Exclusive
20
хв

Альянс погодився платити, але чи готовий воювати? Підсумки саміту НАТО в Гаазі

Найкоротший і найдорожчий — 76-й саміт НАТО у Гаазі продемонстрував готовність Європи до максмальної дипломатії у спілкуванні з Дональдом Трампом. Генсек Альянсу Марк Рютте навіть запевнив, що не проти, аби американський президент на весь світ показував їхню приватну переписку. Україна, хоч і не була цього року серед пріоритетів лідерів НАТО, все ж отримала свою частину політичної підтримки

Kateryna Tryfonenko

Країни НАТО схвалили підвищення оборонних витрат до 5% ВВП до 2035 року. Фото: Matthias Schrader/Associated Press/East News

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

Останні два роки повномасштабна війна Росії проти України була головною темою самітів НАТО. У 2023-му році у Вільнюсі лідери Альянсу погодились, що Україна може оминути План дій щодо членства, а торік у Вашингтоні зафіксували чітку позицію — курс України до НАТО є незворотним. А втім, цьогоріч у Гаазі на перший план зібрання вийшов Дональд Трамп. Заради нього максимально скоротили офіційну частину саміту, що зробило його найдорожчим в історії Альянсу. Як порахували в нідерландському медіа АD, кожна хвилина зустрічі обійшлась у мільйон євро. Головний підсумок — члени НАТО погодились збільшити витрати на оборону до 5% ВВП. Планується, що в ці 5% будуть закладені й витрати на допомогу Україні. У фінальному комюніке усі країни блоку визнали Росію довгостроковою загрозою і висловили «непохитну відданість» 5 статті Північноатлантичного договору.

Наскільки готові члени НАТО до реального збільшення витрат і як це вплине на обороноздатність Альянсу? Чи планують союзники посилювати військову підтримку України? Чи готовий Трамп до продуктивної співпраці США і НАТО? Чи зміг Зеленський переконати американського очільника продовжити допомогу Україні? 

Альтернативи НАТО нема, але потрібні зміни

Саміт НАТО в Гаазі, перший після повернення Трампа до Білого дому, переслідував дві основні цілі. Перше — погодження нового базового рівня оборонних витрат. Цю угоду про витрати Трамп розглядає й як ключовий елемент своєї трансатлантичної політики, каже аналітик Інституту безпекових досліджень Європейського Союзу Джузеппе Спатафора (Giuseppe Spatafora). Однак важливо не лише витрачати більше, а й розуміти, на що саме йдуть кошти — тобто які сили та спроможності слід створювати:

— Цей розподіл коштів і є другим ключовим результатом саміту — хоча про нього мало відомо через його засекречений характер. Очікується, що союзники погодяться на збільшення загального обсягу завдань на 30% — для виконання нових регіональних планів оборони.

Але це збільшення буде нерівномірним: оскільки США сигналізували про скорочення зобов’язань у сфері стримування в Європі, основне навантаження ляже на європейських союзників і Канаду

Зараз країни НАТО повинні витрачати на оборону 2% свого ВВП. Торік цього показника досягли 23 країни з 32. Ближче за всіх підійшла Польща, яка минулого року витратила 4,1%, а в цьому році націлилась на 4,7%. Самі ж США витрачають 3,4% ВВП.

Генеральний секретар НАТО Марк Рютте та глави держав та урядів НАТО. Фото: НАТО

Більшість союзників, здається, готові погодитися з цією новою метою, лише Іспанія оголосила, що вона проти. Деякі висловилися за довший період впровадження — скажімо, десять років, каже керівник програми оборонної політики та стратегії естонського Міжнародного центру безпеки і оборони (ICDS) Тоні Лоуренс (Tony Lawrence). Водночас національні плани видатків, оголошені іншими країнами, зокрема Великою Британією, Францією та Німеччиною, свідчать, що їм буде важко досягти нового показника:

— Мета полягає в тому, щоб витратити 3,5% на основну оборону і ще 1,5% — на широку безпеку. Основні витрати на оборону зростуть з нинішніх близько 500 мільярдів доларів США до майже 900 мільярдів, що значно посилить потенціал НАТО. Крім того, планувальники Альянсу раніше зазначали, що союзники повинні витрачати 3-4% ВВП, щоб виконати вимоги регіональних оборонних планів, узгоджених у Вільнюсі два роки тому.

