The future

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

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

Ukraine, Russia and the strategic miscalculations of the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Migration and war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe on the brink of war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic vision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/East News

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

‍

‍

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

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

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

The negotiation process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace by Easter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and Putin - a reset in relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s approval ratings and another scandal in his administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

‍

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

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

A spring truce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can Ukraine do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The «Axis of Evil»

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The future of Putin’s Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A comfortable life for such people must come to an end

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

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

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

Cover photo: Deposit/East News 

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

‍

‍

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

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

Russia’s Influence in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Union cannot win this battle against Russia alone.

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

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

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

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

Russian disinformation and elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU energy blackmail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‍

‍

Together with experts in combating disinformation, Sestry analysed the most common Russian narratives found in Ukraine, Poland, Germany and Europe in general. They examined how these messages are tailored for different audiences, the platforms where Russian propaganda is most frequently encountered, how to distinguish destructive content, and whether it achieves its goals.

Constructing Reality

Propaganda always strives to construct an alternative reality and aims to make it as simple as possible, explains Doctor of Political Science and Professor at Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Lidiia Smola:

- Let me give an example: for weeks, the idea has been spreading that Trump will prohibit the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Moreover, Trump’s extravagant statements provide grounds for various interpretations. This narrative, this framework about a ban on weapons for Ukraine, is continuously supplemented with informational messages.

This starts to destabilise society, making people think: that is it - Trump will come, and it will all end for us

The fundamental goal of Russians, continues Lidiia Smola, is to divide and demoralise:

- To demoralise the part of Ukrainian society engaged in volunteering, making them think there is no point in doing so. To demoralise those on the frontline, to sow discord with messages such as: while you are at war, those in the rear are having fun. That is, to create conflict between those fighting and those in the rear, between those who left and those still in Ukraine.

Russia is not just active, it systematically analyses all the sensitive points in Ukraine

Propaganda for Poland

When it comes to Poland, the current primary goal of Russian propaganda is to instigate fear, negative emotions and disinformation, says Director of the «Democracy and Civil Society» programme at the Institute of Public Affairs (Instytut Spraw Publicznych), Sonia Horonziak:

- This is achieved mainly through the dissemination of fake news online, styled to resemble authentic press reports. These news items predominantly concern Poland’s involvement in the war in Ukraine, the border situation, and the country’s internal affairs.

The strategic goal of Russian propaganda in Poland is to create a situation where, if not pro-Russian, at least neutral attitudes towards Russia prevail, alongside anti-American and anti-European sentiments, notes Michał Marek, head of the external threats analysis group at the National Research Institute NASK:

- Russia’s main objective is to withdraw Poland from the European Union and NATO, to ensure the absence of troops and bases of our Western partners. However, on the way to this goal, they pursue smaller objectives. For instance, they fuel anti-Ukrainian sentiments to make Poland and its government reduce support for Ukraine.

Do they succeed in this? Michał Marek believes not entirely. But where they do succeed, in his opinion, is in inflaming the issues that irritate both Ukrainians and Poles the most.

Propaganda Techniques

«Stop Supporting Ukraine» - this has been Russia’s main narrative in Germany for some time, notes Lea Frühwirth, Senior Research Fellow at the German Centre for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy (CeMAS):

- This can be presented in various forms: claims about the danger posed by Ukrainian refugees or assertions that continued support for Ukraine threatens the German economy. We also frequently observe content suggesting that supporting Ukraine places Germans under a direct threat of war.

Typical markers of pro-Russian content focus primarily on Ukraine, crafting a particular image of the conflict to dissuade people from supporting Ukraine, continues Lea Frühwirth. Another emphasis seems to be on attacks against the current German government, aligning with Russia’s goal of gradually destabilising the situation in Ukraine.

In recent weeks, Russia has applied a tactic in Ukraine’s information space which might be labelled as «mental fatigue». The idea is that a psychologically and emotionally drained Ukrainian society might eventually accept a frozen conflict and agree to territorial losses, notes Doctor of Political Science and Professor at Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Lidiia Smola. Russian propaganda attempts to place all responsibility solely on the Ukrainian authorities. While there are indeed many questions to be asked of them, the lack of effective communication, coupled with the absence of public and transparent discussions on significant issues, creates a space for Russian propaganda to act, the expert continues:

- And Russia focuses on this. Had the system of strategic communication at the governmental level operated effectively, had the media endeavoured not just to quickly fill the information space with provocative and manipulative headlines but aimed to inform society thoughtfully, the situation could have been different. Another issue is the credibility of so-called experts.

