– A 30-day temporary ceasefire – that is what America and Ukraine agreed to. Do you expect Russia to agree to this ceasefire under existing conditions or they will ask for more? Will America be ready to accommodate them?
– Well, so far, the Trump administration has given Mr Putin many, many concessions. They’ve already hinted in public that they will not allow Ukraine to join NATO. They said that Ukraine will have to give territory to Russia. They said that there will be no US participation in any peacekeeping force. They’ve hinted that they’re going to lift sanctions on Russia. President Trump has invited Russia back to the G7, and at the same time that they provide all these carrots to Putin, they have pressured the Ukrainian side to agree to this ceasefire deal, including cutting military assistance and cutting intelligence cooperation. So it seems to me that this is a, you know, Putin should sign this deal. He’s gotten everything he’s wanted, and yet it seems like they’re going to demand more.
If you just give your negotiating partner everything upfront and expect nothing in return, it’s very logical that they will demand more. And I’ve had personal experiences negotiating with the Russians. This is very consistent with their negotiating style.
– American media cite sources claiming that he may demand the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine be stopped in exchange for a ceasefire. Would America accept this?
– Well, I think that would be a big mistake. That would just be giving, you know, that’s not negotiating, that’s capitulation. That’s appeasement, and appeasing dictators in history rarely has worked. So I hope that the Trump administration will understand that just providing concessions to Putin will not help to achieve an enduring ceasefire. And I think they should do exactly the opposite. I think they should increase military assistance to Ukraine and increase sanctions on Russia as conditions to help to create a meaningful negotiation that then they can withdraw those sanctions down the road. But if they just keep giving Putin more and more and more without asking anything in return, he’s just going to ask for more and more and more.
– But why is this happening? Can you explain the policy of Trump’s Administration, why they want to give everything to Russia, whatever the Russians want. At the same time forcing Ukraine to yield to Russia.
– Well, that’s a very good question, and I don’t claim to have a clear answer. If I were to speculate, I think that President Trump actually does not care about enduring peace in Ukraine. What he really cares about is fostering a new relationship with Vladimir Putin, just like he did when he was president the first time around. So restoring relations with Russia, I think is actually the first objective and peace in Ukraine is a second or tertiary objective. And, and the second piece I would add is that I think Trump wants the headline that I was the one that ended the war in Ukraine. And once he gets that headline, then he doesn’t care about what happens later. And so that’s why you see this rush to get a ceasefire agreement being first and foremost what Trump is interested in. And what happens later in terms of the details of a negotiation is of secondary concern for him, for you, for Ukraine, for President Zelensky. It’s the exact opposite. Remember, President Zelensky negotiated a ceasefire agreement with Vladimir Putin in 2019. And he sat with his European partners and they signed a ceasefire because there was a war going on during that time. I think people need to remember that the war started in 2014, not in 2022. But after signing that agreement in 2019, what did Putin do three years later? He launched his full scale invasion of Ukraine that has been going on for three years now. So from the Ukrainian perspective, just signing another ceasefire without some credible security guarantees is a bad deal. And that’s why they’re so nervous about just repeating those mistakes from the past.
– Will Putin try to drag out the negotiation process as much as possible until the Ukrainians are expelled from the Kursk region? Or does he want to achieve something else before that?
– That’s a very good observation. In my mind. Tragically, Putin is now using all means necessary to try to liberate Kursk before any negotiations because he doesn’t want to be trading land for land. He wants to take Kursk first before negotiations start. So until he completes that objective or until he’ll keep trying. And, and tragically, he’s making progress on that with the help of the North Koreans, I don’t think he’ll be serious about a ceasefire.
– If a ceasefire is established, are there any ideas on what it might look like?
– Well, again, I’m just speculating. I don’t know. Yeah, of course I think it will. I will be surprised if Putin agrees to a ceasefire before he takes back Kursk. And so I think we’re going to watch that war, that part of the war escalate as it’s already happening as we speak. And until that happens, I’m very sceptical that he’ll sign a ceasefire agreement.
– If Putin refuses to accept this ceasefire, do you think the US has another plan, Plan B, in such a case? For instance, we heard something about sanctions and we heard about them before. So what might surprise Russia now?
– Well, I would hope that the response of Putin deciding not to sign the ceasefire would be exactly that. Increase sanctions, increase enforcement of existing sanctions and new military assistance to Ukraine. That’s the only way to put pressure on Moscow to get serious about negotiations. I fear that the impulse instead will be more concessions. And I think that would be a radically bad policy, and not just for Ukraine, but for American national interests, because that makes America look weak. That makes it looks like we’re appeasing dictators. And that has implications not only for our security interests in Europe, but also for our security interests around the world, especially in Asia. I think the message will be that if you just keep pressuring America, America will capitulate. America will just give you what you want. And if I were living in Taiwan, I would be very nervous about that. That sends, I think, a very negative signal to our credible commitment to Taiwanese security, and I think it sends a very unwelcome signal to Xi Jinping that if you just keep pressuring the Americans, eventually they’ll just capitulate.
