Maroc - ENG.UATV.UA - A La Une - Hier 11:01

James Sherr – War Over Greenland?!

Why putin publicly reacts on UK-Ukraine 100 years Partnership Declaration? Does Trump have what it takes to bring putin to peace? First time in human history two countries can go to war over what they completely AGREE upon - is AS-Denmark war over Greenland possible? Should Ukraine get ready for another war even before this one ends? James Sherr, Senior Fellow at the International Centre for Defence & Security, offers his expert insights. Don’t miss this eye-opening discussion. — Have you heard anything about that UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership declaration? — I have nothing to add beyond what you probably know. There is nothing I see in current UK policy that would provide the means to assist Ukraine militarily in a more effective way than it is already doing at the moment. — Yeah, so, it is atmospherically, aspirationally, and, of course, rhetorically a very good thing. Absolutely. I've read the document; it is awesome. But the question is, what is necessary to make the means available? — My thoughts exactly. It begs the biggest question—not only what the UK is capable of doing but what Europe as a whole, both EU and non-EU, is capable of doing in the absence of military assistance to Ukraine at the levels we have seen since 2022. There's no definitive answer to this question. This is a matter of complete uncertainty because of the uncertainties of US policy, which, in part, are deliberate. Donald Trump still regards his unpredictability as an asset; many in Europe do not regard it as an asset. So, as we move into the second week of his presidency, we're still in a state of profound uncertainty. —Right, absolutely. My question is, Vladimir Putin almost never publicly reacts to any treaties, declarations, or agreements signed by Ukraine. But this one specifically made him nervous—he stepped up with a public comment condemning it. Why would he even react to that? — Because he, like most of the Russian establishment, is a prisoner of the view that UK policy is simply an arm of US policy. I suspect, therefore, that he worries that Starmer and his government are doing this at the instigation of Donald Trump and Washington. I myself regard that suggestion with the utmost skepticism, but this is a deeply ingrained Russian view. — Right, okay. Talking about Trump and his tone of voice when addressing Putin, does he have what it takes to bring Putin to peace? To make him negotiate? — The question is more elemental than that. Does he possess the knowledge, intellectual qualities, and discipline essential to understanding the opponent and making good, reliable judgments? The biggest problem is not so much Trump’s determination that there should be a ceasefire and an end to the fighting as quickly as possible—this is something President Zelenskyy genuinely wants, not just pretends to want. The questions are under what conditions this can happen. The biggest danger is that, without exception, Putin and every leading Russian official couple a ceasefire with conditions for a peace settlement. This would be an absolutely ruinous course and would immediately rule out any quick ceasefire. The key question in the Kremlin is to what extent Putin and others will be able to play with and manipulate Trump's lack of knowledge to get agreement on certain basic preconditions for a ceasefire that are put forward by Russia. — So, you’re saying Trump has a lack of knowledge? — Yes, but one must also question the reliability of his judgment as well as his knowledge. Judgment requires knowledge but also demands a disciplined intellectual and psychological approach, which not everyone believes Trump has demonstrated. If you look at the ongoing episode with Greenland, for example, you see a conspicuous case where one has to question this. I personally do not take seriously the notion that the United States and Denmark will end up at war, but they are talking as if this could be the first time in history when two countries go to war because they completely agree with one another. — So, assuming a ceasefire happens, everyone I know in Ukraine says that Ukraine should always be ready for another invasion, whether it happens or not. Would you agree with that statement? — Yes, but more broadly, Ukraine needs a framework that creates a counterbalance to Russian military power. This requires more targeted yet far greater Western support. A ceasefire must be used by Ukraine and its partners to address these realities and create a convincing counterbalance to Russia. One of the main issues Ukraine faces is the lack of confidence in its military training system. The deficiency in manpower does not stem from an absence of people but from a lack of trust that those who join the forces will be properly trained and commanded by capable leaders. Systemic reform is necessary, and it's difficult to do that in high-intensity combat conditions. — So, Ukraine and Europe are uniting under the same security framework? — The security framework is identical. But different EU and NATO member states interpret this security challenge in different terms. However, a majority of NATO member states now accept the reality of the Russian threat and the need for a counterbalance. The security problem is a common problem for both Ukraine and the West. If you look at incidents in the Baltic Sea, such as the cutting of energy and communication cables, it’s clear that a more proactive response is required. The threat may be an existential one for Ukraine in the short to mid-term, but it is also a growing concern for Europe. — Right. What do you make of Trump’s NATO policy and his call for increased defense spending? — Trump has demanded that other NATO states devote 5% of GDP to defense spending. As Zelenskyy said at Davos, that is something that should be done. This aligns with the recognition that Russia is a long-term threat. Concessions to Russia will not mollify its ambitions—they extend beyond Ukraine. The only way to secure our collective objectives is through containment and sustained pressure. The changes in Trump’s rhetoric—acknowledging that Putin is the main obstacle to peace and aiming to curb Russia’s energy revenues—are positive developments. However, these policies must be part of a broader strategy that maintains and strengthens sanctions. The reality is that Russia will remain a security threat to Ukraine and Europe, and addressing this challenge requires a long-term commitment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0QnORZgHrk&ab_channel=UATVEnglish Read also: Preparing for Russia’s Collapse: Ben Hodges on War Future The post James Sherr – War Over Greenland?! appeared first on Freedom.