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

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

‍

‍

I think people don’t realize how bad things were in America even before Trump. If anything, I see Trump as simply someone openly talking about the things the American government has been doing for centuries. By no means am I saying that what Trump is doing is okay – but he is honest about it. After all, the Biden administration deported an average of 57,000 people per month, while the Trump administration deported 37,660 people last month – and yet we never hear about Biden’s deportation plans. We praise liberals for their commitment to human rights, but what have they actually achieved?

They don't protect women's rights, they allow the genocide of Palestinians, they arrest students for protesting, they enable Russia to continue its crimes, and they restrict our freedom of speech. And yet we are expected to vote for them because they are the “lesser evil”? I keep hearing that the future "rests in the hands of young people" because the older generation caused this whole mess. I’m expected to protest, vote, organize – while being cut off from all of it.

What kind of democracy is America, if our only choice is between two evils, both backed by the same powerful interests?

I think when looking at America, we need to ask ourselves: “For whom was it ever good?” It has always been a good country for white Americans, and now it’s probably even better for them. But has it ever been a good country for women? Has it ever been good for people of color? I think we forget this when we idealize America. It was never a great country, and it will never be “great again” unless the past we're referring to is that colonial, racist empire that Trump wants to bring back.

Looking at the “American Dream” from the perspective of a post-communist country in Eastern Europe, it’s easy to idealize it. Nevertheless, I always try to remind people from Eastern Europe that the society, security, education, and healthcare we have here are worth a million times more than the idealized version of what their life could look like in the capitalist utopia of America.

I recently visited New York. Although it’s one of the most expensive cities in the U.S., the price hikes over the past year shocked me. I heard from friends that they can’t afford their rent because it was raised by 25%. Some of them haven't been able to find a job since last summer – and by "job" I mean any job, even in a café or grocery store. And these are people who graduated from prestigious universities like Columbia or NYU.

Food prices continue to rise. Last year, groceries that lasted me about 10 days cost around $120. When I came to New York recently, that amount had doubled. It’s obvious that Trump wants an economic collapse so that only the top 1% can afford anything – but what then? Are all the people that are unable to afford anything supposed to end up arrested and become another form of slave labor for the American empire? Is that Trump’s plan?

Homelessness in America is another thing I noticed become worse after being away for a year. To my surprise, I found that Americans have become even more indifferent to it than before. The rise in the number of people using drugs on the streets is terrifying, and the fentanyl epidemic is rapidly turning more cities into “zombie cities. ”It was already a serious problem during the pandemic, but now it’s even worse.

More and more people can't afford to pay rent — and more and more are ending up on the streets.

Although the sight of people using drugs frightens me, what I feel even more strongly is anger. Why is no one helping them? How can Americans be so indifferent, watching people die on the streets every day?

Now Trump wants to make homelessness illegal. He will use those who cannot be trapped within the capitalist system as another labor force for America's prison-industrial complex

America is slowly falling apart, like every empire, but its problems didn’t arise overnight.

The cracks in the foundation had existed for years in a country whose core was built on genocide and slavery, but now they can no longer be ignored. So how can the citizens of this country continue to look away and not take action? Because it’s easier to sit at home, distracting themselves with entertainment, social media, or daily responsibilities, than to confront the harsh realities of what is happening around them.It saddens me to realize that many Americans only grasp the seriousness of the situation when their own property is at risk. Only when their belongings, their sense of security, or their daily lives are threatened do they start to understand that change will not come from passive observation or waiting. The urgent need to take to the streets and demand action becomes clear only when the consequences of inaction are personally felt. But history shows us that by then, it’s already too late.

“First they came for the socialists,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".

Martin Niemöller

The first and foremost is the experienced political strategist Susie Wiles. Aged 68, she currently holds the position of Chief of Staff at the White House and controls access to the president. It was she who insisted that technology billionaire Elon Musk should not be granted a private office in the White House. Otherwise, he would never leave the Oval Office.

Susie began her career in political PR in 1979. Coincidentally, her first job was at the office of Jack Kemp - a Republican and, crucially, also a star of American football and a teammate of Susie’s father on the New York Giants. This role became a springboard for the young professional into the world of high-level politics - by 1980, she had already joined the presidential campaign of the new Republican star Ronald Reagan. In fact, it was on Wiles’s advice that Trump regularly quoted this great American and even reworked his political slogan to suit his own agenda.

After working on the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, Wiles decided to monetise her expertise and earn wealth from commercial clients. This enterprising lady founded consultancy and lobbying firms, which made her not only a successful political consultant but also a wealthy one. In her best years, she had more than 40 clients, including entire countries such as Qatar and Nigeria, as well as tobacco giants. Elon Musk’s SpaceX and telecommunications monopolist AT&T also sought Wiles’s assistance.

In 2015, while enjoying the sunshine and palm trees of Florida, Donald Trump entertained an intriguing idea - to run for President of the United States. He therefore hired the successful lobbyist and political strategist - the two appreciated each other and began to work together.