Якщо вони збільшать витрати до цього рівня, то будуть готові протистояти всім загрозам, що виникають у нинішніх умовах безпеки

Зрештою, продовжує Тоні Лоуренс, НАТО, безсумнівно, залишається найкращим варіантом на майбутнє, але Альянс повинен змінитися. По суті, європейські союзники мають взяти на себе більшу частку завдань і відповідальності, а отже, і наростити військовий потенціал.

Європі варто пришвидшитись з цими планами, певен український президент. На думку Володимира Зеленського, збільшення оборонних витрат протягом 10 років — це дуже повільно, мовляв, за цей час у Путіна вже буде нова тренована армія. До того ж Зеленський вважає, що російський очільник планує упродовж найближчих 5 років протестувати на міцність 5 статтю договору НАТО.  

Гарантії колективної безпеки

Володимир Зеленський до останнього вагався, чи брати участь у гаазькому саміті — з огляду на те, що в анонсованому заздалегідь порядку денному Україна не значилась. Так само не був остаточно зрозумілий формат можливої зустрічі з Дональдом Трампом. А втім, зрештою Зеленський відвідав Гаагу і з доволі насиченим графіком: зустрівся, зокрема, з керівництвом ЄС та генсеком НАТО. Марк Рютте анонсував збільшення підтримки України: «За весь минулий рік було більш ніж 50 мільярдів євро. Зараз, до початку липня, вже 35 мільярдів. Тож ми можемо сміливо припустити, що річна сума перевищить минулорічну». 

Дональд Трамп прибув до Гааги останнім з лідерів країн НАТО — надвечір 24 червня. Дорогою на саміт, відповідаючи на питання журналістів на борту свого літака, американський президент заявив, що можна по-різному трактувати 5 статтю договору НАТО. Однак вже під час саміту, врахувавши готовність союзників до підвищення витрат на оборону, Дональд Трамп запевнив, що буде з союзниками «до кінця».       

Європа десятиліттями покладалась на американські спроможності навіть поза межами НАТО, тож інтересу інвестувати в альтернативи практично не було, зауважує аналітик Інституту безпекових досліджень Європейського Союзу Джузеппе Спатафора. Але адміністрація Трампа недвозначно заявила про намір різко скоротити свій внесок:

— Ще небезпечнішим є прецедент: на початку 2025 року США тиснули на Україну, погрожуючи обмежити допомогу, щоб досягти власних дипломатичних цілей. Це поставило під сумнів, чи може Європа повністю покладатись на американські гарантії безпеки. 

НАТО обіцяє продовжити підтримувати Україну на шляху до членства в Альянсі. Фото: ОПУ

Ключове стратегічне завдання для лідерів країн НАТО — не допустити розколу блоку. Особливо це важливо тому, що для Росії другою стратегічною метою, окрім тотального знищення України, є розвал Альянсу, пояснює директорка київського офісу GLOBSEC Юлія Осмоловська. Для росіян це важливо і як психологічна помста, і більш практична історія — геополітичний переділ європейського континенту. Тож навіть якщо збільшення витрат європейських союзників по НАТО на свою оборону є важливим аргументом на користь того, щоб «США залишалися у грі», це виправдовує геополітичну доцільність такого кроку. Водночас, говорити про те, що тільки «фактор Трампа» відповідальний за таке безпрецедентне рішення про підвищення витрат на оборону до 5% від ВВП буде некоректним:

— Більшість європейських країн (особливо тих, що розташовані на східному фланзі НАТО) чудово розуміють нагальну потребу у форсованому посиленні своїх оборонних потужностей через загрозу з боку Росії і намагаються активно надолужувати відставання. Втім, для інших — більш географічно віддалених від театру бойових дій в Україні, таких, наприклад, як Іспанія, Португалія, Греція, — ця російська загроза сприймається менш драматично; однак ці країни дуже зацікавлені у збереженні присутності США у регіоні як головного гаранта безпеки і найбільшого контрибютора у НАТО. Відповідно, якщо для останніх погрози Трампа про вихід США з регіону через небажання європейських партнерів «збільшити плату» за свою безпеку стали свого роду каталізатором для їхнього рішення про збільшення фінансування на оборону, це на виході має позитивний результат для Європи

Зустріч на полях саміту

Для української делегації ключовою подією зібрання в Гаазі були перемовин Зеленського з Трампом. Тло для них було не надто сприятливим — переговорний процес щодо завершення російсько-української війни провалився, президент США відмовляється тиснути на Росію, яка натомість посилює ескалацію і тиск на Україну. Крім того, підвішеними залишається низка питань — від того, чи надаватимуть або продаватимуть американці Києву зброю, і до того, що буде з угодою про рідкісні копалини.

