Exclusive
20
хв

James Hodson: «War is an economic action. To wage a prolonged war, a strong economy is essential»

The AI for Good Foundation CEO, James Hodson, shares with Sestry.eu his insights on developing Ukraine's economy during wartime. His projects – ranging from personal ideas to intergovernmental initiatives – focus not only on preserving employment but also on fostering new, innovative technologies. An example of such initiatives involves using algae to cleanse agricultural soils of heavy metals and radioactive elements after explosions

Olga Pakosh

James Hodson. Private archive

No items found.

Support Sestry

Even a small contribution to real journalism helps strengthen democracy. Join us, and together we will tell the world the inspiring stories of people fighting for freedom!

Donate

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.

The conference «Berkeley – Ukraine: Innovative Startup Hub» at the University of California, USA, 2024. Photo from the archive of Anastasiia Fedyk.

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.

A tank in a garden near Kyiv. Photo: FB Luydmila Nishenko

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.

Photo: STRINGER / ANADOLU / Anadolu via AFP/East News

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.

Demining in Donetsk Oblast, 15 June 2024. Photo: STRINGER / ANADOLU / Anadolu via AFP
No items found.
Р Е К Л А М А
Join the newsletter
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Journalist, editor. She has lived in Poland since 2015 and has worked for various Ukrainian publications: «Postup», «Livyi Bereg», «Profil» and «Realist.online». She is the author of publications on Ukrainian-Polish cooperation, covering topics such as economic and border issues, cultural heritage and commemoration. She is also a co-organiser of journalistic initiatives promoting Ukrainian-Polish friendship. She has worked as a trainer for the EU programme «Women’s and Children’s Rights in Ukraine: Communication Component». Her interests include personal development and neurolinguistic programming, among others.

Support Sestry

Even a small contribution to real journalism helps strengthen democracy. Join us, and together we will tell the world the inspiring stories of people fighting for freedom!

Donate

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
Rutte: NATO wants to make Ukraine a strong state. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine

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.

What lies ahead for NATO? Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI

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

20
хв

Former NATO strategist Stefanie Babst: «We predicted Donbas, Mariupol and the Black Sea - but they would not listen»

Maryna Stepanenko

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.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio with National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and US Middle East Representative Steve Witkoff during negotiations in Saudi Arabia. Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Associated Press/East News

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.

What will happen to shipping in the Black Sea? Photo: Ukrinform/East News

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
Donald Trump and John Bolton. Photo: Atlantic Council

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

20
хв

A ticket into the trap. John Bolton on negotiations with Russia and the consequences for Ukraine

Maryna Stepanenko

You may be interested in ...

Ексклюзив
20
хв

How Much Did U.S. Aid to Ukraine Really Cost? A Study by Economists for Ukraine

Ексклюзив
20
хв

«The skills our women are currently acquiring abroad will be crucial for Ukraine's reconstruction» - Olga Luc

Ексклюзив
20
хв

German Bundestag member Roderich Kiesewetter: «The reduction of German support for Ukraine is the consequence of a lack of priorities»

Contact the editors

We are here to listen and collaborate with our community. Contact our editors if you have any questions, suggestions, or interesting ideas for articles.

Write to us
Article in progress