The war of narratives: how Russia manipulates the information space in Ukraine and Europe

Поки лідери НАТО запевняють у незмінності курсу на підтримку України, а ЄС вкотре демонструє крихкість єдності під тиском Будапешта, Росія не лише не зупиняє агресії, а й посилює свої дії — як на фронті, так і в інформаційній війні. Саміт у Гаазі не приніс прориву: обіцянки без гарантій, розмови про «мир через силу», натяки на діалог із Путіним — і все це на тлі дедалі очевиднішого зниження амбіцій США. Паралельно Угорщина блокує нові санкції, а Кремль запускає складні кібероперації, вдаючи, ніби світ уже змирився з його присутністю.

Про те, як змінилася стратегія Заходу, які ризики несуть за собою ілюзії щодо Росії, що означає нова хвиля дезінформації, і чому саме Європа має взяти на себе провідну роль у стримуванні агресії, Sestry поспілкувалися з Кіром Джайлзом — провідним британським експертом з питань безпеки та Росії, старшим науковим співробітником програми «Росія та Євразія» у Chatham House. 

Трамп, НАТО і Росія: альянс на межі компромісів і викликів

Марина Степаненко: Мир через силу був оголошений головною темою переговорів Трампа і Зеленського. Після зустрічі глава Білого дому натякнув на діалог з Путіним і можливі поставки ракет Patriot, але жодних твердих зобов'язань взято не було. У цьому контексті, як на вашу думку, формула «мир через силу» може бути реалізована щодо Росії і наскільки США готові реально взяти на себе роль тиску?

Кір Джайлз: Ми завжди знали, що єдиний спосіб забезпечити безпеку Європи, — це надати Україні максимально можливу підтримку. Тож зараз ми маємо справу з наслідками політики кількох поспіль адміністрацій США, які вирішили, що потрібен інший шлях. Вони глибоко помиляються, і це завдає величезної шкоди не тільки європейській безпеці і, звісно, самій Україні, а й глобальній безпеці.

Саме така стриманість і відмова протистояти агресії призвели до спалаху глобальних конфліктів у всьому світі

Ми бачимо, як ситуація загострюється, гине все більше людей, починається все більше воєн — і все саме через цю нову ідею Сполучених Штатів, що протистояти агресору небезпечніше, ніж дозволити знищити жертву цього агресора.

Зустріч лідерів США та України вкотре актуалізувала питання: яку саме модель підтримки Києва бачить для себе Вашингтон? Йдеться про стратегічне партнерство чи радше про контрольоване стримування війни без довгострокових зобов’язань?

Існує серйозне питання, чи взагалі можливе справжнє стратегічне партнерство з Дональдом Трампом. Адже Сполучені Штати прагнули партнерства з Росією — і навіть це не надто добре працює, незважаючи на те, що Трамп готовий зробити все можливе, щоб дати Росії все, що вона хоче. Будь-яка країна, будь-який традиційний друг, союзник або партнер Сполучених Штатів, має пам'ятати, що відносини, на яких будувалися колишнє процвітання та безпека Америки, більше не мають реального значення для Трампа. Ми перебуваємо в абсолютно новому глобальному середовищі.

Це означає, що країни, які серйозно ставляться до європейської безпеки, а отже, і до безпеки та майбутнього України, повинні активізуватися, щоб заповнити прогалину, яку залишають Сполучені Штати. Це насамперед стосується сусідів Європи, але також і ліберальних демократій у всьому світі, які мають спільний інтерес у припиненні агресії.

Останнім часом у Брюсселі ширилися чутки, що Росію можуть прибрати з переліку головних загроз для НАТО, залишивши там лише міжнародний тероризм. Це виглядає дивно на тлі того, що саме Росія продовжує війну в Європі та дестабілізує ситуацію глобально — від Африки до Близького Сходу. У фінльному комюніке Росію визнано довгостроковою загрозою для всього Альянсу. Однак чи бачите ви загалом спробу Заходу «нормалізувати» агресора?

США вже давно роблять вигляд, що Росія не є проблемою, і ми не повинні виключати можливість того, що НАТО, в своїх відчайдушних спробах утримати США в альянсі, може підіграти цій риториці. 