До початку зустрічі Трампа з Зеленським світовими медіа прокотилась репліка президента США з закритої зустрічі лідерів НАТО — нібито з Україною потрібно щось робити, оскільки ситуація повністю вийшла з-під контролю. Розмова Трампа з Зеленським тривала 45 хвилин, спільних заяв для медіа не було. 

Американський президент назвав зустріч з Зеленським чудовою: «Це чудовий час, щоб припинити війну. Якщо я зможу, я поговорю з президентом Путіним, чи можемо ми припинити війну». Однак на запитання журналістів, чи обговорювали вони з президентом України припинення вогню, Трамп відповів: «Ні, я просто хотів дізнатись, як у нього справи». А ще Трамп погодився, що амбіції Путіна можуть вийти за межі України. Однак при цьому американський президент однаково вважає, що Путін заплутався і хотів би вийти з війни.

Реакція Зеленського була доволі стримана, хоча він також вважає, що відбулась хороша зустріч. Говорили насамперед про закупівлю американських систем ППО та можливе спільне виробництво дронів. Раніше Зеленський заявляв про наміри України купити щонайменше 10 американських Patriot. Трамп на пресконференції сказав, що пошукає можливості продати комплекси Україні, мовляв, подивимось, чи зможемо зробити частину з них доступною. «Вони потрібні й нам».

Зустріч Зеленського та Трампа тривала 45 хвилин. Фото: ОПУ

З дипломатичного погляду позитивними є і сам факт зустрічі, і її зміст, зазначає директорка київського офісу GLOBSEC Юлія Осмоловська. Проведення такої зустрічі вирішує одразу два ключові завдання: підтримує інтенсивний діалог зі Сполученими Штатами на всіх можливих рівнях із чітким пріоритетом на комунікацію між президентами, а також задає темп і динаміку українсько-американським контактам на тлі певного уповільнення у відносинах між США та Росією:

— Якщо ми говоримо про змістовну складову цієї зустрічі, то була можливість озвучити ті  речі, які для нас найбільш пріоритетні, але також й обговорити питання, що становлять інтерес для американців і де Україна може розглядатися привабливим партнером. Наприклад, Україна вкрай зацікавлена у посиленні своєї системи протиповітряної оборони, про яку говорив президент України, але також на зустрічі йшлося про виробництво дронів, те, в чому американці дуже зацікавлені, бо тут йдеться про наявність в Україні найкращого досвіду втілення інновацій у цій сфері.

Окремо ця зустріч президентів дала можливість українській стороні надати альтернативну російським наративам оцінку війни і дещо збалансувати розуміння ситуації Трампом, говорить Осмоловська:

— Російські наративи і дезінформація щодо того, що Росія тримає контроль над ситуацією і, власне, переважає на полі бою, знаходять свого, скажімо так, користувача не тільки в США, але і в Європі. Це негативним чином впливає на готовність партнерів нарощувати свою допомогу Україні, оскільки вони не розуміють, чи це зможе суттєво    сприяти отриманню Україною переваги на полі бою. 

Саме тому для нас важливо доносити відповідну інформацію до партнерів, розвінчувати ці “російські міфи” у всіх можливих форматах, резюмує Юлія Осмоловська. У цьому контексті, зустріч президентів України та США мала ключове значення. Будемо сподіватись, що більшу частину месиджів американський президент таки почув.

Проєкт співфінансується за рахунок коштів Польсько-Американського Фонду Свободи у рамках програми «Підтримай Україну», реалізованої Фондом «Освіта для демократії»

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.

Ukrainian journalist. She worked as the Chief Editor of the Ukrainian editorial office of RFI and in the international editorial team of TSN (1+1 TV channel). She was an international correspondent in Brussels and collaborated with various Ukrainian TV channels. She also worked in the news service of Ukrainian Radio. Currently, she is involved in information and analytical projects for Ukrainian YouTube.

Support Sestry

Nothing survives without words.
Together, we carry voices that must be heard.

Donate

While NATO leaders reaffirm their commitment to supporting Ukraine, and the EU once again demonstrates the fragility of its unity under pressure from Budapest, Russia not only refuses to halt its aggression but is intensifying its actions - both on the battlefield and in the information war. The summit in The Hague did not result in a breakthrough: promises without guarantees, talk of «peace through strength», hints at dialogue with Putin - all amid the increasingly evident decline in American ambition. Simultaneously, Hungary is blocking new sanctions, and the Kremlin is launching sophisticated cyber operations, pretending the world has already accepted its presence.