Nowadays, anyone can call themselves an expert, which completely undermines the notion of expertise

In Polish information space, false and fake news is most commonly disseminated online, especially on major social media platforms and far-right internet portals, says Sonia Horonziak, Director of the «Democracy and Civil Society» programme at the Institute of Public Affairs (Instytut Spraw Publicznych). Often, this information immediately provokes strong emotions, portrays the Polish government in an extremely negative light, and highlights events that adversely affect Polish society:

- Disseminated messages often combine partially truthful information or images but provide them with false context. Thus, we see an authentic photograph associated with a completely different past event.

Moreover, the role of artificial intelligence in creating increasingly sophisticated fake images or videos depicting certain events or individuals, often from the political world, is growing

From a structural perspective, disinformation campaigns such as «Twin» are well-studied and usually follow the same pattern, making them relatively easy to identify, notes Lea Frühwirth, Senior Research Fellow at CeMAS:

- For example, if a self-proclaimed news site appeared in my feed, resembling a well-known German newspaper but disseminating only overtly pro-Russian material, I would automatically become cautious.

Channels of Influence

There are several channels of fake communication in general, continues Lea Frühwirth. The first is the attempt to fill the information space with disinformation on topics of interest to Russia. However, it appears they focus more on the quantity of these messages than on their quality:

- To be manipulative, this content does not even need to contain outright lies. Simply highlighting one aspect of a problem while ignoring others, or pretending to be German citizens expressing concern while actually being part of a bot network, is also misleading. On the other hand, there are local pro-Russian influencers who repeat typical Kremlin talking points. Usually, we cannot determine their motivation - they might be paid or genuinely believe in it.

The war against Ukraine is one of the topics used daily by creators of fake news. This is detailed in a report by SCIENCE+, the largest journalistic network combating disinformation in Central Europe. In 2024, no new key disinformation narratives emerged, instead, existing ones were adapted to current events. The report records manipulations around the threat of war with Russia, societal divisions over positions on Ukraine, and the myth of a conflict between «the West» and «the East». These narratives became part of widespread attacks on democratic elections in Slovakia, Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania.

Young people are most frequently targeted by disinformation. Most do not engage with traditional media and instead obtain information from unreliable influencers. This contributes to a tendency among the youth to support radical or populist politicians.

A striking example is Romania, where the Constitutional Court annulled the results of the first round of presidential elections after President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence data showing that Russia had organised thousands of social media accounts to promote the radical pro-Russian politician Călin Georgescu through platforms like TikTok and Telegram. In 2025, presidential elections will be held in Poland. Russia will undoubtedly seek to exert influence, says Michał Marek, head of the external threats analysis group at the National Research Institute NASK:

- But in our current situation in Poland, the Romanian scenario is unlikely. They will not succeed in seriously influencing these elections.

Pro-Russian agents might have an impact on parliamentary elections. However, when it comes to presidential elections, I would not overestimate their ability to exert influence

Tactics, markers, and effectiveness of propaganda

Propaganda typically evokes extreme emotions, explains Sonia Horonziak, Director of the «Democracy and Civil Society» programme at the Institute of Public Affairs (Instytut Spraw Publicznych):

- You should ask yourself why you have not heard this information on public television or radio. Secondly, you should verify this information through various official sources. Most often, such information is not confirmed in any way. Some social networks also add contextual information to certain content, which can influence its perception. It is always worth searching for additional context.

Among the popular tools of Russian propaganda are aggressive rhetoric, threats, intimidation and nuclear blackmail. During the so-called year-end summary, the Russian president reiterated the claim that there are no air defence systems capable of intercepting the «Orieshnik» missile. According to Putin, even the missile defence systems in Poland and Romania would not intercept this missile. However, there is a percentage of people in Poland under the influence of Russian propaganda who might take such threats seriously and perceive other Russian narratives as real, says Michał Marek, head of the external threats analysis group at the National Research Institute NASK:

- Overall, the Polish society does not seem to fear this. It is clear that for many Poles, the war in Europe is perceived as a reality - in Europe, meaning between NATO and Russia. But the threats themselves, the «Orieshnik» topic, are not a factor widely believed by us Poles. Russians have been trying to frighten us for years - with nuclear strikes, with claims we would freeze to death without Russian gas.