Ми вже бачили ознаки того, що НАТО готове піти на надзвичайні заходи, щоб заспокоїти Трампа: візьмемо, наприклад, лист, який генеральний секретар Марк Рютте написав йому, навмисно складений «мовою Трампа». Мабуть, було надзвичайно складно імітувати вербальні вирази п'ятирічної дитини, щоб це зробити.

Тому ми не можемо з упевненістю сказати, як далеко може зайти НАТО, щоб забезпечити подальшу участь США в Альянсі. Але європейські країни не повинні мати ілюзій щодо того, чи перестала Росія бути загрозою, незважаючи на зусилля нинішньої адміністрації США переконати себе в протилежному.

Стійкість режимів і крихкість рішень: що визначить тривалість війни

Попри санкції, втрати на фронті та зростаючу ізоляцію, режим Путіна тримається — принаймні зовні. З огляду на вашу експертизу: що є джерелом стійкості цієї системи сьогодні і що могло б її дестабілізувати зсередини?

Існує мало шансів на те, що російський режим буде зруйнований зсередини, оскільки це режим, яким переважна більшість російського народу, здається, цілком задоволена.

Зрештою, це самодостатня система, в якій особи, що отримали багатство і владу в рамках цього режиму, не зацікавлені в його руйнуванні. Тому зараз немає підстав вважати, що Росія відхилиться від свого агресивного курсу, незважаючи на довгострокові збитки, катастрофічні наслідки для економіки країни та її населення.

Якщо припустити, що кінець війни ще не близько, але й не безнадійно далекий — які саме фактори, на вашу думку, можуть зрушити ситуацію з глухого кута? Внутрішній злам ви окреслили як малоймовірний, а втім, чи може це бути тиск ззовні чи щось третє, про що ми ще не говоримо вголос?

Відповідь на це питання завжди була і буде однаковою: європейські країни повинні надати Україні максимальну фізичну та фінансову підтримку, щоб допомогти їй перемогти Росію — будь-якими доступними засобами. Не обов'язково на передовій, а й за допомогою інших форм підтримки.

Європейські країни повільно усвідомлюють, що їхнє майбутнє тісно пов'язане з майбутнім України, і що вони більше не можуть покладатися на Сполучені Штати як на основного спонсора цих зусиль. Але Європі доведеться докласти набагато більше сил, щоб Україна могла продовжувати утримувати лінію фронту і відбивати агресора.

Росія та Білорусь оголосили про навчання «Захід-2025». У минулому подібні маневри ставали прелюдією до агресії. Чи є нині ризик повторення цього сценарію і чи здатен Захід адекватно реагувати в умовах політичного розпорошення?

Люди завжди хвилюються перед наближенням навчань «Захід» — так було задовго до повномасштабного вторгнення в Україну і навіть до анексії Криму. І так, це завжди створює можливість зробити щось, що не має відношення до самого вишколу.

Але на цьому етапі, коли вже триває інтенсивний конфлікт, ми повинні розглядати «Захід» як ще один елемент заплутування на полі бою, як частину ширшого маскування в рамках триваючої війни, а не як початок нової

Звичайно, західні розвідувальні служби будуть уважно стежити за тим, хто що і де робить в контексті російсько-білоруських навчань — навіть у цій новій реальності, коли значна частина сухопутних військ Росії вже глибоко задіяна в Україні і має обмежені можливості для операцій в інших регіонах.

«Невидимий фронт»: як Росія веде війну проти Заходу в інформаційному просторі

Пане Джайлз, ви самі стали мішенню нової, витонченої фішингової атаки з боку російських хакерів — під виглядом співробітниці Держдепу США. Зловмисники використали функцію Gmail «delegate access», щоб отримати прихований доступ до вашої пошти, оминаючи двофакторну автентифікацію. Це операція, в яку, ймовірно, були вкладені тижні роботи. У цьому контексті, як змінилася російська тактика в інформаційній війні за останній рік? І що це говорить про новий рівень загрози?

Я впевнений, що вся операція зайняла набагато більше часу — лише на її виконання пішло кілька тижнів, тож етап планування, мабуть, розпочався значно раніше.

З одного боку, ця нова техніка, новий підхід до отримання доступу до електронної пошти людей, свідчить про те, що Росія змушена розробляти більш витончені методи, оскільки її попередні, більш примітивні, спроби зазнали невдачі. Протягом багатьох років було зроблено численні спроби зламати мою електронну пошту, деякі з них були смішно примітивними, інші — дуже складними та витонченими.