– I would add that Trump’s Administration has been rude dealing with the allies in Asia, with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea – and only making demands. And what kind of signal is that?
– I agree with you completely. I think it is just a very odd strategy to put it diplomatically to only pressure your allies, see, threaten to seize their territory in the case of Canada and Denmark and Panama. But then, you know, only kind words for your adversaries. And that just gets to, a profound moment, a tragic, profound moment in American history where it seems as if the president of the United States right now is not interested in leading the free world. He wants to join the autocratic world. And I just think that that is not in America’s national security interests.
– President Trump says that it is easier for him to deal with the Russians than with Ukraine. Why does he say so?
– Well, of course, it’s easier to do with Vladimir Putin because he’s giving Putin everything he wants. Why? Of course Putin’s treating him nicely because he’s literally giving him every concession that he wants. Whereas the Ukrainian delegation and President Zelensky, they’re trying desperately to hold on to their country under pressure from the Trump administration. And, and of course, that would be more confrontational. So, but even if that’s true, I just think it’s bad diplomacy. You know, I’ve negotiated with Vladimir Putin’s government and they’re tough negotiators. They’re very difficult people to get to negotiate with. If you give them a concession, they just put it in their pocket and then say, what are you going to give us next? And I just think that’s just elementary, you know, lessons of diplomacy. You have to get something in return from a concession. You just don’t give everything at the beginning. And I honestly don’t understand their strategy. I think it’s not a workable strategy. And I don’t think it’s a strategy that is advancing the interests of my country. Leave Ukraine aside. I just think it makes us look weak. I think it makes us look like we’re susceptible to pressure and I don’t think that serves our interests in Europe or around the world.
– Michael, if you talk right now as an American, aren’t you scared that if you lose all of your allies across the world, I mean in Asia, here in Europe, that you will stand alone? For instance, Trump talks about China, about threats. But aren’t you afraid to stand alone against all of your enemies if you don’t have any friends, especially military allies?
– Yes, I am afraid I think it’s not in our long term national security interests. I’ve just finished writing a book called Autocrats versus Democrats, and it’s a book about great power competition in the 21st century, and it draws on our experiences during the Cold War for lessons from the Cold War. And we made some mistakes, the United States during the Cold War, by the way, and I talk about those mistakes. But when I talk about our successes, at the top of the list are our democratic allies. Our great advantage during the Cold War is that we had strong, powerful democratic allies in Europe and in Asia, and the Soviet Union did not. And that was a great advantage we had. And I fear that President Trump is undermining that great advantage today in ways that I think will make it more difficult for us to compete with China and Russia in the 21st century.
– Recently, on your X social media page, you listed possible concessions that the Trump administration could offer Russia. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? And what do you think is currently on the negotiating table between the US and Russia?
– Well, I listed what I’ve already seen in public are concessions that the Trump administration has offered Ukraine, Russia. Excuse me. So they’ve already said in public that Ukraine can’t join NATO. They’ve already said in public that Ukraine has to give up territory to Putin. They’ve already said in public that American soldiers will not participate in any peacekeeping force. They’ve already said in public that they’re willing to lift sanctions if there’s peace. Trump’s already said publicly that he wants Russia to join the G7. He’s already cut foreign assistance through USAID to independent Russian media groups, to independent civil society groups living in exile, another gift to Putin. And at the same time, he has pressured Ukraine by cutting assistance, by cutting military assistance, economic assistance, USAID assistance, forcing Ukraine to sign a minerals agreement to, to force us to pay back Ukrainians, to pay back America for the, the assistance we’ve provided. And again, I just, I, I just think it’s not a smart negotiating strategy usually in any negotiation, but most certainly with Russia, you trade things, right. If I give you this, you got to give me something back in return. And I don’t see that happening. And 2nd, when I negotiated with the Russians, when I worked in the government, we had a principle where we said nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And so that you don’t get to pocket a concession over here until we come to an agreement related with regard to another issue over here. And I just don’t see them practising that kind of elementary diplomacy.
– We see this situation and we don’t like it. I mean you, your colleagues, and some other Americans, and Europeans. Can we change anything to kind of turn it in a better direction?
– Well, that’s a great question, and I don’t have a great answer other than to hope for a couple of things. Number one, if Putin refuses to sign the ceasefire, maybe that will help the Trump administration to understand that just offering concessions doesn’t work. And maybe they’ll change their strategy and develop more coercive strategies for dealing with Russia, including increased sanctions and military systems for Ukraine. But second, I personally would like to see a more prominent role for Europe in these negotiations. I don’t like the fact that it’s just the United States and Russia. I think it would be a better strategy to have Europe as part of these negotiation talks, these ceasefire talks. I think that would be a good balance to what I see right now is an imbalance where it seems like in the mediation between Russia and Ukraine. Right now it seems to me that the Trump administration is on the side of the Russians. So I think it would be very prudent to have the Europeans represented so that that would balance what I think right now is a very imbalanced negotiation process.