So new threats are mostly viewed as just another scare tactic. The effectiveness of such Russian propaganda, frankly speaking, is not very high

Critical thinking

Anyone can fall into the trap of propaganda, says Lea Frühwirth, Senior Research Fellow at the German Centre for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy (CeMAS):

- Human information processing is imperfect. It is not a pleasant thought, but it is the first step to awareness. We all need to establish a basic level of awareness and critical thinking. I would recommend using reliable and authoritative media outlets that adhere to journalistic standards to stay informed about what is happening in the world. Social media, on the other hand, is an information sphere where we must be prepared to encounter misleading content. If you notice something suddenly causing you excessive emotions, it is worth taking a step back and evaluating rationally to avoid contributing to the spread of fake news.

Russian propaganda typically divides the world into «black» and «white», «us» and «them», attempting to impose this division on Ukrainians. A characteristic approach is the emotional pressure - all these visualisations, publications of videos showing killed Ukrainian soldiers, notes Lidiia Smola, Doctor of Political Science and Professor at Kyiv Polytechnic Institute:

- A marker of propaganda is that you are urged to act impulsively and emotionally. For example, you go to social media and see a photo of an unfamiliar person appealing emotionally, for instance, «like this post because I am going to the frontline». And such posts then garner thousands of likes. Why? Because people want to feel part of something important. However, how these pages are used later and what is disseminated through them is rarely considered.

That is why it is crucial to critically evaluate resources and not succumb to manipulative calls for immediate action

For Ukraine, the factor of despair, constantly fuelled by hostile propagandists, is also significant. This is the narrative of an unbeatable Russia, notes Lidiia Smola:

- It works through emotional swings: from a state of sharp excitement to depression, when people write: everything is lost, we cannot win, Russia is winning. In such cases, I always ask where Russia was in 2022 with all its powerful and prepared army, and where it is now.

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

‍

‍

Why do you and your organization show such interest in supporting and even developing Ukraine’s economy? I understand that your foundation supports the charitable organization "Economists for Ukraine," which unites experts from various countries to assist Ukraine in this area.

It is crucial to remember that war is an economic action. What does that mean? You have resources that need to be efficiently allocated to outmaneuver the enemy. Whoever uses their resources most effectively will prevail. A strong economy is essential for waging a prolonged war. People must remain productive, production capacity must be high, and society must function.

That’s why we look for ways to grow Ukraine's economy even during the war and maintain employment levels. One way to achieve this is by creating ecosystems where people can identify problems that need solving and work on them without significant capital or infrastructure investments. We provide laboratories, equipment, academic expertise, scientific experts, venture capital, and funding.

Ukraine's economy relies on external aid, but its defense is funded directly from its own budget. Thus, when the economy grows, more funds become available for the front lines. Conversely, if the economy weakens, so does the front

It’s a straightforward and direct relationship. So, if the Ministry of Economy approaches us with questions like how to increase tax revenues by 2025 or reduce debt burdens, we help find solutions because we have a network of economists and actionable ideas.

We engage in extensive work in the economic field, including sanctions and policy development. Having the right processes in place in society is critical – not only introducing the right technologies but also building the proper institutions and structures for this work.

What sectors of Ukraine’s economy are you focusing your support on today?

I’ve been to Ukraine four times since the beginning of the full-scale invasion – twice this year, once last year, and once in 2022. I’ve observed how the situation has evolved, how needs and dynamics have shifted. Initially, it was mostly about internally displaced persons – people relocating from one city to another. The situation was uncertain, and we didn’t know what to expect next.

By 2023, the situation had significantly stabilized. We could better understand where people could live, how to live and work, and how to build their lives amidst the realities of war. By 2024, however, we see more serious geopolitical shocks: uncertainty in the United States, hesitation from some European allies, tensions between China and Taiwan, and North Korea's involvement  –  all adding to global instability while Ukraine keeps holding on.

This pushes us to support Ukraine in the areas of greatest need, which extend beyond the economy alone. Sestry.eu has already written about our collaboration with the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the Kyiv School of Economics.

During my latest trip, I visited Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, and Vinnytsia. I also went to Mykolaiv and Odesa, as we have teams in all these regions. I try to visit every few months to meet with the teams in person, so they know we’re not just sitting on the other side of the world but truly care and want to see how programs are working. What’s effective, what’s not, what needs to change, what we should consider, and whether new opportunities have arisen.

In Kyiv, we’re opening a hub dedicated to what we call recovery science. Recovery science encompasses all innovations necessary for winning the war and building a strong post-war country. This includes infrastructure, clean energy, demining, restoring hospitals, and institutional rebuilding. It can also cover defense, such as drones, surveillance, and other wartime needs.

