'Putin will not stop if he wins in Ukraine': Ukrainian diplomat Kuleba on Europe's future

As Ukraine approaches the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion, the war remains at the center of global geopolitics. The ongoing struggle has tested alliances, altered military strategies, and forced nations to rethink their commitments to security and defense. With shifting political landscapes in the United States and Europe, Ukraine continues to fight not only on the battlefield but also in the halls of diplomacy, seeking assurances that its allies will remain steadfast.

Few understand these diplomatic battles better than Dmytro Kuleba, who served as Ukraine's Foreign Minister throughout some of the country's most turbulent years. A career diplomat, he has been instrumental in securing military aid, rallying international coalitions, and countering Russian propaganda. Now, as uncertainty looms over future Western assistance, Kuleba offers a candid assessment of Ukraine's position, the political will of its allies, and the stark realities of war.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

When you've endured the invasion by Vladimir Putin's forces, how patient can you be with those who say they want to turn in their term paper late?

Well, as a diplomat, you are trained over the years to tolerate people. But when you are in a war, you have to remain firm while still tolerating and confronting people at the same time. It's not easy, but this is what war teaches you to do.

All right, and it works in the classroom as well. I want to ask you about what Trump said at some point about speaking with Vladimir Putin. Europe's leaders are clearly nervous, with the latest example being the German Chancellor, who spoke earlier this Tuesday in Berlin alongside his Danish counterpart. "We will support Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and freedom for as long as it takes. We agree with our partners in Washington that this war must end, but it cannot be a dictated peace." Mr. Kuleba, how do those words sound to you?

All good words. The war must end. Ukraine couldn't agree more. A just and lasting peace makes perfect sense. The question is, what do we mean by just and lasting peace? And this is where differences will emerge.

Do you believe Olaf Scholz when he says that Germany will stand with Ukraine until the end?

I do, but the question, once again, is in the details. What exactly does standing by Ukraine mean? So far, Germany has become the second-largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, following the United States. But we all understand that as the war drags on, more needs to be done. The fundamental question here is whether Europe will be able to compensate if the United States suspends its assistance for months to come. We know that Europe has the capacity and the resources to do so, but it lacks the political will to do more than it is already doing.  This is the real question that needs to be addressed in the coming weeks and months.

Where does that political will come from? We're in a bit of a strange time. France has a weak government. Germany has snap elections coming up. Italy's prime minister has the ear of Donald Trump. She's pro-Ukraine, but she's also from the far right. So, who’s in charge?

This is the question most often asked about Europe, yet it remains unanswered. Who is in charge in Europe?

Because if you suddenly need to do what you say and increase defense spending, who is going to make the call?

In my view, politicians in the European Union should not be afraid to tell their voters the truth: if we do not help Ukraine, the war will reach our cities. The biggest mistake people are making these days is believing that it will not happen to them. They think it is only Ukraine that is suffering and that Putin would never dare to disturb the beauty of European cities. But he will if he wins in Ukraine. This is the harsh reality that politicians should not be afraid to speak about. 

You can already hear warnings from German intelligence and the German Ministry of Defense that by 2028, Russia will be capable of directly confronting NATO. We are only three years away from that.  

So, I believe a bit of honesty from politicians when addressing their voters can create a favorable environment for the political will to step up support for Ukraine.

How do you interpret Donald Trump’s stance in the eight days since he was sworn in for a second term? His statements seem to have become more pointed against Vladimir Putin, but will that last?

I believe we should not be overly excited about his negative comments directed at President Putin because there is no guarantee that the next day he won’t say something similar about President Zelenskyy or Ukraine in general. He wants a deal, he wants to end the war.  

To me, it seems he has realized that it is far more complicated than he initially thought and that it will take much more time and effort to achieve a result. This is why we are no longer hearing about a 24-hour resolution. I do not believe that peace will be established in three months or in 100 days, as suggested by his special representative.  

What he is trying to do now is test the waters to see how responsive the warring parties are to his threats and incentives. What we hear today are seemingly constructive messages from both Kyiv and Moscow, indicating they are ready to talk. But this should not be an illusion.  

It should not mislead anyone into thinking that there isn’t still a huge gap between expressing a willingness to negotiate and actually engaging in negotiations.

All right, when it comes to concrete actions, what Donald Trump has done so far is nominate staff members. If you're Ukrainian, there might be reasons to be optimistic. General Kellogg is someone with both feet on the ground – he's the point man on Ukraine.  However, there's also Michael Duffy, the nominee for Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. He was the one who, back in 2019, insisted that military aid to Ukraine would be cut off if they didn’t deliver dirt on Hunter Biden's son.  What are your thoughts on that?

Well, listen, in this administration, everyone will follow what Trump thinks.  

Biden was listening to what the system was telling him. Today, under Trump, the system will listen to what he tells them. If President Trump decides to deliver more military aid to Ukraine, people like the gentlemen you just mentioned will execute his orders. We should be absolutely clear about that.  

I have no illusions about the presence of some anti-Ukrainian elements in Trump's circle. But in the end, in this administration, it will be President Trump making the decisions and others will follow whether they like it or not.

So you're indifferent, for instance, when he appoints a television host, Pete Hegseth, as his Secretary of Defense?

I think it is the people of America who have to decide whether they want to be indifferent or not. I know that if you want the United States to support you, you need to have Trump on your side, and everyone else will follow.

And how's President Zelenskyy doing on that front? 

Well, so far, we have heard Trump say that it seems to him that Zelenskyy wants peace and that he is waiting for a message from Moscow to see whether Moscow wants peace.  

Zelenskyy has adopted the only viable strategy, which is to be constructive, to show willingness to engage with Trump, to praise him, and to see how well this strategy will work. He could not do anything differently because he knows Trump, we all know Trump, and he is trying his best. Time will tell how it all plays out.

We are approaching the third anniversary of the full-scale invasion. What options does Ukraine have now? For instance, do you lower the conscription age from 27 to 25?

This idea was not born in Ukraine. It first emerged in the United States, even before this administration came to power.  

In my view, it is a big mistake because the Russian narrative claims that the West is fighting against Russia using Ukrainian hands until the last Ukrainian. The demand to lower the mobilization age fits perfectly into that narrative.  

Second, the mobilization age is not the decisive factor in this war. Those who push this argument use it as an excuse for their own inaction. Essentially, they are suggesting that they do not owe anything to Ukraine because Ukraine has not lowered the mobilization age. This is the narrative they are trying to build.  

But it is a clear manipulation. What is truly needed to fight the enemy is weapons.

One final question for you. With your students, you know there are two schools of thought when it comes to how history is made. One emphasizes big powers, while the other focuses on individuals who somehow change the course of history. The expression "crossing the Rubicon" comes to mind. From your four years as a foreign minister, was there a moment when things could have gone either way but an individual decision led them in one direction instead of another? 

Endless amount of such cases and I will be sharing these cases with these students because I want them to understand that during the war …

Give us one.

Well, one prime minister convened a meeting of his government to decide whether to provide Ukraine with a certain type of weapon. His entire government was against it, arguing that they needed the weapon for themselves. He asked them a simple question: Are we under attack? Do we realize that if Ukraine fails, we will be under attack?  

He then said, Give them the weapons and start producing new ones for ourselves.  

His government followed his instruction, and that was one person's decision that changed history.

Who was that person?

A prime minister, not a president. But I know of other cases as well where, in some countries, the system opposed the leader's decision to such an extent that he had to step back. As a result, that country did not take the necessary action for Ukraine. It did so half a year later, but by then, precious time had been lost.