they have to do it efficiently. There has been a lot of talk, but the train has not left the station. I understand – things take time in Brussels, and it's complicated. But come on, hurry up. People are dying in eastern Ukraine. And this war will come to Europe’s doorstep. The threats are already on your doorstep. And in this regard, I think Trump’s election might actually help – might push the Europeans to act in a way that the situation on the front line hasn’t pushed them. 

Speaking about the front line, and the overall situation in Ukraine, all the prognoses are not optimistic…

It's not good. The Russians are relying more and more heavily on glide bombs, a brutal tactic. They destroy the place they're trying to take, and then they send in men. And nobody has figured out how to counter these attacks. These are old-fashioned aerial bombs with wings, and they're huge. When they hit, they can destroy whole buildings. And that's what the Russians have done – destroyed city after city.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s ammunition is dwindling, and the men are tired. As I understand things, this summer’s mobilization drive has largely fizzled out, and desertions are up. The Ukrainian public is still hanging in there. Opinion polls don’t show much change in attitudes toward the war over the last six months.

Life is amazingly normal in Kyiv. For me, it's great to be back. But people are tired, and I think they are waiting to see how Trump’s election will change the dynamic

Ukrainians are so tired of fighting with one hand tied behind their back, getting some American and European weaponry but not enough and not permitted to use it as they think it should be used. I lot of people are eager for  something bolder – and many think that may be Trump. Many people are worried about him, but some people are hopeful. Maybe Trump will break something – will somehow break the logjam. 

Do you feel the sense of abandonment in Ukraine? Do Ukrainians feel abandoned by the West, by Poland, by the US? 

Those countries aren’t all the same. I think most Poles understand what is going on in Ukraine – understand the existential Russian threat. Most Europeans get it. But most Americans do not get it. They don't understand the stakes or the magnitude of the threat, unfortunately. For most Americans, this war is very far away. And their view of the stakes is more transactional than existential. But even in Europe,  let’s be honest, there is more talk than action. Abandonment is a big word, but maybe it's not far from the truth. It's becoming a lonely fight for Ukraine.

What is America going to do now, during this period when Joe Biden is a lame duck and Donald Trump is president-elect? 

I do not think there will be another supplemental funding package from Congress. I just don't see it. Both the House and the Senate are now Republican and under Trump’s sway. Still, a few things could happen between now and January. 

We haven't spent all the money from the last supplemental, and we should rush to do that

Senator Lindsey Graham has an interesting idea: giving Ukraine the same status as Israel, opening the way to much wider access to US weapons. It's not quite NATO membership, but it's a lot better than what Ukraine has now. We should also be looking at the rules that govern how American defense contractors can cooperate with contractors in other countries.

Many of these are small things, but the point is it's way too soon to give up. There are things that can be done in the US, things that can be done in Europe. Maybe most important is what Zelenskyy and others are doing – thinking about what arguments will be most compelling to the Trump team. All of these steps can make a difference, and we have to go on. The war is not over. Ukrainians are still fighting, and Russia looks as menacing as ever, for Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

Cover photo: 24th Mechanised Brigade named after King Danylo of the Ukrainian Armed Forces/AFP/East News

What is «feminist foreign policy»?

Feminist foreign policy originated in Sweden. Sweden has long been a global leader in gender equality within political institutions, with women comprising 46 per cent of their parliament. In 2014, Sweden decided it was time to broaden its approach. It became the first country to base its international activities on feminist values - specifically, the pursuit of gender equality and the empowerment of women worldwide. Today, the term has taken on a much broader meaning, encompassing the representation of all social groups at risk of discrimination based on gender, age, skin colour, sexual orientation, or disability. Countries that adopt this approach view it as essential to achieving lasting peace and sustainable development on Earth.

What does this mean in practice?

For instance, it means ensuring the rights of both men and women in countries where those rights are not protected. A strong example was seen in Poland when the united right-wing government strengthened abortion laws. In response, the governments of Belgium and the Netherlands decided to support Polish women by providing access to abortion, despite the restrictive ban imposed by Polish authorities. These governments prioritised the interests of citizens over those of the Polish state or its ruling party.

Similarly, support was extended to girls in Afghanistan, despite Donald Trump’s agreement with the Taliban, and to women protesters in Iran.

Since we are part of the Western, civilised world and believe in its values - such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights - we should feel obligated to seek ways to help these persecuted groups, whether they are women, children, or ethnic minorities.

This is the essence of feminist foreign policy.

It has now been 10 years since Sweden announced this approach, followed by Canada and France. More recently, Germany has joined. It is remarkable how this traditionally conservative country is breaking the ice for women's rights.

Indeed, Angela Merkel became the first female chancellor and held the position longer than anyone before her. Ursula von der Leyen was the first female defence minister and went on to become the first woman to lead the European Commission.

At the moment, Europe is not in the best shape when it comes to the strength of progressive parties. In Sweden, despite being the founding country of feminist foreign policy, the new right-wing government has officially abandoned the term. While colleagues from the Swedish embassy assure us that little has changed in practice, it is clear that the name bothered someone. The same is happening in the Netherlands, where the new right-wing government is also moving away from this policy.

The influence of conservative, right-wing parties is visible everywhere. For the first time in decades, we are seeing a decline in women's representation in the European Parliament - 39 per cent in this term compared to 41 per cent in the previous one.

This makes the European Union's gender equality strategy all the more important. For far too long, we associated foreign policy mainly with gentlemen deciding the fate of the world over cigars and whiskey.

When Angela Merkel stepped down, Germans often shared a joke that perfectly illustrates the shift: a little boy asks his mother: «Mom, can a man be chancellor?»

This shows just how powerful examples are in changing perceptions about what women and men «can» do. The child had only ever known a female chancellor, and for him, it seemed natural.

‍Yes, but the few names we often cite as examples are still not enough. The reality is more like a photo from the G20 Summit: Angela Merkel surrounded by a sea of men in suits. In Poland, we are at a point where there is not a single woman on the list of presidential candidates.

First and foremost, the representation at the top depends on who is in the so-called «base» - how many women are at lower levels from which future candidates can emerge. That is why striving for equality in everyday life is so important. Whether I am meeting with local activists or political scientists from the University of Warsaw, the common theme in these discussions is always the issue of equal distribution of household responsibilities, especially childcare.

Is this still the case?

‍Unfortunately, yes. This is still something we must fight for. Otherwise, experts predict that real change will not happen for another hundred years or more. That means none of us, nor any girls born today, will live to see it. This is why the «base» matters so much - how we raise our daughters, and even more importantly, how we raise our sons.