On how the West’s strategy has changed, what risks stem from illusions about Russia, what the new wave of disinformation means, and why Europe must take the lead in deterring aggression, Sestry spoke with Keir Giles - a leading British expert on security and Russia, and Senior Consulting Fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House.

Trump, NATO and Russia: an alliance on the brink of compromise and challenges

Maryna Stepanenko: «Peace through strength» was declared the main theme of the talks between Trump and Zelensky. After the meeting, the head of the White House hinted at dialogue with Putin and possible Patriot missile deliveries, but no firm commitments were made. In this context, how, in your opinion, could the formula «peace through strength» be applied to Russia, and how ready is the US to take on a real role in exerting pressure?

Keir Giles: We have always known that the only way to ensure European security is to provide Ukraine with the maximum possible support. So now we are dealing with the consequences of the policy of several successive US administrations that decided a different approach was needed. They are profoundly mistaken, and this causes enormous damage not only to European security and, of course, to Ukraine itself, but also to global security.

It is precisely such restraint and refusal to confront aggression that has led to the outbreak of global conflicts around the world

We are witnessing escalating situations, increasing casualties, and more wars breaking out - all because of this new American idea that confronting the aggressor is more dangerous than allowing the victim to be destroyed

The NATO summit recognised Russia as a long-term threat to the entire Alliance. Photo: CHRISTIAN HARTMANN/AFP/East News

The meeting between US and Ukrainian leaders once again raised the question: what model of support for Kyiv does Washington envisage? Are we speaking about a strategic partnership or rather about controlled containment of the war without long-term commitments?

There is a serious question as to whether a genuine strategic partnership with Donald Trump is even possible. After all, the United States sought partnership with Russia - and even that does not work particularly well, despite Trump being willing to do whatever it takes to give Russia everything it wants. Any country, any traditional friend, ally or partner of the United States must remember that the relationships upon which America’s former prosperity and security were built no longer have any real meaning for Trump. We are in an entirely new global environment.

This means that countries that take European security seriously, and therefore also the security and future of Ukraine, must step up to fill the gap left by the United States. This applies primarily to Europe’s neighbours, but also to liberal democracies around the world that have a shared interest in ending aggression.

Recently, there were rumours in Brussels that Russia might be removed from the list of NATO’s main threats, leaving only international terrorism. This seems strange considering that it is Russia that continues the war in Europe and destabilises the situation globally, from Africa to the Middle East. In the final communiqué, Russia was recognised as a long-term threat to the entire Alliance. However, do you generally observe an attempt by the West to «normalise» the aggressor?

The United States has long pretended that Russia is not a problem, and we should not rule out the possibility that NATO, in its desperate efforts to retain the US in the alliance, may go along with this rhetoric.

We have already seen signs that NATO is prepared to take extraordinary measures to placate Trump: take, for example, the letter written to him by Secretary General Mark Rutte, deliberately composed in «Trump’s language». It must have been extremely difficult to imitate the verbal expressions of a five-year-old child in order to accomplish this.

Therefore, we cannot confidently predict how far NATO might go to ensure continued US participation in the Alliance. But European countries must harbour no illusions about whether Russia has ceased to be a threat, regardless of the efforts of the current US administration to convince itself otherwise.

The resilience of regimes and the fragility of decisions: what will determine the duration of the war

Despite sanctions, battlefield losses and growing isolation, Putin’s regime is holding firm - at least on the surface. Given your expertise, what is the source of this system’s resilience today, and what could destabilise it from within?

There is little chance that the Russian regime will be brought down from within, as it appears to be a regime with which the overwhelming majority of the Russian population is entirely satisfied.

Ultimately, it is a self-sufficient system in which those who have gained wealth and power within it have no interest in its destruction. Therefore, there is currently no reason to believe that Russia will deviate from its aggressive course, despite the long-term damage and the catastrophic consequences for the country’s economy and its population.

Assuming the end of the war is neither imminent nor hopelessly distant, what factors, in your view, might break the current deadlock? You have outlined internal collapse as unlikely, but could it be external pressure or something else we have yet to articulate?

The answer to this question has always been and will remain the same: European countries must provide Ukraine with maximum physical and financial support to help it defeat Russia, by any means available. Not necessarily on the front lines, but also through other forms of support.

European countries are slowly realising that their future is closely linked to the future of Ukraine, and that they can no longer rely on the United States as the primary sponsor of these efforts. But Europe will need to do much more for Ukraine to continue holding the front line and repelling the aggressor.