Але з іншого боку, ця нова методика підкреслює, що ми всі вразливі

Те, як ймовірні російські зловмисники використали вбудовану функцію Gmail, яка є в обліковому записі кожного користувача, щоб створити, по суті, «бічні двері», які обходять усі наші звичайні заходи безпеки (двофакторну автентифікацію, мобільні коди, запити на підтвердження), показує, що ніхто не є по-справжньому в безпеці.

Доки такі компанії, як Google, Microsoft та інші, не виправлять цю лазівку, неминуче, що ця техніка буде використовуватися набагато ширше, не тільки проти таких мішеней, як я.

Цього літа Європа стала свідком хвилі фейкових розсилок від імені західних урядів, маніпуляцій у соцмережах та втручання в передвиборчі кампанії в окремих країнах-членах ЄС. Як саме Росія сьогодні намагається впливати на громадську думку в Європі і які наративи вона просуває в першу чергу?

Деякі з російських наративів є цілком послідовними у часі, тоді як інші пов'язані з конкретними політичними подіями. Важливо пам'ятати, що кампанії, які проводить Росія, є постійними і не обмежуються датами демократичного календаря.

Росія постійно докладає зусиль, щоб підірвати сили, які об'єднують Європу: солідарність між європейськими державами, згуртованість суспільств, довіру до інституцій і, перш за все, підтримку України в протистоянні російській агресії

Ці кампанії є постійними. Крім того, існують цілеспрямовані, термінові заходи, спрямовані на вплив на результати конкретних демократичних процесів у конкретних країнах у конкретні моменти часу.

Санкційна втома. Чи ще працює тиск Заходу на Кремль?

Окрім саміту НАТО відбулася ще одна важлива для України подія — саміт Європейської ради. Там одночасно обговорювалися і новий санкційний пакет проти РФ, і підтримка переговорного процесу України з ЄС — обидві ініціативи заблокувала Угорщина. Санкції — ще й Словаччина. Наскільки такі дії підривають довіру до єдності Євросоюзу — і які механізми самозахисту від внутрішнього саботажу потрібні ЄС?

Це ще одна ілюстрація того, як організації, що базуються на консенсусі — НАТО та ЄС — вразливі до найменшого спільного знаменника. Якщо всередині є саботажник або руйнівник, це може ефективно паралізувати всю організацію — особливо у випадку ЄС, який є в основному торговою організацією, а не структурою, створеною для вирішення геополітичних конфліктів.

Багато в чому сама структура наднаціональних інституцій Європи не відповідає викликам, з якими вони зараз стикаються

Проте вражає те, як далеко вони просунулися в збереженні єдності та спільному розумінні важливості підтримки України. Я сподіваюся і вірю, що знову можна буде знайти обхідний шлях, щоб рухатися вперед, навіть без співпраці таких країн, як Угорщина, Словаччина чи інших.

‍Про що свідчить той факт, що США наразі не збираються посилювати санкційний тиск на РФ зі свого боку?

Ну, повідомлення від Сполучених Штатів було дуже чітким. Зараз вони є партнерами Росії і прагнуть нав'язати Україні умови капітуляції, які диктує Москва. Це реальність, з якою зараз доводиться мати справу Україні та Європі.

І саме адаптація до цієї реальності та швидкість, з якою це відбудеться, визначатимуть майбутню безпеку всього континенту.

Титульне фото: Офіс Президента України

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

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Kaja Puto: History shows that war is an opportunity for the emancipation of women. During the Second World War, European women began to work in industries previously dominated by men, such as railways and the military sector. Are we witnessing something similar in Ukraine today?

Liliya Faskhutdinova: Undoubtedly. Sectors where men previously dominated are now lacking workforce, and more and more women are being employed in them. This is due to the fact that many men are fighting on the frontlines, and thousands have already died there. Some have also refused to work because they are hiding from mobilisation.

You can increasingly see women behind the wheel of a bus or truck, in a mine or on a construction site. However, I would not call this emancipation. Women in Ukraine have been economically active since Soviet times, as employment was mandatory then. After the collapse of the USSR, wages became too low to survive on one income. Therefore, I see it differently: the war has made society more open to women taking on more diverse roles in the labour market.