Because in the end, as long as we do not impose stereotypical roles, children naturally think in terms of equality.

And when it comes to childcare, aside from breastfeeding, there are no limitations that prevent a man from taking care of a child just as well as a woman. These barriers only exist in our minds, rooted in cultural patterns and social norms

If we do not change this, we will keep hearing degrading arguments like «a woman can not be president in a country near the frontlines» or questioning whether a man with a medical background can be the Minister of Defense during wartime. Yet, we have such a minister in Poland [Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, Minister of National Defence, is a medical doctor].

And no one questions his qualifications. No man needs to explain to another that he is both a doctor and the Minister of National Defense in a country near the frontlines.

Rebecca Solnit's quote fits perfectly here: «A novel without women is often considered a book about all humanity, while a book with women at the forefront is categorised as women’s literature».

The system is flawed because it was created by men and for men. It is no surprise that this change is difficult for those who benefit from the current structure, the ones who make the rules.

A woman can fly to space just as a man can. She can be president, prime minister, or anything she chooses to be, and she can make her own decisions. It is about ensuring equal access to education, power, politics and the labour market, while also creating conditions that allow her to become a mother if she chooses.

Feminist foreign policy is not about excluding men, on the contrary - it advocates for equal treatment of everyone. That is why one of the tools for change includes the implementation of quotas and parity, depending on the institution and context. This is a step toward normalising what is still seen today as revolutionary.

In Poland, we certainly have a long way to go. Women make up only 30 per cent of all parliamentarians, one of the lowest rates in Europe. However, regardless of the country - except perhaps Sweden - women pay a higher personal price for a political career than men do. They are constantly asked how they balance their careers and motherhood.

And if they do not have children, like Kamala Harris or Angela Merkel, it becomes another source of criticism. Women who reach the top pay a steep price or have already paid it on the way there. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stepped down from politics for personal reasons. Ursula von der Leyen started her political career at 40 after raising her children, yet she still faced years of ridicule for supposedly advancing her career at her children's expense. Men are not held to the same scrutiny. Von der Leyen was criticised for almost everything, «pursued» in ways few politicians in Germany have experienced.

A striking example is Magdalena Filiks. It is no coincidence that the intense bullying campaign, which ultimately led to her teenage son's suicide, targeted a divorced woman and single mother. Similarly, Minister Joanna Mucha admitted she almost gave up when she saw how the harassment impacted her children. This kind of targeted bullying happens to women in politics far more often than it does to men.

However, we have no choice but to endure it, to push through until real change happens. Yes, there will be moments when we’ll face malicious comments and condescending attitudes, but change will come, and the system will eventually adapt.

The creation of the FemGlobal Association is another step towards increasing the presence of women in international politics and the public sphere.

It is clear that the visibility of women in public spaces - as experts in panel discussions or commentators on television - is crucial for shifting public consciousness.

According to the most recent available data, female experts make up only 23 per cent of those featured in Polish media. That is why in our association, we have created a database of female experts in international politics, and we work hard to ensure they are represented in the media. For example, when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, I watched perhaps the fifth program on a particular TV channel covering the situation, and it only featured male commentators. I reached out to the editor and suggested some of our female experts, and it worked. I closely monitor this phenomenon of increasing women’s invitations to TV. It happens twice a year: first on March 8th, and then on October 20th, when they are invited to comment on the Constitutional Court's ruling on abortion. After that, it fades, and we return to the norm, where men are the first to be chosen. Recently, during a meeting at the Mexican embassy, I explained why Poland still hosts debates with only male participants, while in Mexico, such debates are no longer acceptable.

In the report you and Iwona Reichardt co-authored in 2020 «Will Women Save the World? Feminist Foreign Policy», you mentioned war as a threat to the development of feminist foreign policy. Defence and security remain highly masculinised fields.

Of course, security, understood in the traditional sense as armed action and military struggle, typically requires endurance and strength and is primarily associated with men. However, this too is changing; for instance, more than 67 thousand women currently serve in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There is no other army in the world with such a number of women.

What about Israel?

In Ukraine, there are over 5 thousand active female soldiers fighting on the frontlines. This is truly a unique phenomenon that the entire world is observing. It is an experience from which others will also learn. Although, of course, it is immensely tragic, as is any war. Yet these women are showing other women, in other places and in other armies, that it is possible. Others need not wait for war to create the necessary conditions, career paths, uniforms, and body armour that allow women to be fully-fledged soldiers. The United Nations' agenda on «Women, Peace and Security» also encompasses gender equality in the armed forces.

But security is not just about military action.

Exactly, I believe the time has come to broaden the concept of national security and introduce a feminist perspective, as this is an even more male-dominated area than foreign policy, where men also predominate. Security is not solely about purchasing Abrams tanks or F-35 aircraft. A feminist perspective involves the participation of women in decision-making, mediation and negotiations.

At the same time, in conflict situations, the feminist perspective becomes particularly significant, as it is precisely in such times that women and children require special protection.

The importance of this was aptly highlighted by the German Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, who said: «The question is whether families, children in the heart of Europe, in the centre of our Europe, can be safe and grow up in peace. Only when women are safe will everyone be safe».

For our own security, it is also crucial that we know where the nearest shelter is, which medicines to prepare, and how to act in an emergency. The state must allocate resources to equip us, as women, with this knowledge and these skills

The issue of security also includes ensuring access to fast, legal and safe abortion services. This is because we know that rape is now regarded as a method of warfare.

You are also an expert on migration policy. Given the current situation following the war in Ukraine, it is arguably one of the biggest challenges facing the European Union. I am not sure if feminists will save the world, but I fear that migration policy, or rather its absence, might well bring Europe to its knees.

Firstly, migration has always existed and will continue to do so.

However, there has been a noticeable increase in recent years.

Indeed, because the global population has grown, and for some, we have become a destination country. But let us take a look at our families, at our immediate surroundings. Each of us has someone who has emigrated abroad.

So the problem is not migration itself, but the lack of discussion around it. The greatest failing is that politicians, from the centre to the left, are afraid to speak about it, thereby leaving the issue to the right and far-right politicians. They exploit this silence, this ignorance, and this fear.

People have a right to be afraid, to feel uncomfortable. If we do not discuss these concerns and relieve this tension, discomfort will evolve into hostility.

But what should we be talking about?

First and foremost, we should inform. We need to show that migration is a phenomenon that has always existed and will continue to exist. Furthermore, that we, Poles, have also migrated and live in various parts of the world.

Secondly, I believe that schools should be places of integration. They provide a space where both sides can meet. All children in Poland are entitled to compulsory education, so schools can serve as a venue for fostering integration and teaching openness. Moreover, this should be a mission of public television as well: education, combating stereotypes, and social campaigns. Without this, we fall victim to populists and disinformation.