Russia and Belarus have announced the «Zapad-2025» exercises. In the past, such manoeuvres have served as a prelude to aggression. Is there currently a risk of this scenario being repeated, and is the West capable of responding adequately amid political fragmentation?

People always become anxious ahead of the «Zapad» exercises - this has been the case long before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and even before the annexation of Crimea. And yes, it always creates an opportunity to do something unrelated to the training itself.

But at this stage, when there is already an intense conflict ongoing, should we consider «Zapad» as just another element of battlefield deception, part of a broader deception within the ongoing war, rather than the start of a new one?

Of course, Western intelligence services will be closely monitoring who is doing what and where in the context of the Russian-Belarusian exercises - even in this new reality, where a significant part of Russia’s ground forces is already deeply engaged in Ukraine and has limited capacity for operations in other regions.

«The invisible front»: how Russia is waging war against the West in the information space

Mr Giles, you yourself became the target of a new, sophisticated phishing attack by Russian hackers - disguised as an employee of the US State Department. The attackers used Gmail’s «delegate access» function to gain hidden access to your inbox, bypassing two-factor authentication. This operation likely required weeks of effort. In this context, how has Russia’s tactic in the information war changed over the past year? And what does this say about the new level of threat?

I am confident the entire operation took far longer - several weeks just for the execution, so the planning stage must have begun much earlier.

On the one hand, this new technique, this new approach to gaining access to people’s email, indicates that Russia is being forced to develop more refined methods because its previous, more primitive attempts have failed. For many years, there have been numerous attempts to hack my email, some laughably primitive, others highly complex and sophisticated.

But on the other hand, this new method highlights that we are all vulnerable

The way the suspected Russian attackers exploited a built-in Gmail feature available in every user’s account to create, essentially, a «side door» that bypasses all our usual security measures (two-factor authentication, mobile codes, confirmation requests) shows that no one is truly safe.

Until companies such as Google, Microsoft and others fix this loophole, it is inevitable that this technique will be used much more broadly, not only against targets like me.

This summer, Europe witnessed a wave of fake messages sent on behalf of Western governments, social media manipulations, and interference in election campaigns in individual EU member states. How exactly is Russia trying to influence public opinion in Europe today, and which narratives is it primarily promoting?

Some of Russia’s narratives are entirely consistent over time, while others are tied to specific political events. It is important to remember that the campaigns conducted by Russia are ongoing and are not limited to dates on the democratic calendar.

Russia is constantly working to undermine the forces that unite Europe: solidarity among European states, societal cohesion, trust in institutions and, above all, support for Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression

These campaigns are permanent. In addition, there are targeted, time-sensitive efforts aimed at influencing the outcomes of specific democratic processes in specific countries at specific times.

Sanctions fatigue: Is the West’s pressure on the Kremlin still effective?

In addition to the NATO summit, another event important for Ukraine took place - the European Council summit. There, both a new sanctions package against the Russian Federation and support for Ukraine’s negotiation process with the EU were discussed - both initiatives were blocked by Hungary. Sanctions - also by Slovakia. To what extent do such actions undermine trust in EU unity, and what self-defence mechanisms against internal sabotage does the EU need?

This is yet another illustration of how consensus-based organisations - NATO and the EU - are vulnerable to the lowest common denominator. If there is a saboteur or a disruptor within, it can effectively paralyse the entire organisation, especially in the case of the EU, which is primarily a trade organisation rather than a structure designed to address geopolitical conflicts.

In many ways, the very structure of Europe’s supranational institutions does not meet the challenges they currently face

Nevertheless, it is impressive how far they have come in maintaining unity and a shared understanding of the importance of supporting Ukraine. I hope and believe that it will once again be possible to find a workaround to move forward, even without the cooperation of countries such as Hungary, Slovakia or others.

The EU summit failed to adopt a joint statement in support of Ukraine - Hungary blocked it. Photo: Geert Vanden Wijngaert/Associated Press/East News

What does it signify that the United States currently does not intend to increase sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation from its side?

Well, the message from the United States has been very clear. At present, they are partners with Russia and are seeking to impose on Ukraine the terms of capitulation dictated by Moscow. This is the reality with which Ukraine and Europe must now contend.

And it is precisely the adaptation to this reality, and the speed with which it occurs, that will determine the future security of the entire continent.