It also works the other way around, because some men have taken up jobs in sectors dominated by women, such as education. This protects them from conscription, as teachers are considered critically important to the state and are not subject to mobilisation. Perhaps this is not the noblest motivation, but likely some of these teachers will remain in the profession after the war. This could have a positive impact on the gender balance among staff in Ukrainian schools.

And what about politics? Women play a huge role in the Ukrainian volunteer community, which supports the army and state institutions. This community enjoys public trust, which may translate into political success after the war. Are new female leaders already emerging?

Undoubtedly, after the war, new faces will appear in politics, and among them will be volunteers. However, I am not certain that they will be primarily women. Society is aware of the enormous contribution they make to volunteering - helping to raise funds for military equipment, medical supplies and so on. A certain image of the female volunteer has been entrenched in the collective imagination: an older woman weaving camouflage nets for soldiers. However, she usually remains unnamed. In my view, the most recognisable volunteers are men. They are the ones most often awarded and interviewed, and whose faces are known.

Recently, I asked my acquaintances whether they could name any female volunteers. Almost no one could. But everyone knows Serhiy Prytula or Vasyl Baidak. War or no war - it is harder for women to be recognised. Nevertheless, the trend of female activism in Ukrainian politics is on the rise. In the 2000s, women accounted for less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians, now it is over 20 per cent. This may be helped by the quotas introduced in 2019 in electoral lists. We have not had the opportunity to verify this, as no elections have taken place since the Russian invasion, except for local government elections.

Quotas were introduced to bring Ukrainian legislation closer to EU standards in the field of women's rights. Is this argument still convincing for Ukrainian society?

Yes. Ukrainians generally have an idealistic view of the West and want to be part of it. This makes it easier to promote progressive values. Tolerance towards LGBTQI+ people is growing - for many Ukrainians, it seems, precisely because they want to be Europeans. They do not want to resemble Russians, who persecute homosexuals and at the same time decriminalise domestic violence.

We have discussed positive trends that give hope for progress in the field of Ukrainian women's rights. Unfortunately, war also brings dangers in this area.

What do you mean?

There is a risk that when men return from war, they will be so revered that women will be expected to forgive them everything, to show gratitude, to bear them children, even more so than before. In the traditional image, a woman is a protectress, a caring goddess, a martyr who patiently endures all the hardships of family life.

In my parents’ generation, many women supported their husbands even if they abused alcohol. They called their decisions care and responsibility

In Poland, this is the «matka Polka», who «carries her cross». Fortunately, this model is receding into the past.

In Ukraine, it had also begun to fade. But then the war came, and everything became more complicated. Men returning from war find it difficult to reintegrate into reality. They have seen death and cruelty, many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, some are prone to violence.

To this are added broken bonds. Long months on the frontline mean that you often feel a stronger connection with your comrades in the trenches than with your family. After returning, this can ruin your relationship with your wife. Mistrust and jealousy arise, suspicions such as: «You cheated while I was gone». I know cases where men at the start of the war wanted their women to go abroad, but now treat them as traitors.

It is hard for me to talk about this. I am infinitely grateful to all the soldiers who are defending my country. If they behave inappropriately as a result of their experiences - I know it is not their fault. My heart breaks when I think about what they have endured.

This is the fault of Russia, which invaded your country.

Yes, it is the fault of the aggressor. But we, Ukraine, cannot allow their suffering to cause additional suffering for women and children. We all suffer, men and women, and many of us will have psychological problems for the rest of our lives.

The war will also leave its mark on future generations. The task of the Ukrainian state, as well as Ukrainian society, is to mitigate these terrible consequences

Are you not afraid that such a campaign may be perceived negatively? Already during the war, Ukrzaliznytsia introduced women-only compartments on night trains. This provoked the outrage of many men: «We are risking our lives for you, and you make us out to be predators?»

Of course, it will be met with resistance. Not only from men, but also from women, especially those whose husbands are fighting or have already returned from the front. Many problems in the army are already very difficult to talk about - gratitude to soldiers makes them taboo topics. However, if we truly want to be a European rule-of-law state, we must learn to find solutions for these uncomfortable problems.

What problems do you mean?