I feel as though that has already happened.

Perhaps things are not as dire as they seem. Hostility towards foreigners must be dismantled through education and experience. The more direct contact one has with foreigners, the less one fears them. Interestingly, the greatest fear of immigrants is found in eastern Germany, where there are the fewest. This is because it is easiest to manipulate perceptions and prejudices in such areas, where disinformation thrives.

Business must also serve as a platform for a positive narrative. Businesses need foreign workers due to a shortage of labour in the market

In Poland, an impressive 62 per cent of Ukrainians found employment within their first year after arriving. This is a phenomenal result on the international stage.

What is the usual situation?

On average, it is estimated that around 30 per cent of migrants find employment within their first year. Another 30 per cent enter the labour market within two to three years, needing time to retrain, learn the language, and adapt. The remaining 30 per cent never secure employment, either because they had not worked in their home country, or they are elderly, ill, traumatised, or otherwise unable to work.

How can such a result be explained? Is it due to a lack of social programmes or low welfare payments?

Firstly, Poland already had a relatively large Ukrainian community, which has helped newcomers access the job market. Secondly, it is a matter of the social group. Many of those who arrived in Poland are highly educated, middle-class individuals with in-demand professions, such as doctors or IT specialists. And, of course, language plays a role, as Ukrainians find it considerably easier to learn Polish than German or French.

It is precisely this narrative - that Ukrainians contribute to our GDP - that should permeate public opinion, rather than the notion that they are living solely off benefits.

Exactly. People just need help adjusting to this, because it is a new experience of this scale, and it is natural for it to be challenging. In such circumstances, we often look for someone to blame, typically targeting those perceived to be lower on the social ladder. Migrants are always viewed as being lower - lower than those from the so-called Poland «B» (a term symbolising the less developed areas of the country, as opposed to Poland «A», the more developed regions), lower than those from rural areas. This is why we need a wise state policy.

We must ensure that Poles feel comfortable and secure in Poland because this helps them accept that others can also feel comfortable here.

This is where feminist policy comes in, advocating for equality, inclusivity and social justice.

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

‍

‍

‍

‍

Mariia Gorska: On July 1st Ukraine began the negotiations on joining the EU. It is a unique case - a country resisting an aggressor is simultaneously going into the EU. As an expert on the European Commission in the 2000s and an employee of the Polish Committee for European Integration in the 1990s, how do you see this moment in Ukraine and Poland’s history?

Małgorzata Bonikowska: This is certainly a precedent. The EU has never faced such a situation before. None of the candidate countries have been in a state of open war. The Republic of Cyprus was the only country that joined while having problems at the borders.

But it was the war that led the EU, as a union of twenty-seven, to make decisions important to its history. Not only did it unequivocally condemn Russia and support the country that suffered from the attack and brutal invasion, but it also adopted more than a dozen packages of sanctions against Russia and introduced joint mechanisms of financial and military assistance to Ukraine.

This is also a precedent in the European Union - joint arms purchases from a common budget, the so-called «European Peace Facility». The EU has never engaged in this before.

This war has put the structures of the European Union into a state of shock. In response, certain measures have been taken that resulted in an expansion and a quick start of the negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova

Processes that could not be moved for years, if not decades, are now happening.

What are the main tasks for Ukraine during the negotiations?

While the war in Ukraine is an absolutely extraordinary situation, the process of negotiations about joining the EU is a standard procedure.

Poland, like other countries that joined the EU, went through this process. It involves a country that wants to join the European Union negotiating to adopt the entire legislative base and the main principles of the EU's functioning. Therefore, these are negotiations in which the position of the negotiating country is weak because, as a rule, this country still has to accept everything in the end.

The only question is how quickly and to what extent. The negotiations are based on clearly defined principles. There are 35 negotiation chapters concerning specific areas of state functioning, such as agriculture, environmental protection, education, the economy and healthcare. The negotiations concern how quickly and to what extent the country wishing to join the EU will adapt to the EU legislation and internal rules.

Transition periods are possible, meaning a slower adaptation. In exceptional cases, exemptions, known as derogations from EU rules, are possible. For example, Malta has additional guarantees against the purchase of property by citizens of other countries.

Where do the biggest problems lie in Ukraine’s case?

First and foremost, it is corruption - a massive problem. It concerns the whole functioning of the state in habits formed back in the Soviet time.

The organisation of the state largely relies on agreements and oligarchy, and society has become accustomed to this. Corruption, of course, exists everywhere to some small extent, including in the EU, but such cases are stigmatised. There is an apparatus to hold people accountable in such situations.

However, these are absolute exceptions and are unequivocally condemned. Upon joining the EU, Ukraine will need to adjust the functioning of its state, relying on strong institutions and transparent procedures.

How long can Ukraine's integration take, and is it realistic to implement changes during the war while simultaneously defending the country?

The EU understands that the war is an additional challenge that places a tremendous burden on the Ukrainian state.

At the same time, Ukraine receives significant military and financial assistance. Therefore, it is important that there is no doubt about where this aid is going and that it is not subject to corruption mechanisms. When we talk about the plan for Ukraine's reconstruction after the war, we think not only about where to get the funds, in what scale, and how to modernise the country, but also how to ensure these funds do not leak «to the side» into private hands.

This is important, and I believe that one of the methods is close cooperation with foreign advisors from EU countries, including Poland.

Before the start of negotiations, the President of Ukraine approved a delegation to take part in negotiating the joining with the EU that was comprised of government officials, diplomats and experts. How important is the composition of this group and what skills should these people have?

Negotiation group is a formal structure, created by the government of the country joining the EU.

Each negotiation area is headed by a deputy minister who coordinates the work of an entire team. This team comprises individuals with substantial knowledge of the areas of discussion. Usually, these are people appointed by the relevant ministries - ministry employees or external experts. Exactly these individuals, using their professional knowledge, must assess the implications of implementing EU norms in Ukraine and their impact on specific sectors. Their role is to analyze whether there is a need for delays or even deviations from EU rules, and if so, to what extent, as well as how to prepare the legal framework in your country for making the necessary changes.

Ukraine is subject to a screening process which involves analysing the entire legal situation for discrepancies, gaps in legislation, lack of regulations and the need for new ones. The negotiating team will provide recommendations on creating regulatory documents that will need to be submitted to the Ukrainian parliament. As a result of the negotiations, Ukraine's legal situation should closely align with the EU's legal framework, so that there are no discrepancies at the time of accession.