Cover photo: Office of the President of Ukraine

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

«Trump is ready to give Russia everything it wants». Keir Giles on the risks of the new American policy towards Moscow

Maryna Stepanenko

On May 20th, the European Union adopted its largest and most ambitious package of sanctions against Russia - the seventeenth to date. It targets the deployment of the Russian Federation’s «shadow fleet», which helps circumvent the oil embargo, as well as strengthening restrictions on Russian energy companies and blocking the assets of Kremlin allies in various countries. At the same time, the eighteenth package is already being prepared, which may include a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium, and the use of frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

These sanctions are a key instrument of pressure on the Kremlin, yet their effectiveness, coordination with partners and consequences for European unity remain open questions. Ondřej Kolář, Member of the European Parliament from the Czech Republic, answered the most important of these in an exclusive interview with Sestry.

Sanctions against Russia: EU unity challenges and the position of the USA

Maryna Stepanenko: Mr Kolář, what do you believe is the main advantage of the seventeenth EU sanctions package in combating the circumvention of the Russian oil embargo? Can this package seriously complicate the activities of the so-called «shadow fleet»?

Ondřej Kolář: This is a complex issue. The fact that this is already the seventeenth sanctions package indicates that the policy is not working as effectively as it should. We allow too many exceptions, lack proper enforcement, and are unable to stop large-scale sanctions from being circumvented not only by individual companies but also by entire third countries. Sanctions do matter, but we must implement and enforce them much better.

With this seventeenth package, I hope we have finally recognised how serious the problem is, especially when it comes to the «shadow fleet», which Russia uses very effectively to bypass restrictions. I am glad that the EU is following the example of the United Kingdom on this issue, although it is disappointing that it took us about six months just to start discussing this step.

The EU is moving too slowly. Russia makes decisions quickly and decisively, while we lag behind. This must change - we must be the ones who set the agenda

I welcome this package and the fact that we have finally focused on what truly matters, such as the export of fossil fuels, on which Russia is heavily dependent. The more we block this flow, the better it is for us and for Ukraine. But we must act faster and more precisely. We cannot afford to continue playing catch-up.

You mentioned sanctions circumvention, and the seventeenth package targets not only Russian companies but also their partners in countries such as China and the UAE. You also said that the EU often reacts rather than sets the agenda. Do you see a realistic path for the EU to stay one step ahead of Russia? Is there a way to truly block all the loopholes it uses to bypass sanctions?

I am afraid not. In order to close all avenues of evasion, the EU would have to persuade the entire world to stop cooperating with Russia, and that is simply impossible. Countries such as North Korea, Iran and many from the BRICS group still maintain ties with Moscow, helping it to create the image of a nation merely defending itself and aspiring to a «normal life». This is dangerous, and we cannot accept it. Our only real instruments here are diplomacy and international trade.

The main mistake of the United States was the abandonment of USAID - this created gaps now being filled by other countries such as China and Russia

The EU lacks equivalent resources to intervene fully, but we cannot yield these spaces. We must compete, demonstrate that we are the better partner, and discard the notion that our colonial past makes us unwelcome. What China is doing in many places is simply a new form of colonialism.

We shall not defeat Russia on the battlefield as Nazi Germany was defeated in the Second World War. Therefore, we must use all the other tools at our disposal. Diplomacy and trade are areas where we can stay a step ahead.

Following the negotiations in Istanbul, the European Union is preparing its eighteenth package of sanctions targeting the Russian energy sector, financial system and «shadow fleet». Do you believe the EU is ready to act independently of the United States' position, particularly given the calls by the newly appointed Chief of Staff to the German Chancellor, Thorsten Frei, for tougher measures, including a ban on the import of Russian gas and uranium?

I would very much like greater independence from Russia because, if we do not achieve it fully, we shall only let ourselves down. Independence from the United States, however, is more complicated. We are still heavily dependent on Washington in matters of defence, security and trade. The United States has been our principal partner for eighty years. Nonetheless, everything changes.

Finnish border guards escort an oil tanker belonging to Russia’s «shadow fleet». Photo: AFP/East News

We cannot afford to react to everything Donald Trump says. The chaos following his inauguration is colossal. In the morning, he says one thing, by lunchtime another, and in the evening he denies both statements. European leaders have realised that it is better to be patient and not to chase after every change in his rhetoric.

The main thing now is to stand on our own feet. This means being proactive and projecting the EU on a global scale. For too long, the EU has been focused on internal development - enlargement and domestic matters, which was important, but we have neglected our global role. Europe has always been a global player, and it must remain one if it is to succeed.

Europe is highly attractive - people seek a better life here because of our unparalleled social security system and quality of life. However, we cannot take this for granted. We must defend it ourselves.