The second part of my trip focused on new initiatives. One of these is our collaboration with the Sumy city council to develop sustainable internet infrastructure.

Due to air raids, power outages, and disruptions in education, people in Sumy are increasingly forced to take shelter. Unlike Kyiv, where few people leave their homes in the middle of the night, in Sumy, this remains a necessity. This makes life, work, and education much more difficult in the city. The internet has become one of the primary tools for maintaining communication, sharing information, and understanding what’s happening. However, Sumy has faced severe challenges in ensuring internet access during the war. We are working with Cisco to bring new radio equipment to the city, expand the number of Wi-Fi hotspots, and provide free internet access.

In Vinnytsia, we are focusing on agrotechnology, creating an agrotechnical hub. Technologies from international partners will be consolidated in one scientific space in a region already rich in agricultural expertise. Vinnytsia is an agricultural city, as it has always been a farming region. It boasts some of the world’s most fertile soils – chernozems. It’s logical to tackle Ukraine’s agricultural challenges in a place like Vinnytsia. The idea is to gather all the necessary resources in this city, engage the community, young scientists, businesses, and universities. Vinnytsia is home to six universities, remarkable for a city with a population of 300,000!

We are establishing scientific and development centers where people can come together, generate new ideas, create businesses, and access all the necessary structures to implement those ideas. Often, when building a business, it’s challenging to find the tools, workers, and capital required. We aim to simplify these processes so that people can experiment, quickly test ideas, and bring them to market.

We already have over 100 international technology partners who want to come to Vinnytsia to test their developments and share expertise. University partners are also interested in collaborating with Vinnytsia’s agricultural researchers. We hope to create a very vibrant and productive community.

When do you expect the first results of your activities?

We anticipate that by June 2025, several projects will have already been launched, and the hubs in Vinnytsia will be operational, working with test farms around the city. We’re already introducing three new technologies into Ukraine’s agricultural sector, one of which is particularly interesting.

About the algae that cleans soil after explosions?

Yes, this technology allows for the rapid restoration of soil contaminated by explosions. Explosions on agricultural lands cause several problems. First, high temperatures create scorched areas unsuitable for farming. Second, explosive substances contain toxic chemicals hazardous to humans, such as mercury, cadmium, or even radioactive materials. This can render such fields unfit for cultivating food crops for over 10 years.

Sometimes you see photos of people growing cabbage or beets in abandoned tanks or near them. This is extremely dangerous, as such vegetables can accumulate toxins, causing long-term harm to health

One of our partners involved in the Vinnytsia collaboration developed a technology for cultivating special algae. These algae, similar to marine varieties, grow rapidly in industrial tanks through fermentation, allowing for the production of large quantities.

This technology facilitates soil detoxification by breaking down heavy metals and toxins. Thanks to it, the land restoration process is reduced from decade to three years. After this, the soil becomes suitable for agricultural production.

Ukraine faces many challenges now. For instance, farmers’ fields still have active mines. There are also issues with logistics, safe grain storage, and other critical matters that need addressing.

Additionally, being a farmer in Ukraine is extremely challenging – it’s not a job where one can get rich quickly

Thus, it’s necessary to find balance and create solutions that help farmers, heal the agricultural system, and speed up recovery from soil contamination and the overall impact of war. The idea is to bring as many innovations and technologies as possible to agriculture.

In addition to the open projects in Kyiv and Vinnytsia, our ultimate goal is to establish similar centers in other regions, such as Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, and Kharkiv. This is relatively easy to implement.

By the way, regarding Kharkiv. I wanted to ask you about the educational project you are implementing in this city. On your foundation’s page, I saw a call to support your initiative: only $35 – a safe learning opportunity for children in Kharkiv for one day.

Regarding Kharkiv, we are implementing a joint project with the Ministry of Education aimed at supporting schools and creating assistance centers for children. The idea is to modernize the education system, which in Ukraine has largely remained unchanged for a century. The war and the COVID-19 pandemic have further highlighted the need to adapt learning to contemporary challenges.

Many children are falling behind in their studies, especially in fundamental disciplines like reading, writing, and mathematics. The overall educational level has significantly decreased – by an average of two to three years compared to pre-war times. While there are many educational centers in Ukraine, most of them resemble childcare facilities. They offer a few hours of lessons, games, or English classes, which are helpful for the community. However, we aim to go further – to introduce new, effective approaches to education.