This concerns the «Acquis communautaire» legislation, meaning all the legal norms, directives and standards that member states must adhere to. At the same time, however, each country has the right to negotiate a longer implementation period for these rules in particularly challenging areas. In Poland's case, for example, this was environmental legislation, as it set requirements too high for our country's development stage at that time. We joined the EU in 2004, and the transition period lasted until 2017 because we understood that we could not implement all EU standards in this area faster.

The Ukrainian side together with the EU needs to identify such issues that pose clear difficulties and agree on an extended period for implementing EU norms in these areas.

According to expert estimates, negotiations with the EU typically take an average of 5-7 years. However, the war in Ukraine is accelerating Ukraine's path to the West. How long can the negotiation and accession process take in our case?

War and accession are two different things. The war makes the negotiations difficult for Ukraine, though it will not accelerate them but rather slow them down

This is because the EU is already a quite complex organisation, comprising 27 countries with significant differences among them, as well as in their political systems. The accession of each new country poses additional challenges. Therefore, the EU tries to prepare both itself and the acceding country for this moment, minimising the differences. The greater the differences, the greater the internal problems for the EU as a whole.

We cannot allow a situation where enlargement undermines the entire structure from within.

There are many concerns on the EU’s side regarding the next enlargement. We do not want to weaken but only strengthen our community. That is why negotiations with Ukraine will be long and complex. In Poland's case, they lasted five years, and in Spain's case - nearly eight, while Greece had shorter negotiations (four years and five months, - Edit.).

Ukraine is a large and populous country. A large country means large problems. Look at the situation in agriculture and the conflict between Poland and Ukraine over grain. There will be more such situations in many other areas. Even without the war, there are many challenges between Ukraine and the EU, so negotiations will not be easy, and the moment of Ukraine's accession to the EU will be challenging for both sides.

What is the good news for Ukraine?

The good news is that there is a clear will to negotiate and that Ukraine is not only a candidate country but has already embarked on the path, with all twenty-seven EU member states convinced that Ukraine is a European country that must one day be a member of the European Union.

This is very good news for Ukraine. A few years ago, this prospect did not exist. Today, it is a reality materialising before our eyes.

What demands will Poland have in the negotiations with Ukraine? What will prevail - partnership or competition?

Ukraine is negotiating not with individual countries but with the European Commission.

The process is managed by the European Commission and the Directorate-General for Enlargement, which negotiates on behalf of all member states. The main idea is that the EU wants to expand and eventually accept Ukraine.

However, EU countries have different approaches to specific issues related to Ukraine's accession, depending on their own situations. There are countries where agriculture is a crucial aspect of the economy and is strong, such as Poland, France, and Italy, and there are those where agriculture is marginal, like Luxembourg.

Therefore, challenges like the ones posed by Ukrainian agriculture to the EU are crucial for some countries and less important for others. The same applies to other sectors.

Each member state analyses this through its own lens and provides the European Commission with specific comments and proposals regarding their preferences or concerns. It involves preserving the interests and positions of certain sectors and groups - entrepreneurs, farmers, the financial industry, the automotive industry - both in the EU and in Ukraine. Therefore, it is a process of reconciling very narrow details and specific technical issues.

In some respects, the negotiation process may seem like a step back for Ukraine. Due to the war, Ukraine suddenly became part of the European market at an accelerated pace, as the EU decided to help the Ukrainian economy by removing trade barriers. However, this was a temporary measure, driven by the Russian invasion and the desire to ensure Ukraine's survival.

Meanwhile, the war drags on, and we are facing a precedent where a country that is not in the EU has de-facto gained the same prerogatives that member-states have

This also applies to work permits and the free movement of people. During its negotiations with the EU, Poland particularly struggled with this issue, and we were unable to obtain the ability to freely operate in the European labour market from the first day of membership.

The only two countries that allowed us this opportunity at the time were the United Kingdom (which was then in the EU) and Ireland. All other EU countries imposed a seven-year transition period, meaning Poles could not work in EU countries without additional permits and procedures related to their employment.

Ukrainians, due to the war, have been granted the ability to move and work freely. In Poland, they receive a PESEL number, which means they can legally work, pay taxes, and, importantly, do not need to obtain any additional permits.

This would not have happened if it were not for the war.

How can Poland help Ukraine during the negotiations?

I believe Poland can do two things for Ukraine. First, we have gone through a similar process, so we have fresh practical experience to share. We negotiated our EU accession from 1998 to 2003. The people involved in this process are still active today. They can be asked for consultations, for example, as advisors to the Ukrainian government, to make the process as professional and efficient as possible.

Second, Poland, clearly interested in Ukraine's EU membership, can act as a bridge for Ukraine. Not all EU countries have such a clear vision of the future EU with Ukraine inside. There is a will, but some countries have significant reservations about how Ukraine functions and what it truly offers.

For example, Germany has many doubts. So today, Poland can play the role of a bridge, also connecting the cultural and historical closeness of our peoples. We can fulfil a similar role to the one Germany played for Poland in the late 1990s.

They wanted expansion and helped Western Europe not only recognise its inevitability but also see the benefits. Today, Poland can do the same for Ukraine.

What are the main lessons or advice you would give to Ukraine based on the Polish experience?

First and foremost, Ukraine needs to understand that everyone sympathises with it regarding the war. War is a terrible thing. But negotiations are different. Despite Ukraine's resistance to Russia, it will not receive special preferential treatment in the negotiations. It must become an EU member and accept the rules of this organisation.

Ukrainians have become very demanding. They feel they deserve everything because they are at war. This mindset is highly undesirable in negotiations. Ukraine must understand that it is joining a pool of countries that have agreed on a certain way of functioning, and excessive pressure and a lack of compromise will only lead to one thing - prolonging the negotiations.

The quick path to Ukraine's victory is joining NATO. However, the latest summit showed that NATO countries are not ready to offer Ukraine membership now. What should our actions be, and what are the prospects?

Firstly, continue fighting. Ukraine must withstand. No one knows how long - one year, two years - how long it will take. As long as the war in Ukraine continues, NATO will not accept Ukraine because the Alliance itself would be in a state of war.

After the end of the war, Ukraine’s situation will change - the Ukrainian army will be very experienced in combat and will be able to train the armies of the member-states itself. Accession to NATO will definitely be a step that will strengthen the Alliance.

We do not know how events will unfold in the United States and who will win the elections. However, an important part of thinking about Ukraine's future will be considerations about ending the war.