Dependence on the United States is no longer acceptable. They must remain our closest partner, not our guardian

President Trump, in a private conversation with European leaders, acknowledged that Putin was not ready to end the war, but simultaneously refused new sanctions, instead proposing peace talks at the Vatican. How do you assess such a stance by the United States?

Donald Trump is a naïve man who does not understand what is happening. He has been deceived many times by Putin, and he does not even realise it. He cannot evaluate his mistakes because he simply does not acknowledge them. One cannot play poker with one’s cards face up, yet that is exactly what he is doing - showing his hand to Russia, announcing his plans, sending to Moscow unqualified people with no experience.

When he tells European leaders that he forced Putin to join negotiations with Ukraine, a week after those negotiations already took place in Istanbul - it is the same as saying: «I have been asleep for three years».

It is madness. He does not know what he is doing, what he is saying to the world or to his allies

European leaders now realise that they have a clown for a partner. I hope they have enough patience and the necessary tools to calmly and clearly explain to Trump that he is wrong, that he is making matters worse, not better. And that the Russians are playing him. They must make him understand that Russia is not interested in compromise. Unfortunately, we must admit that the current President of the United States is utterly confused and of no help whatsoever.

The United States Congress has introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act, which provides for a 500% tariff on imports from countries that purchase Russian oil and for the expansion of sanctions against Russian sovereign debt. Can Congress, even without support from the Trump administration, independently advance this initiative?

I would be pleased if it were successfully implemented. However, observing how Donald Trump treats American democracy, I am very pessimistic. He does not care about Congress, the Senate or the courts - only about himself and his propaganda.

It does not matter what Congress decides. If Trump does not like it, he will boycott it just as he ignores court rulings and anything else with which he disagrees. This complicates everything greatly.

One day he says he will impose harsh sanctions against Russia, and the next day - the opposite. So where do we stand? What game are we even playing? Nothing is clear.

I am grateful to American legislators for this initiative, but I am cautious. If Trump dislikes it, he will block it without hesitation. I should like to be mistaken, but I do not believe he will support anything that does not serve him.

Challenges on Ukraine’s path to European integration

In March, Hungary threatened to veto the extension of EU sanctions against Russia, which could have led to the unfreezing of substantial assets. Although a compromise was reached, Budapest continues to express criticism not only regarding sanctions but also concerning EU enlargement. How serious a risk is Hungary’s stance for the unity of the European Union in the context of Ukraine’s European integration? What consequences could it have for the integration process itself?

Hungary plays the role of a useful idiot in the EU - Vladimir Putin’s «Trojan horse». They are bringing others over to their side, with a certain degree of success in Slovakia, whose government has become lost in Russian falsehoods. While Ukraine is in the spotlight, the situation in the Western Balkans is even more serious.

Hungary loudly spreads nonsense about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine but quietly undermines the EU elsewhere - especially in Georgia and the Western Balkans, where Hungarian diplomats actively export Russian lies

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary is part of EUFOR (European Union Force - a military mission led by the EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina tasked with maintaining peace and stability in accordance with the Dayton Agreement - Edit.) and closely cooperates with leaders of Republika Srpska connected to Putin. They play a disgraceful role in blocking EU enlargement, parroting Russian propaganda.

The EU has realised that it must bypass Hungary, but this creates dangerous precedents. Forming a «coalition of the willing» simply to circumvent Hungary and Slovakia could undermine confidence in the rules and integrity of the EU.

Orbán blocks Ukraine’s accession to the EU, citing economic threats. Photo: LEON NEAL/AFP/East News

Ultimately, the Hungarian people must choose change. We can only hope that the next elections will bring a new government and with it a fundamentally different position on Ukraine and the region. Until then, we must wait and be patient.

The European Parliament actively supports Ukraine’s European integration, in particular by accelerating the accession process and opening negotiation clusters. How do you assess the role of the European Parliament in this process and its influence on the decisions of the EU Council?

Parliament is a legislative body, so almost everything in the EU passes through it. However, it does not play a decisive role in enlargement, although we do influence the process.

For example, I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we closely monitor every country seeking to join the EU. Parliament prepares, votes on and publishes reports on the progress of each country - assessing how well they meet the accession criteria and offering recommendations.

We can also send missions for direct engagement with national partners to discuss the reforms necessary for moving closer to EU membership. But the final decision on enlargement does not rest with us.

We only provide support and guidance. The majority of Parliament supports enlargement, recognising that a larger EU is a stronger EU. Our role is to cooperate with national parliaments, not to pressure them, but to assist in carrying out the required reforms.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted that Ukraine could join the EU by 2030 if reforms continue at the current pace. How realistic do you consider this timeframe for Ukraine's accession?

