Russia has achieved no significant breakthroughs on the battlefield, yet Putin has no intention of ending the war, and Europe must be prepared for any decisions the Kremlin may make. Trump remains focused on other regions, a factor that could embolden Moscow. Meanwhile, China appears largely uninterested in making any serious effort to help bring the war in Ukraine to an end. At the same time, Europeans are actively debating Washington’s plans to scale back its military presence on the continent. According to security and defense analyst, former adviser to Germany’s Ministry of Defense, Nico Lange, ending the war will require not mediators, but military support strong enough to force Putin to stop. Ukrinform discussed this with Mr. Lange.

RUSSIA IS NOW UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE BOTH ON THE FRONT LINE AND DEEP INSIDE ITS OWN TERRITORY

Ukrinform: Mr. Lange, Ukraine’s leadership has recently warned on several occasions that a new Russian offensive could come not only along the current front line, but also from the territory of Belarus. Do you consider such a scenario realistic?

Nico Lange: There are Russia’s plans and intentions, and then there is the reality on the ground. At present, there is currently no concentration of troops in Belarus indicating preparations for an attack. Whether that could change in the future, however, remains impossible to predict.Кінець форми

Russia is now facing serious challenges both on the battlefield and as a result of Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory. At the same time, we have seen throughout these four years of war that the initiative can shift from one side to the other. And while Ukraine has recently gained a certain momentum, there has still been no decisive breakthrough. Putin, meanwhile, has shown no intention of stopping.

That is why there are many possible scenarios for what could happen next if Russia fails to achieve its objectives in Donbas. Will Moscow attempt to open another front? Could it target another European country? We do not know — but I believe we must be prepared for a wide range of possibilities.

UI: Including an attack on a NATO member state, simply to test the Alliance’s unity and resolve?

NL: Yes, absolutely. That threat is real.

I would not take comfort merely in whether a country is formally a NATO member or not. We can already see what is happening in Romania and the Baltic countries. We hear Russian rhetoric and see these fabricated narratives about drones allegedly being coordinated from Baltic territory against Russia.

Putin is closely watching the actions of the United States. And if the Americans continue to distance themselves from Europe or deepen their disputes with European allies, he will interpret that as an opportunity.

UI: That said, Putin claims the war will supposedly end soon. In your view, what did he mean by that? Does he believe a major offensive could force Ukraine to surrender, or is he genuinely counting on peace negotiations?

NL: Putin said absolutely nothing new on May 9. It is somewhat unfortunate that news agencies and shortened media reports tend to frame it that way. If you watch the full press conference, he simply said: “Yes, the war will end soon, all objectives will soon be achieved.” This is standard rhetoric. We have been hearing the same thing for four years. There was nothing new in those remarks.

And as for this entire discussion about mediators — Putin is simply mocking the process. First, Emmanuel Macron wanted to speak with Putin one-on-one, then Giorgia Meloni suggested: “Let’s find someone from the EU instead.”

But in reality, there is nothing to discuss and nothing to negotiate. Putin is merely looking for someone who will come to Ukraine and say: “Please give up Donbas,” or “Surrender,” or something along those lines. So I believe all of this simply distracts from the real issue.

TRUMP’S VISIT WAS IMPORTANT FOR XI, PUTIN’S VISIT WAS ROUTINE

UI: Putin has just returned from China. Before that, Trump was there. Should Ukraine expect anything from these visits?

NL: Trump’s visit was important for Xi Jinping.

Putin’s trip, meanwhile, was merely one of many routine visits, the seventeenth one — not especially significant, simply something that had to be done.

So these are not comparable situations at all. They are fundamentally different. Putin is now effectively forced to sell oil and gas to China below market prices. That hardly resembles a strategic partnership. The Chinese are clearly taking advantage of Russia’s growing dependence.

At the same time, Beijing does have an interest in periodically supporting Russia with components and other supplies. But I do not see some grand or mysterious Chinese strategy emerging that will suddenly determine the outcome of everything. China is not doing anything particularly monumental or strategically transformative here.

IT WAS CLEAR ALL ALONG THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD REDUCE ITS MILITARY PRESENCE IN EUROPE

UI: The United States has confirmed that it is withdrawing five thousand troops from Germany and deploying the same number to Poland. At the same time, Washington insists this is not intended as a punishment for Germany. Will Germany feel the absence of those five thousand American troops?

NL: I think we all need to calm down a little. The United States has every right to decide where it stations its forces. It has been clear for quite some time that, in the future, the Americans would maintain a smaller military presence in Europe. This process has been underway for years.

And if four thousand rotational troops are no longer sent to Poland, while five thousand troops previously stationed in Germany are redeployed there instead, I do not see that as a major issue.

What I find more interesting is the question for Europeans themselves: why are you so surprised? Anyone expressing shock at this point must have been hibernating for the past several years. Where was Europe’s preparation for such a scenario?

The Americans have also made it clear that, because of their own defense priorities and a range of other contingencies, they will have fewer military capabilities available in Europe. That means we Europeans must strengthen our own capabilities. Together with other experts, I addressed this issue in the Sparta document. But pretending to be shocked now strikes me as somewhat dishonest. It was obvious this was coming.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS NOT MEDIATORS, BUT THE ABILITY TO FORCE PUTIN TO STOP

UI: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed that negotiations involving Washington on ending Russia’s aggression against Ukraine have been suspended due to a lack of progress. At the same time, the United States says it is prepared to reengage if there is a genuine chance of achieving results. Do you think Trump will eventually turn his attention back to Ukraine and the war after addressing the situation in the Middle East?

NL: I think Trump is more likely to move toward Cuba than back toward Ukraine. And this entire process — this “negotiation theater” of 2025 — is essentially over. There is nothing left to expect from it.

What exactly are we still waiting for? Do we really need to hear for the thousandth time from Mr. Witkoff: “Ukraine, please give up Donbas”? None of these meetings produced any meaningful results. I do not believe we need more of this.

UI: So does the role of mediator now effectively shift to Europe? Or will Ukraine and Russia ultimately have to resolve the issue themselves?

NL: But the real problem is not the absence of a mediator. That has never been the issue. The issue is that Putin must be forced to stop. And that can only be achieved through stronger military support for Ukraine.

What exactly is there left to “mediate”? This entire discussion about mediators has become simply ridiculous.

Olha Tanasiichuk led this conversation. Prague

Photo via Author

* The conversation is given here translated from Ukrainian