While Ukraine fights, Europe must remilitarise at an accelerated pace to provide Ukraine with enhanced assistance. Everyone here is racing against time, but not only us - Russia too. Look at the impact of sanctions - they have already led to Gazprom having negative financial results, meaning Russia's monetary resources for waging war are slowly running out. The faster their economy declines, the fewer funds Putin will have to finance the war, and the sooner it will end.

At some point, Russia will realise that it is not going to win this war and will come to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the negotiations will boil down to demands for Russia to retain the occupied territories and for Ukraine to be recognised as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

This situation is unacceptable for Ukraine and for the West.

Countries from the so-called axis of evil, along with some countries from the Global South, are helping Russia survive despite sanctions. How do we deal with this?

This is a matter of Western diplomacy, but the news is not so bad here. Look, in our camp, we have Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

Regarding other countries, we must negotiate and cooperate. Indeed, Russia is not alone and has its friends, allies, and countries it communicates with. But these are not always countries hostile to the West. These are often neutral countries or even partners of the West, like, for example, India.

Recently, we saw photographs of Prime Minister Narendra Modi visiting Putin. From India's perspective, this meeting was desirable, but the West perceived it negatively. Europe and the USA must be very active in the countries of the Global South. Not only transmitting our narrative and our vision of the war but also putting concrete proposals on the table that are more attractive to these countries than what comes from Russia.

Russia does not have much to offer, only cheap energy resources and weapons. We can provide a better offer.

In 5-10 years, what Europe will we live in?

It depends on us and our decisions, as well as whether we will yield to the pressure we are put under. Europeans are not used to living under constant threat.

After World War II, Europe, not having war on its territory, became accustomed to the idea that economic issues are the most important and that there are no other threats.

Now, Europeans live in constant stress - economic inequality disappoints people, and the international situation causes fear. Suddenly, it turned out that Russia, which seemed like a normal country, is not. All this is a kind of foundation for anxiety, disappointment, protests, and anarchic behaviour, and all this means that we can be internally destabilised.

Europe has found itself in between two polarities. One - is inner anxiety and disappointment because of the inner and outer instability. Second - the desire to assemble and work together

Which path will prevail and what does it depend on, while Europe is still at a crossroads?

I think people will not want to go back to the past and live worse. Our world is shaped by values, but also by the way of life and certain habits we have - for example, moving freely, living a safe, prosperous life, being together and cooperating in situations of increased threat.

We are going through tough times, and they require the implementation of cooperation mechanisms within the EU and across the entire European continent.

A lot depends on the leaders here. I see hope in the fact that in democracies, there are not just one, three, or five heads, but many, many people who have good ideas. This is much more powerful than the principle of action in authoritarian systems, where everything is decided by the leader and his will.

We can count on many wise heads and many wise concepts. We are already doing this, all because the war in Ukraine has accelerated certain processes. We see significant internal changes in the European Union. NATO expansion is ongoing, the EU enlargement process has begun, the coordination of the EU's military industry has been strengthened, and a Commissioner for Defense has been appointed.

Ukraine is our catalyst for positive change. Europeans have always emerged from crises stronger.

Panels of experts discussed the technological innovations developed in Ukraine at the "Berkeley - Ukraine: Innovative Startup Hub"; conference at the University of California.

Technologies that will be useful during the war, as well as after it ends. No country has had a similar experience in building a special hub where scientists and entrepreneurs come together to create new technologies in a war-torn country. Thanks to the collaboration between the University of California, the Bakar BioEnginuity Hub (BBH), and scientists and economists from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA), Ukraine has had this opportunity.

Anastasia Fedyk, one of the initiators of this project, Professor of Finance at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, Chief Economist of the AI for Good Foundation, and co-founder of the charitable foundation Economists for Ukraine, talked with Sestry about the prospects for an innovative hub to grow in Ukraine and what impact it will have on the development of science and modern technologies.

When Scientists and Businesspeople Collaborate

This initiative started last year when the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy signed a cooperation agreement with the University of California to carry out joint projects. At this year's meeting, other scientists and entrepreneurs from Ukraine joined the initiative, explains Anastasia Fedyk.

Mr. Serhiy Kvit, the NaUKMA President attended the meeting, as well as, Mr.Tymofiy Mylovanov, President of the Kyiv School of Economics. The University of California was represented by the newly appointed Chancellor Mr. Richard Lyons, Professor of Economics Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and myself. From the American side, Ms. Janet Napolitano, former President of the University of California, Berkeley, and now a member of the Advisory Board for Intelligence under the President of the USA, was also present.

There were founders of startups and operating businesses among the guests as well. For example, a British entrepreneur developing gliders (a type of hypersonic weapon) that can play a vital role in the war in Ukraine.

In Ukraine, we want more innovations like gliders to appear

Is this hub a place for collaboration among scientists from different countries? A scientific laboratory? A technological innovation center?

It's about the collaboration between scientists and businesses. It's no coincidence that our conference began with an introductory tour of the BBH, as this center operates on the principle of such cooperation. In our case, scientists develop a concept needed by businesses so it is easily commercialized, and thus, not only ready for implementation but practically immediately implemented. At BBH, this works as follows: a professor with a group of scientists develops a technology, which receives funding from a private company. It still is academic work, as they know how their technology will be used. It is not theoretical science (which without practical application does not have much impact), it is a readily available technology.

The ownership of intellectual property rights is clearly defined — what specifically belongs to the university and what to the company.

In BBH, this collaboration between business and science works like this. In Ukraine—given the circumstances—it might look a bit different, but there is a strong interest in creating an innovation center with this principle of operation. At BBH, the focus is on biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and neurotechnology.

In Ukraine the focus could be on the development of military or digital technologies.

Will the innovative hub in Ukraine only conduct scientific and business activities? Are there any other options for the development of science and technology?

At the conference, there was a panel where Mr.Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Mr.James Hodson, founder of the AI for Good Foundation, and I discussed what the activities of the Innovative Hub might look like. We also identified three levels of its operations.

The first is what we mentioned earlier: the collaboration between scientists and businesspeople to create and implement new technologies needed in the country. Such collaboration is possible in the center that will be set up in Kyiv, and perhaps later in Lviv and Kharkiv.

The second level is programs: courses, training, seminars, workshops, and events where people can meet. We practice this in Berkeley: meetings of scientists from different universities with business representatives.

The third direction is business-oriented activities. These are investments in Ukrainian startups aggregated in this hub. If, for example, American investors want to invest in demining (a relevant topic in Ukraine now), then developing new methods such as using robots is the way to go. In the future, this might become of interest to other countries as well.

Are foreign investors interested in Ukrainian startups?

We have ready solutions for this type of collaboration, that’s why we can act as managers of these processes. Our reputation encourages and attracts foreign investors to Ukraine. Some investors might want to invest in Ukrainian companies or ideas but don't know how to do it or where to start.