Trump calls her «ice baby» and repeated the nickname during his speech at his Mar-a-Lago estate after it became clear he had won the election. The media, however, upgraded this «ice baby» to a more mature «Ice Queen»

Wiles’s colleagues highlight her strengths as a strategist. She brought the much-needed order to Trump’s campaign, managed its narrative (to the extent possible with Trump himself), and demonstrated her outstanding organisational skills. One of Wiles’s colleagues even described her as Trump’s longest-serving adviser, present at all his key meetings. Within the president’s circle, it is said that he frequently includes her in phone calls concerning political matters.

As often happens, the media sometimes receives leaks, such as about a secret Signal chat, where Wiles showed her firm character and hinted at the dismissal of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

Regarding her management style, in what is perhaps her only interview since her appointment, she told Axios:

«I do not welcome people who want to operate solo or become stars. My team and I will not tolerate backstabbing, inappropriate speculations or intrigue».

At one point, Wiles successfully dealt with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who challenged Trump in the primaries and even demanded that Wiles be dismissed from the campaign. When he dropped out of the race in January 2024, Wiles simply posted on social media: «Bye-bye».

The 2024 election campaign, which Wiles led alongside political consulting veteran Chris LaCivita, was successful and passed without major scandals

Trump followed advice, remained calm and used social media less frequently. At the same time, he appeared on young podcasters’ shows and danced for TikTok, which helped attract new voters.

Establishing contact with Susie Wiles is essential if one wishes to access the very brain of the President of the United States. Moreover, she controls the movements of all Trump’s friends and acquaintances within the White House, which is precisely why the musician Kid Rock appears there from time to time, but golf buddies are seen less often.

Another key woman who helped make Trump president twice is the charismatic Christian preacher Paula White. She recently became head of the newly established Office of Faith Affairs, which, among other things, is tasked with promoting religious freedom not only nationally but also internationally. During Trump’s first term, Paula White also worked on religious matters, though on a more modest scale.

The attractive blonde has known the Trump family since 2001. She is a star of Christian television, with her sermons filling stadiums and concert venues. Clearly, at some point, Trump heard Paula White working with an audience, became inspired by her prosperity theology - according to which material success is a sign of divine grace - and decided that such faith suited him.

If one closely observes the pastor’s speeches, it becomes evident that Trump copied her manner of speaking and gesticulation

The trust in White is so great that during his first term, she served as chair of the Evangelical Advisory Board for Trump’s 2016 campaign, and she became the first female clergy member to deliver a prayer at the inauguration on January 20th 2017.

Pastor White supported Trump in the 2020 presidential race, delivering a prayer at his campaign launch event. Similarly, during the 2024 election campaign, she was actively involved in the future president’s team. This accounts for the high support among the Christian electorate.

Paula White is known for her staunch support of Israel and has even appeared on lists such as «The 50 Best Christian Allies of Israel»

For Ukrainians, a significant fact is that from the very beginning of the invasion, Pastor White organised humanitarian aid for Ukrainian refugees in European countries, regularly reporting this on her website. Therefore, establishing contact with Paula White is a task for every Protestant pastor. It is a guaranteed path straight to Trump’s heart.

In her new role, Paula White will be working closely with the new Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. In parallel with White’s appointment, Bondi was named head of a task force to «eradicate anti-Christian bias», which is intended to put an end to «all forms of anti-Christian attacks and discrimination within the federal government».

The 59-year-old former head of the Florida state prosecutor’s office has pledged to maintain the independence of the Department of Justice and «not involve politics in its operations» - amid concerns that Trump intends to take control of the agency and exact revenge on those who led investigations against him and his supporters regarding the refusal to recognise the election results and the storming of the Capitol in 2021.

Interestingly, Bondi was not the president’s first choice for the post of Attorney General. Initially, Trump intended to assign the role to Matt Gaetz. However, before the appointment, the United States Congressional Ethics Committee discovered that Gaetz had spent over 90 thousand dollars making payments to 12 women, a significant number of whom were allegedly linked to services involving underage prostitution and drug use.

Ironically, during Trump’s first presidential term, Pam Bondi chaired the commission on the abuse of narcotic and opioid substances. Recently, the lawyer has been consulting for the America First Policy Institute - an organisation with considerable influence over the newly elected president’s political agenda.

On her first day as Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi decided to shut down the special unit tasked with seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. Instead, the lawyer declared that the new enemy of the United States is the drug cartels

Nevertheless, Russian oligarchs certainly cannot expect the immediate return of their yachts. At the same time, Bondi did not state that the cases handled by the now-disbanded KleptoCapture unit would be closed. It is likely they will continue, although there will no longer be a dedicated team focusing exclusively on this activity. It is also possible that new cases will be launched.

Recently, Pam Bondi demonstrated her loyalty to her chief. She officially declared that it is unlikely criminal proceedings will be initiated over the transmission of sensitive military information via an unsecured Signal chat, in which Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth shared a plan for an airstrike on targets in Yemen.

The Attorney General intends to maintain Trump’s legal peace and protect him from the consequences of his past actions. Like the first two women, she belongs to Trump’s closest circle and is expected to remain with him until the end of his current term.

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

‍

‍