In collaboration with the Ministry of Education, we have opened educational centers in Kharkiv, Sumy, Okhtyrka, Mykolaiv, and Odesa. These centers serve as platforms for experimenting with modern teaching methods. We’ve engaged international specialists in early childhood development, psychologists, and other experts to create innovative approaches. For example, my son in the United States attended a preschool that used the Reggio Emilia approach – an Italian methodology that teaches children to solve problems through collaboration in groups without direct teacher involvement. This approach focuses on fostering teamwork and collective learning.

Additionally, we work with children who have disabilities or have experienced significant trauma.

Some children haven’t spoken a word for six months after losing a parent on the front lines

Yet, after a few months of working with psychologists and other specialists, they begin to open up and talk again. Gradually, we involve them in group activities with other children, helping them share experiences and participate in learning. This is also an important lesson for other children: understanding that every member of society is unique and equally valuable, regardless of their life circumstances.

Our centers deviate from the traditional model where children simply sit at desks and listen to a teacher lecture for an hour – we strive to create an environment that fosters active learning and development.

Furthermore, we are developing educational materials for the Ministry of Education to make new approaches accessible for teacher training nationwide. Everything proven effective in our centers is formalized into methodological recommendations, explaining the necessary resources and including training sessions. We are currently building partnerships with pedagogical universities so that their students can join the work in the centers, gaining practical experience and new knowledge.

Gradually, though it won’t happen immediately, these changes will reach every school because I strongly support the idea of public education. I want to create systems that work for everyone. It’s very easy to open a private school with a new methodology, where only a small number of children will have access. It’s great – it works well, with the best teachers, technology – everyone’s happy.

But real change will happen if we can transform the system on a national level, though this will be very slow. That’s why I don’t claim we can make a big impact immediately, but it’s important that we have a mechanism for change within the education system.

The scope of your projects is impressive – ranging from economic initiatives and demining efforts to soil remediation and new educational methods. You work with city councils, ministries, and commercial enterprises?

At present, we have established partnership agreements and memoranda of cooperation with almost all key ministries in Ukraine: the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Digital Transformation. Additionally, we have an agreement with the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People.

The Ukrainian government is unique in being easier to work with compared to many other countries' governments

Often, interacting with state institutions feels like talking to a grandparent – a slow and cumbersome process. But in Ukraine, there is a completely different approach: a lot of energy and readiness for change. This is driven by the need to survive. We have no choice but to look for new solutions, try new ideas, and implement them.

Although our organization is small, we strive to build as broad a network as possible with various ministries and individuals so they can reach out to us with requests or ideas where we can be useful. Our goal is to respond to needs and help address them. Large organizations handle global tasks – delivering hundreds of generators or millions of batteries, funding schools and universities. We cannot operate on such a scale – our approach is different.

We try to be the "glue" that binds new ideas and creates space for rapid testing. We assist without spending millions of dollars. Our value lies in bringing efforts together, promoting innovation, and finding effective solutions.

Do you plan to continue providing such extensive assistance to Ukraine until its victory?

Oh, I’m sure we will actively assist Ukraine for a long time after its victory. The issue is not only about military success. After the war ends, a tremendous amount of work will be needed to restore the country to full functionality, right? We’ll need to help Ukrainians who have gone abroad return. Estimates suggest that five to ten million people are currently outside Ukraine. I expect at least 10–30% of them to return – that's two to three million people who will need reintegration.

Additionally, infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. Preserving a strong democracy after the war will also be a crucial task. In such transitional periods, a lot can go wrong, so I believe our work in Ukraine will continue for a long time.

Personally, I am also involved in defense-related projects. I invest in and collaborate with companies developing military technologies. To be honest, I believe in only one end to this war: the complete military defeat of Russia. Without this and political changes in Russia, I see no real end to the war. At best, we will have a frozen conflict; more likely, an active hot phase where the roles of China, Iran, and North Korea will only grow.

Without Russia’s total defeat, it’s hard to imagine a happy ending for the world. Despite Trump’s statements, I don’t see how he can end the war by 2025, as he promises. Unfortunately, this will be a long fight. Many of Ukraine’s future resources have already been spent to defend the present.

I only hope we won’t sell that future for nothing by seeking a short-term resolution to the war. I believe Europe and the U.S. must seriously invest in Ukraine – providing proper protection for cities and creating opportunities for frontline advances. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next two to three months.

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