If we take a centralized approach and, for example, they invest in us as they do in Berkeley, taking into consideration our experience working with Ukraine, we can propose investments in the joint hub—this will be both convenient and interesting for them.

Can we already be certain that American investors are willing to operate in Ukraine?

Yes.

At our conference there was an investor who admitted he was interested in opening a fund and investing in Ukraine.

I would like to mention that hubs flourish due to cooperation between investment and business. That is also level three of the hub’s operations. How was it with BBH? They first opened the hub. They received grants and facilities. Currently, there are 35 partner companies (since these are neuro- and biotechnologies, these are mainly laboratories). And there is already investor interest in putting funds into these companies. They are indeed cherry-picked. They cooperate with scientists, and businesspeople want to invest in them.

In my opinion, this combination works best: having infrastructure, programs that help businesses grow and expand, and the ability to invest in this business—it is the definition of sustainable.

As for investors, we plan to involve the International Monetary Fund, USAID, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Center for Private Enterprise in this hub because their representatives expressed high interest in the entire initiative.

“We want to provide Ukraine with as many resources as possible”

Should the investments come mostly during or after the war?

Why should we wait for the war to end? Innovations are needed now. For example, what startups in the USA come up with in the field of mine clearance is not cutting edge anymore. Someone has already come up with something better in Mykolaiv.
Demining and drones are developing best in eastern Ukraine. I think that within a year, such a hub will appear in Kyiv.

You have been researching this for years. Are there enough scientists now to develop and implement such innovations? How severely has the war impacted this sector of science?

We are keen to support Ukrainian scientists. During the conference, we talked about the scholarships that Ukrainian researchers have received. The way I see it, inviting Ukrainian scientists to the USA for a year or more is not very effective. First, they fall out of their environment, and second, they often decide to stay here to work and live. Our goal is to help Ukrainian scientists develop in Ukraine and make scientific discoveries for Ukraine. We aim to provide your country with as many resources as possible. Various kinds.

Many scientists have left Ukraine: they found remote jobs or moved within the country, from Kharkiv to Kyiv or Lviv. But those who stayed are working very effectively. Compared to how the system usually works—in times of peace, when
everyone feels pretty comfortable and calm, and innovation might come at slower paces—now that need is quite dire. For example, the destruction of the energy system in Ukraine. It's not just a matter of rebuilding;—it can potentially lead to creating new, state-of-the-art, energy-saving, eco-friendly technologies.

There are such people in Ukraine—a select few for now, but they are effective and impressive in what they do

If Ukrainians want to win this war, they need to start doing things they have never done before...

We noticed this in the first months of the war when everyone was already working on something and had lots of ideas.

Isn’t it how the Economists for Ukraine Fund was created? You raised $1.6 million for various aid programs in Ukraine over the past two years.

Yes. My friends, my husband, and I couldn't just read the news about what was happening in Ukraine—we have relatives, acquaintances, and friends there, so we had to start this initiative, which is now growing. We are still finding new areas where we could do something more.

Your fund is involved in a wide variety of activities....

We couldn't choose just one type. We can help people in many different ways.
For example, the LifeForce platform, which brought together the efforts of many people with a wide spectrum of capabilities to meet real-time needs: food, shelter, medicine, and transportation. People fled from bombings, arrived in cities where they didn't know anyone, had never been before, and had to organize their lives and secure their basic needs. And someone living in that city knows where to rent a room or an apartment, find food for children, or even deliver medical equipment—and on our platform, these people met, exchanged necessary items, and helped each other.

Then financial donors appeared, who paid for the delivery of medicine to the elderly or disabled, single mothers, bought necessary items, and distributed them through a network of volunteers.
Let’s not forget about Svidok.org. This platform preserves the living memories of Ukrainians about the war. Anyone can go online and leave their story—anonymously or not. It is important to preserve these stories for the future, for historians, psychologists, and researchers who will work with the materials from this war. The stories of people from occupied territories are particularly moving. It is pain, horror, and at the same time, courage to talk about it.
This is a unique experience. For example, participants and survivors of WWII were mostly written after the war. But on Svidok.org, anyone can write in real time. Our feelings and memories change. Over time, they either become less intense, embellished, or entirely fade away. We want to preserve these impressions as they are now.

Photo: Tetiana Rudenko

The «Green Border» by Polish director Agnieszka Holland was released in Ukrainian cinemas. It premiered last year at the 80th Venice International Film Festival. The «Green Border» film received a special award from the jury. It was also given the title of the best Polish movie of the year. Mariia Gorska, the chief editor of the Sestry.eu portal, met with Agnieszka Holland on the eve of the movie’s premiere at the Venice festival. To your attention - an interview with the outstanding Polish film director, that was first published on the portal on September 22 2023.

We’re meeting in Lady Agnieska’s old apartment in Warsaw. A live legend opens the doors for me. I brought white lilies to thank her for the movie about Holodomor [«The Price of Truth» premiered in February 2019 at the Berlin International Film Festival. - Edit]. We sat at a table underneath the painting «Saturn Devouring His Son» by Francisco Goya. I show Lady Holland the movie trailer that I brought on a flash drive from Ukraine. This is a part of the working material for the film saga about the writer Stanisław Vincenz - Homer of the Hutsuls. We were filming this movie in the Carpathians with a Polish-Ukrainian team before the war. 

From the Polish side, Lady Holland’s friends were working on the movie about the author of the Hutsul epic «On the High Uplands» - among them were film director Jan Kidawa-Błoński, camera operator Łukasz Hutt and other artists. I often see their group photos from protests for democracy in Warsaw on Facebook. Oleg Drach was supposed to play Vincenz in our movie. He also appears in Holland’s latest movie «Green Border». We watch the trailer for the movie about Vincenz where I’m playing as his wife. In the finale, we are fleeing by foot through the snowy Carpathian mountains from the Soviet occupation with our children and a suitcase. I’m thinking about the plans impeded by the war and all the displaced people like me.

We’re drinking strong black coffee, eating chocolate and talking. About tyrants and the nature of evil, about Ukrainian cinematography and helping the people on the frontlines. And also about the movie by the prominent director, «Green Border» which tells the story of how Putin and Lukashenko used migrants as weapons.

Mariia Gorska: Your previous film - «The Price of Truth» - is about a journalist who wanted to tell the world the truth about Holodomor in Ukraine  more than anything. During the filming of «Green Border» you’ve worked as a journalist yourself. In preparation for the film, your team conducted hundreds of interviews with activists, border security, doctors, policemen and refugees. What’s it like to work on a problem that we’re still seeing on news reports on our TV screens?