‍

For example, sexual harassment in the army. I am not saying this is a widespread issue, but such cases do occur, and they must be condemned. When, at the beginning of the Russian invasion, a victim of such violence publicly shared her experience, some people responded very critically. They accused her of discrediting the Ukrainian armed forces and implied that women join the army to find a boyfriend. Fortunately, after three years of full-scale war, it has become somewhat easier to talk about problems. We no longer censor ourselves as we did at the beginning.

How can the state help veterans?

Helping veterans is one part - they need psychological support, as well as comprehensive programmes to facilitate their reintegration into civilian life. For some, it would be good to receive a grant to start their own business (such programmes already exist), while others need help with employment. We must not allow war veterans to sit idle at home. This also applies to those who became disabled on the frontlines.

However, support is also needed for families. When a soldier returns from war, they bear a huge burden. They do not know what to expect or how to respond. Moreover, I believe a campaign should be directed specifically at women along the lines of: «You have the right to leave, even if your husband is a hero». Nothing justifies living with an abuser.

Nevertheless, the position of Ukrainian servicewomen has generally improved since 2014...

Yes, absolutely. Previously, they could hardly hold combat positions. They fought on the frontlines, but were officially, for example, cooks. Today, such cases are exceptions. Ukrainian servicewomen are appreciated on a symbolic level too - Defender of Ukraine Day, celebrated on 1 October, has been renamed Defender and Defendress of Ukraine Day. The Ministry of Defence acknowledges the contribution of servicewomen to the country’s defence, and stories like «beautiful women make our service more pleasant» are, fortunately, heard less and less in the media. However, it is still difficult for women in the army to be promoted to leadership positions.

A serious problem also concerns homosexual relationships among servicewomen. They are not recognised by the Ukrainian state. When your partner is wounded or taken prisoner, you will not be informed. When she dies, you cannot see her body.

When a biological mother dies, her partner has no rights to the child. This also applies to homosexual military personnel, except that more children are raised in lesbian partnerships

Alright, but ultimately it is men in the army who face greater discrimination - unlike women, they are forcibly conscripted. Thus, they are deprived of their right to life and health, the fundamental human right...

I often hear this narrative from foreigners. It annoys me just as much as when our defenders are told that «killing people is wrong». Of course, it is wrong, but what are we supposed to do? For those who are not confronted daily with a threat to life, it is easy to theorise and criticise our decisions, and harder to offer alternatives. Surrender to Russia? Send everyone to the frontlines? Draw lots to decide which parent ends up in the army? How will we protect children and the elderly then? Who will work to keep the economy going?

Women, unlike men, were legally allowed to leave Ukraine.

This, in turn, is a huge challenge for the Ukrainian sisterhood. Tension has arisen between the women who left and those who stayed. Some of us blame each other: «You abandoned your country in its time of need, you ran away, you betrayed us». Or: «You stayed, you are ruining your children’s lives».

This is very sad to me. I believe everyone has the right to make the decision they think is best for their family. It is a tragic choice, because every decision is wrong in some way. This tension harms Ukraine because some refugee women may not want to return home because of it. I know women who left, and their families stopped speaking to them.

And will they be accepted back?

I think that when the war ends, this tension will subside, and people will begin to live new lives. But for many refugee women, this will be a reason not to return to Ukraine.

Are you not afraid that the negative impact of the war on the rights of Ukrainian women will outweigh the positive?

I do not know. I am an optimist, I hope the positive will prevail. But I assess the chances as fifty-fifty.

How has the war changed you as a feminist?

Before the full-scale war began, I would have said that above all, I am a woman. Nothing was more important to me in terms of my identity. Today I say that I am Ukrainian. War unites nationality more than anything else. If you do not know war, you will never understand it.

‍

Liliya «Lilya» Faskhutdinova is a feminist and human rights activist with ten years of experience in civil society, anti-discrimination programmes and gender equality advocacy. She received a bachelor's degree in philology from the Sorbonne and a master's degree in human rights from the University of Padua. She has worked with Syrian refugees in Turkey, internally displaced persons in Ukraine, people living with HIV, LGBTQI+ individuals and women. She currently lives in Lviv, where she is working on a women’s empowerment project at an international humanitarian organisation.

‍

‍

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.

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.

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.

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

‍

‍

‍