– Do you approve of the proposed expansion of the French and British nuclear forces to provide a "European nuclear umbrella"?
– Well, it’s not my preferred outcome. My preferred outcome is the status quo. NATO has worked as one of the most effective alliances in the history of the world. And I think we should strengthen NATO, not abandon NATO. So my personal view is I would like to see that be the focus of our attention. But if there has to be a backup, then, you know, I welcome the conversations we are talking about, you know, European and nuclear umbrella, but that’s a very suboptimal outcome. I think it would be much better to fortify the American involvement.
– And I would like to quote Nikolai Patrushev here. He has claimed that Moscow perceives a threat from NATO in the Baltic region, particularly regarding the exposure of Russia’s port infrastructure and shipping. What is the Putin regime signalling here? Should we be worried about it?
– Well, first, I would say never in the history of the NATO alliance has NATO ever attacked the Soviet Union or Russia. And so when you hear Nikolai Patrushev, I used to negotiate with Mr Patrushev. I know him well. When you hear him say that, I think people need to remember. That NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has attacked Russia, ever. Never attacked the Soviet Union, ever. And the way I think about it, you know, I’m looking out my window at my neighbour. If he builds a fence to protect him, that’s not a threat to me. It’s only a threat to me if I have the intention to try to rob him. But if he’s building a fence and I have no intention to ever attack him, that’s not a threat to me. NATO is a defensive alliance and, and, and it always has been and always should be. And therefore that it’s, you know, Russians should not worry about NATO because NATO’s never attacked them. But I do worry about Russia becoming more aggressive against NATO allies, including Lithuania. That’s new and that’s threatening, and that’s very worrisome to me. And that’s why, in my mind, in terms of my country’s security interests, I don’t want a war with Russia. I don’t want America to go to a war with Russia. I think that would be a very bad outcome for the security interests of my country. And so the best way to avoid war with Russia is strengthening NATO, strengthening our commitment to Article 5, more military assistance to our frontline states, including Lithuania. That’s the way to keep the peace. That’s what Ronald Reagan said. Peace through strength, that works. Appeasement. That doesn’t work. And tragically your country knows better than any country. Lithuania knows better than any country in the world how appeasement does not work. You tragically lived through the 1930s and 40s and you saw the failures of those kinds of strategies, whereas we saw the success of NATO after its creation in 1949. And I would just remind your viewers that when NATO was created in 49, there were people in my country that said, Oh my goodness, we’re going to poke the Soviet bear and that’s going to lead to war. Even George Kennan, a very famous diplomat, former ambassador to the Soviet Union, that’s what he said back in 49 that turned out to not to be true. And then they said the same thing about bringing West Germany in 1955 to NATO. People said, Oh my goodness, this will lead to World War Three. It didn’t happen. And then they said the same thing about the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states when President Bush began talking about it in 2002. And everybody said this is going to lead to war with Russia. Exactly the opposite happened. And we’ve experienced 20 years of peace after that. After that, that was The Big Bang, the last major expansion of NATO announced in 2022 and completed in 2004. And that’s led to 20 years of peace and stability. Strengthening NATO is the way to avoid war with Russia.
– Yes, I would like to underline that we see that Putin so easily just convinced Trump that Ukraine is a provocateur, not Russia. So, you know, we are questioning now whether we can count on American support. It might be that Trump will be told by Putin again that the Baltics are provocateurs. You know anything can happen.
– Well, there’s reason to be fearful of that. The good news, I would say, is that if you look at public opinion polling in America, the vast majority of Americans, 81% according to one poll, don’t trust Putin. The vast majority of Americans support NATO. The vast majority of Americans do not want us to join the club of autocrats and leave the club of democrats, democratic countries. And so I think that suggests to me that Mister Trump, President Trump, is actually out of step with the American people on this policy that he is following. And that gives me hope that in the long run we might do the right thing.
– I would like to ask you probably my last question if I may. Trump put James Polk’s picture on the wall in the White House and Polk has been behind America’s greatest territorial expansion. Should Greenland and Canada be scared that Trump might seize them by military means?
– I didn’t even know that he put that painting up of Polk. Thank you for telling me that.
– The Wall Street Journal just recently wrote about that.
– This is kooky, you know, just so you know, I’m sure 99% of Americans have no memory and no understanding of what Polk did so that he’s not considered one of our, he’s not one of our well known presidents. I don’t even know a lot about the Polk era, but I do know that this Manifest Destiny idea from the 19th century that President Trump is trying to resurrect is a really, really bad idea. We’ve got plenty of problems in the world without creating new problems with our democratic allies in Denmark and Canada and Panama. This is a kooky idea. It does not have any support in the United States. We are not. I will be shocked if we go to war over trying to take territory like Greenland. I just think, again, President Trump, in talking about these things, is out of touch with the American people. And I just want to remind you that he promised his voters no more wars. He said we’re going to pull out of wars. We’re going to stop fighting wars. And so to reverse himself, I think he’s he. It’s very dangerous for him politically. I just don’t think the American people are going to go along with that.