‍Agnieszka Holland: From this point of view, this is a unique movie. Usually, artistic films tell stories about things that have already happened, that have been «frozen in amber», so to speak. Obviously, the situation is different in the case of the full-scale invasion - both today and back when the war started in Donbas after the annexation of Crimea. Ukrainian filmmakers were quick to react to that. I have had the impression that the world is standing on the edge of an abyss for a long time now. And if we don’t build a bridge over this void we will fall into it.

I’m just doing what I do best - movies that display danger, are shocking and impressive, movies that enable the viewer to understand and experience something on a deeper level

What issues, important for the viewer and for you as an artist, are raised in «Green Border»?

It is taboo to talk about what’s happening on the border between Poland and Belarus. Terrible things are happening there that cast Polish official services in a less than favorable light. We on the other hand talk about it aloud. It is about the fear of the «Other», who will suddenly come and disrupt our comfort zone. We fear such people, we fear the unfamiliar, we fear poverty, we fear otherness - different skin colour, different religion, different smells. We fear that they (refugees) will come and take away our comfort, our habits, our culture.

This fear is so potent that populist politicians, who are oftentimes autocratic and even totalitarian like Putin, exploit it.  He sensed that the European Union is wealthy, rich and somewhat lazy - and it's very easy to destabilise it with this refugee threat. Populist politicians say: «We will stop them! But others (the opposition) will let them in and then this horde will overwhelm you! And these are terrible people - they spread germs and parasites, they hate women, they rape, they are pedophiles, zoophiles, terrorists.»

These migrants are so dehumanised that they cease to be seen as human beings in the eyes of many nations. And in such a situation, anything can be done to them, isn’t that so? We have already gone through this in the past and the recent history. When someone is not seen as human to us, but just as a cockroach, it becomes no problem to destroy them. This is what I’m afraid of.

I'm afraid that if we don't stop now, we'll be moving towards acceptance of extinction. That's what my movie is about

This movie caused an outrage in Polish mass media…

During the time of PiS (Law and Justice) government, state media didn't like me. They said, "The script was written by Putin and directed by Lukashenko," suggesting that I serve Putin and Lukashenko. To some extent, it's true because the script for this story was indeed written by Putin and Lukashenko directed it. Representatives of the free world in the European Union, like us, are assigned certain roles – just like refugees. However, the question remains open: which roles will we choose and whom will we play in this terrible mystery?

150 million people are fleeing from war, climate change and starvation - they are knocking on Europe’s door. What could be done to resolve this situation?

There are two options: either we become mass murderers, start bombing the boats in the Mediterranean Sea, install machine guns at the Belarussian border and start shooting, or we come up with something that will enable us to coexist and help each other.

The Poles have opened their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians who were fleeing the Russian war. What is your view on this?

The Poles were profoundly emotional when the full-scale invasion began.

People weren’t helping just to post photos on Instagram; they genuinely invested their time and money and sometimes even took risks by travelling deep into Ukraine. Many of my friends went there

They transported refugees, body armor for soldiers, medicine and animals. This was sincere and profound assistance that remains an important memory.

And when some PiS politician comes later and says that Ukrainians are ungrateful, I want to slap him in the face. Helping someone and demanding gratitude is a complete lack of class.

Ukraine is grateful to you! I would also like to thank you, Lady Holland, and Poland for your support. Has there been any story that has touched you personally?

We became good friends with Sasha Kostina’s family, the producer of «Pamfir» [a 2022 Ukrainian movie about a man’s return to his home village where he is forced to encounter the smuggling business that he tried to escape from for many years once again. - Edit.]. They’ve lived at our home in Brittany for a couple of months. It was a difficult time; everyone was in shock and had psychological trauma. They adopted a tiny baby from a hospital for premature babies. We were all with that little girl and a very kind and good boy, Timur, who was also born prematurely. I saw their suffering.

I used to be an emigrant myself, in Paris, many years ago. During martial law, I was abroad and suddenly found myself cut off from my family, with nothing but a suitcase. Since I had given several interviews against the regime, I couldn't return. That first year was very difficult until I managed to bring my daughter home. Therefore, I fully understand what such people feel. Those who fled from the occupied territories and have nowhere to return to, and those from Kyiv, Kharkiv, or Odesa, who live in constant stress.

Have you seen «Pamfir»?

Yes, I have. I saw this motion picture in 2022 in Cannes. Very powerful. I have also watched some other very good new Ukrainian movies, such as «Klondike» and «Butterfly Vision».

As an expert at the Ukrainian State Film Agency, I read the script for «Butterfly Vision». Maksym Nakonechnyi is a very talented young director, and Iryna Tsilyk wrote a powerful script. By the way, she is one of the authors of our online magazine «Sisters».

Me and Iryna are good friends. In 2022, we were on the documentary film jury at Cannes.

She probably told you about life in wartime Kyiv, which somewhat resembles Warsaw during the Warsaw Uprising [Agnieszka Holland’s mother, journalist Irena Rybczyńska-Holland, participated in the Warsaw Uprising. - Edit.]. Why does history repeat itself?

It’s because we haven’t learned anything. When I was filming movies about World War II (three of which are about the Holocaust), people asked me: «Why are you making movies on this subject? It’s nothing but history». And I would reply that I make them because I have the impression that this is not just history, that this threat can awaken at any time, and that the Holocaust was a kind of a vaccine for Europe and the world, but this vaccine has stopped working. It has passed, and we as humanity are once again ready for any crimes, horrors and tortures of apocalyptic scale.

Massive casualties, weaponised sexual violence, tortures and murders of thousands of city and village residents - today we’re observing the same things once again: in Izium, Kharkiv, Kherson and towns on the outskirts of Kyiv. What is this phenomenon of Putin and modern Russia, in your opinion? How could such cruelty and savagery be explained in this day and age?

This can only be explained by the nature of evil.

Humanity is inclined toward the evil. Nothing can hold back the evil’s potential if the mechanism is set running even by a single human being

It seemed as though there would no longer be any wars like the First or Second World Wars after the invention of the atomic bomb and other methods of remote warfare. But what is happening in Ukraine right now, what this frontline looks like, reminds me of the First World War. They sit in trenches on one side, they sit in trenches on the other side, advance by a kilometre, mine the area. It feels as though it’s not happening right now, as if it’s not real and as if it’s some kind of a historical reconstruction. 

I have the same impression. The distance in time between today and World War II seems to have shortened with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I am currently reading Remarque. And when I scroll through my social media, seeing photos from the frontline, from the trenches, it feels as if the book is coming to life - pure horror.