I would be pleased, but much depends on when the war ends. That does not mean Ukraine should not join the EU before the war concludes - in fact, I believe it deserves a special status.

I often use the example of Puerto Rico - not a full US state, but a special territory with certain rights and responsibilities. Ukraine's situation is unique. None of the other candidate countries - Moldova, Montenegro, Albania or Serbia - have been at war since 2014. Ukraine has been at war for eleven years. We cannot treat it like an ordinary country.

Ukraine could become an EU member before 2030 - President of the European Commission. Photo: NICOLAS TUCAT/AFP/East News

It is important to set ambitious goals - they give us energy. But is 2030 realistic? Frankly, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring. When will the war end? How will it end? Will Russia keep its word?

That is why I believe a special status could be more effective and might even accelerate the process. Ukraine is being treated as if nothing has happened, and that is wrong.

Hybrid warfare and EU information security

In May 2025, Poland faced an unprecedented wave of hybrid attacks from Russia on the eve of its presidential elections. Do you believe the EU is adequately prepared for complex Russian information operations? What steps must be taken to strengthen information security in Europe?

Europe is not ready, not at all. Still, some states are more prepared than others. If you look at the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, their approach is completely different from that of Central Europe. It is strange, given our shared history. The Baltic countries were part of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia was occupied, but not for as long. Yet Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are now very effective in countering hybrid threats. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Slovakia have completely lost their bearings.

Their minds have been washed by Russian propaganda

Poland, to its credit, speaks out loudly about the problem and wants to act. But in the Czech Republic, officials appear on television and say that disinformation does not exist - this is the worst possible approach.

We are lucky that bombs are not falling on our heads, but we are in a state of information warfare. And we are losing. In Brussels, no one even talks about Russian propaganda. It is not a topic. It seems that a country’s position depends on its historical experience with Russia.

We only began acknowledging the problem because Russia continues to escalate. They blew up an ammunition depot in the Czech Republic in 2014, and all we did was expel a few diplomats. Russian officials still move freely throughout the Schengen Area. No one can stop them.

Frankly, we lack courage. We have been unable to recognise Russia as an enemy for far too long. It does not want to be our friend - it wants to defeat us and reshape the world. Europe is unprepared, it is losing, and it has no coordinated response to hybrid threats. Each country acts on its own, and Russia exploits this chaos.

Russia influences EU countries not only through cyberattacks or disinformation, but also through so-called «soft power» - pro-Russian organisations, media outlets and even economic ties. How serious do you consider this threat to be? And what can the EU do to detect and stop such influence in time?

Yes, it is a serious threat - and Europe still cannot acknowledge it. We must stop convincing ourselves that Russia cannot be that bad. It is that bad. We must take Russian propaganda at face value - they broadcast exactly what the Kremlin thinks and wants.

We must respond to the warnings of our own security services. For example, in the Czech Republic, our intelligence has long stated that Russia’s ownership of numerous real estate properties poses a threat. Yet when it comes to confiscating them, the authorities suddenly claim that it is legally impossible. This fear of Russia must end. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but their economy is ruined. They are not capable of winning a global conflict.

Europe acts as if it has Stockholm syndrome. Russia cannot match us economically or strategically, and they are not suicidal enough to start a nuclear war

We must acknowledge that Russia is the enemy and stop legitimising people associated with it. There is no reason why, especially in Central Europe, communists and pro-Russian populists should continue to be given media platforms. This must stop.

Russian propaganda must be banned. We must be tough on everyone: individuals, companies and institutions that help Russia gain influence. Bribery, manipulation, espionage - all of this must be tracked and punished. And those who speak out against Russia must be louder, clearer and relentless in explaining the reality. Because we are still unable to tell people what is really happening - and there is no excuse for what Russia is doing. None whatsoever.

Cover photo: Associated Press/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

Czech MEP Ondřej Kolář on comprehensive sanctions against the Russian Federation: «Bribery, manipulation, espionage - everything must be punished»

Maryna Stepanenko

You may be interested in ...

Ексклюзив
20
хв

«Trump is ready to give Russia everything it wants». Keir Giles on the risks of the new American policy towards Moscow

Ексклюзив
20
хв

Farewell to the Protectress

Ексклюзив
20
хв

Czech MEP Ondřej Kolář on comprehensive sanctions against the Russian Federation: «Bribery, manipulation, espionage - everything must be punished»

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