And at the same time, life goes on as usual just 500km away. And after the initial strong emotions passed, no one even turns on the TV when the news about the war is on.

What are your thoughts on Putin? If you had to make a movie about him, what would be in it? What makes 120 million Russians obey him?

I think it is due to his confidence and voluntarism. Most of the 20th century’s tyrants weren’t great people. Hitler was a pathetic little manchild, Stalin was some kind of a tiny «beak-nosed» Georgian. I'm not just talking about physical traits, but also about the fact that they didn't have any unusual intellectual qualities. They all had some kind of psychopathy.

I believe Putin could also be labelled as a psychopath, a clinical narcissist. Such people become truly dangerous when they push the button that forces everyone to follow them. Just like the Pied Piper, right?

The Pied Piper plays the flute, and people, as if enchanted, follow him, believing that he will lead them to a place where they will be happy. In a sense, Putin is a copy of Stalin, but he is less interesting than the original. He is a disgusting person who does a lot of evil. The world would be a better place if he were to disappear from it.

There are still leaders in Europe who seek agreements with Russia. Pope Francis addresses Russian Catholic youth as the heirs of a great Russia, a country of outstanding culture and humanity. However, Russian culture is an imperial culture, and the history of this country is soaked in blood. Why are some Europeans still oblivious to this fact? And what will become of Russia in the future?

It’s common among world leaders to think that Russia is too big to leave behind. It’s not going anywhere so they believe they need to find ways to live with it and build relationships in such a manner that it becomes more beneficial for Russia to be peaceful. This was the plan, wasn’t it? Only later did it become clear that they were acting irrationally. All authoritarian regimes, especially those led by one person with a personality cult, do not act rationally. For them maintaining power is more important than the economic situation, the welfare, or the happiness of their citizens. These things are secondary. The citizens of an authoritarian country do not need wealth and happiness. They need to be forced into believing that only this particular leader, only this dictator, will save them and lead them to a better world.

Russia is a terrible country. And it is terribly unhappy. After all, the victims of all these Russian tyrants are the Russians themselves.

What else can we do to make Putin lose in Ukraine? Russia's mobilisation potential is enormous. They are prepared for a prolonged war and to inundate the entire world with the bodies of their soldiers.

A nuclear button can only be neutralised by another nuclear button. The crisis of Western democracy lies in the politicians’ lack of long-term perspective. Not so long ago, it was said that they act from election to election. Now, I believe, they’re just acting from poll to poll. And Putin is counting on this.

The danger is that this could stabilise and become trivialised as a conflict that simultaneously seems active and suppressed. This could drag on for years. But then the question arises: what country could endure this - and how would people withstand it?

This war must end! Not smolder - so that people don’t have to live as if they are on a volcano that’s about to explode

Ukraine needs larger amounts of money and high-end weaponry.  And Western politicians must close their eyes to the fact that these weapons will be used beyond Ukrainian territory.

We’ve received major military support thanks to our friends like the Poles.

It is a «win-win» situation that benefits all of us - both Ukrainians and Poles. And when two sovereign nations work together, building trust and cooperation, the whole humanity benefits from it. This is especially important in the case of Poland and Ukraine due to our geopolitical situation. We share a common enemy and a common threat - Russia. Even if Putin disappears tomorrow, there is no guarantee that another head of the hydra won't emerge, is there? And there are no guarantees that the Russian people will be able to organise themselves in a democratic, non-imperial way. Therefore, we are compelled to cooperate. For us Poles, Ukraine is a guardian of our independence. On the other hand, without Poland, Ukraine will not enter Europe. We are Ukraine’s neighbours and one of its closest allies.

Many Ukrainian women, scattered around the world because of the war, read our magazine. What do you think of these women? What would you like to tell them?

You, Ukrainian women, have every right to fight for your life, your dignity, your children and your future. Do not let yourselves be oppressed and don’t think that you are not entitled to anything. Your compatriots, on the other hand, should understand that in the countries where they find themselves, people live differently. Therefore, Ukrainian women should also open their hearts and be sensitive to the identity, needs and traditions of those welcoming them.

What would you say to the residents of countries accepting Ukrainian refugees?

I would say that you should just help the people in need coming your way.

This dimension of help - human, personal, the most intimate - is the most important, for it builds the strongest bonds

On its course into the EU, Ukraine is forced to develop democracy amidst war. Poland travelled this path a long time ago - «Solidarity’s» victory inspired people on the Maidan. But your democracy is also threatened. Together, what can we do to protect our values?

We should keep an eye the hands of the politicians. We cannot let ourselves be fooled by fairytales, both in Ukraine and Poland. It is difficult because it is much easier to lie, manipulate and spread propaganda.

Politicians are not ashamed to use new technologies and let the genie out of the bottle by doing so. Soon, an ordinary human will not be able to distinguish the truth from lies

Social, not political institutions for truth research that will equip people with tools to distinguish truth from fake news should be created. And people should start doing it while they are still in school.

This sounds like a task for people like Gareth Jones, but is there anyone like that in the modern world?

Of course.

What world are we going to live in after the war?

We are going to heal our wounds and rebuild ourselves. There will be positive reconstruction energy, though there will also be much trauma, suffering and mourning. Europe and Ukrainians in particular will need a lot of optimistic enthusiasm.

It is important that this does not turn into a sense of inevitability described by Timothy Snyder. After the Second World War, it seemed as though the greatest trials were already behind us, but it turned out that evil still lurks among us and tends to its wounds.

It’s true.

Snyder also wrote about twenty lessons from the 20th century on tyranny. Which lesson is the most important to you?

The fact that there is no vaccine for tyranny. The worst-case scenarios will inevitably reoccur.

But you are an optimist! During the last hundred years, humanity, civilisation and human rights have evolved tremendously!

Yes, human rights have expanded. Social groups deprived of all rights have gradually gained them, and now humanity has become more inclusive. It even includes the welfare and rights of animals and plants.

So then, perhaps, we do have the chance to build a safer world?

This is a utopia. We are moving forward in small steps, but it's not a steady march. It's paroxysms: two steps forward, three steps back. Along this path, terrible events take place, suffering, torture and crimes occur. And then we move a little further again. This is not an optimistic path to a bright future; it's suffering and a struggle for every bit of freedom.

All of your movies are about moving beyond boundaries. What boundaries would you never cross?

The boundaries of humanity. We must always see a neighbour in another person. Of course, there are wars, when, for example, there's a Russian in front of us, and a soldier must shoot. But in all other situations, we cannot allow other people to become objects of hatred.

Thank you for this interview and for supporting Ukraine!