Putin’s independence limited by need for China’s support — U.S. journalist Ignatius

I would like to begin our conversation with a sense of foreboding about the possible outbreak of World War III. The Iran–Israel war is ongoing and we do not know how it will end. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine continues and we understand that this will be a long and bloody story. At the same time we are witnessing the collapse of global diplomacy. Regrettably I have a strong feeling that the G7 summit, which should have ended with something remarkably productive, instead concluded with the early departure of US President Donald Trump. And this is just one example of what the global security architecture is going through right now. What are your thoughts? Why did Trump leave the G7 summit so abruptly?

At the moment, I believe the global architecture is overwhelmed by crises that Donald Trump attempted but so far has failed to resolve. Trump promised he would bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

And, as your viewers know better than anyone, that hasn’t happened. He also promised to negotiate some kind of agreement with Iran that would prevent an Israeli strike. Yet we now find ourselves in the midst of an increasingly violent Israeli offensive that may draw in the United States.

Even the symbolic G7 meeting, the emblem of Western strength and solidarity, was disrupted by these crises. It adjourned with Trump suddenly leaving and without passing a resolution in support of Ukraine, which had been widely expected as the summit’s main outcome.

To sum up, we have a world overwhelmed by problems and an American president who seems unable to resolve or even directly address any of them.

Do you see any prospects for reaching an agreement at the negotiating table? We are witnessing a crisis of international law, where powerful states try to assert themselves by force, and the role of the United States as a stabilizing force and guarantor of the post-Yalta world is weakening. There have been various processes in place since the Second World War, but we have never stood so close to a potential Third World War. What will the Trump administration do in this current situation?

First, your skepticism seems justified. It appears that what we are seeing now is Trump choosing to stand back and allow the crises to unfold.

He is letting Ukraine and Russia continue fighting for a while longer, presumably until both sides are more exhausted and prepared for negotiations. As for Israel and Iran, as he has observed the Israelis achieving total domination over Iran, he seems eager to share in the victory.

He was announcing yesterday in Washington, “We now have total control over the skies,” referring to the United States, when in reality the United States has played no role to date. From my experience covering global conflicts, wars eventually come to an end.

The conditions under which they conclude are ultimately determined by the will of the people engaged in the fighting. Regarding both Ukraine and the Israel-Iran conflict, the central issue appears to be what weapons are available that enable each side to continue through these difficult periods.

So when I consider Kyiv, I assume the worst about the likelihood of receiving assistance from the United States.

Is there enough weaponry from other sources to maintain the current lines against the Russians? And in the conflict with Iran, do the Iranians have the endurance to resist and continue fighting even as Israel carries out airstrikes?

In my view, those are the most pressing questions as an observer of these conflicts.

There are some experts who suggest that Putin might want to trade the issue of Ukraine for the issue of Iran. In Ukraine, this possibility is taken extremely seriously. How likely is it that such conversations could be taking place between Trump and Putin, or perhaps not only between them?

Putin is obviously pleased that the Iran crisis has pushed the Ukraine crisis off the front page, as we say. It is no longer the most urgent story in the world.

It appears that Putin has also offered to be helpful to Trump in trying to end the Israel-Iran war, even as he refuses to be helpful in ending the war in Ukraine. It is a very cynical ploy by Putin. I was truly shocked, and I mean that sincerely, by Trump's proposal at the G7 summit to invite Russia back, turning it into the G8 again, as if rewarding a country that has carried out an illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

I am glad to say that the proposal seemed to receive nothing but scorn and rejection from European leaders, and I believe there is no chance of it happening.

Frankly, the likelihood of Russia being able to deliver Iran to Trump and secure a settlement is probably close to zero. So it seems there is more political theater here than actual substance.

Speaking of the outlook within Donald Trump’s circle regarding support or lack of support for Ukraine, how far could they go either in supplying us with Tomahawk missiles or, on the contrary, imposing sanctions on Ukraine for allegedly refusing to listen to Donald Trump? After all, the absence of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Ramstein meeting was, to me, a very telling gesture.

It is obvious to any observer that, going forward, Ukraine will have to depend more on support from European countries than from the United States.

The beginning of wisdom for Ukraine is to assume the worst and then ask, how do you survive under the worst conditions? If you can do that, then you will be able to endure and ultimately triumph.

It has been encouraging to see the Europeans stepping up and taking greater responsibility for producing and supplying weapons to Ukraine.

I have been especially encouraged by the new chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, and his willingness to substantially increase German defense spending and assistance to Ukraine, including the provision of Taurus missiles, which could give Ukraine a kind of strategic advantage it has not had, even with American HIMARS and ATACMS systems.

The key question is what Ukraine needs that only the United States can provide, and then to focus on that. My understanding is that, beyond air defense missiles, the one essential item is intelligence capabilities. So far, based on my reporting, I see no indication that the United States is planning to halt intelligence support to Ukraine. That could change, but for the moment, that is what I am hearing.

Ukrainian intelligence services and the Armed Forces have shown that they hold strong cards. They have struck a blow to Russia’s nuclear triad. However, this does not mean that Putin will stop the war, especially given his psychological profile and the ongoing preparations inside Russia. In your opinion, what are the Russians trying to achieve right now? Putin’s plans seem to extend beyond Ukraine to the Baltic states as well. He disregards losses and continues to demonstrate a willingness to go all the way.

Putin appears to continue holding grand ambitions about redrawing the map of Europe in Russia's favor. However, it is worth remembering that, three years into this war, Russia has still not succeeded in capturing Donetsk. So, despite its power, the Russian war machine has clear limits. I hope Ukrainians keep that in mind during these difficult times.

Russian claims about moving next against the Baltic states, or toward Finland, Sweden, or Moldova, seem premature. For now, the Russian military is overwhelmed by the challenges it is already facing. It is in no condition to launch additional wars on other fronts.

That is my assessment. It is crucial that Ukraine’s allies find every possible way to support the country during this challenging period. The summer of 2026 is likely to be difficult, just as the past winter was. I am certain the Russians will launch further assaults and attempt to test Ukraine’s defensive lines.

Let me add one more point as an American observer who has visited Ukraine six or seven times since the war began and seen its capabilities firsthand. Ukraine has become a global leader in the new technology of warfare. What Ukraine has accomplished with drones and electronic warfare on the front lines is extraordinary. The whole world is trying to learn from and keep pace with the advances that Ukraine has made. Ukraine is becoming a military superpower. It is not as large as Russia, it does not have as many vehicles, and certainly not as many soldiers. But in terms of what actually wins wars, technology and the will to resist, Ukraine is doing remarkably well.

That is what I take away from observing this struggle, fully aware that there are still terribly difficult times ahead. The bombing of Kyiv two nights ago was shocking, absolutely shocking, and I am sure there will be more difficult nights to come. But as I continue to observe this war, I remain struck by the strength Ukraine has shown, far beyond what many initially expected.

And what is China’s actual position? On May 9, Xi Jinping flew to Moscow and met with Putin. I believe the leader of the Chinese Communist Party gave the Kremlin chief certain messages, after which Putin appeared ready to enter into conditional negotiations. However, just a few days later, everything changed dramatically. Xi Jinping declared that China was ready to move forward and reminded the world of the fall of many great empires. As I understand it, China supports Russia not simply out of economic or trade interests. It seeks to reshape the global system — economically, politically, and in terms of security. What is your view on Beijing’s stance, particularly regarding Russia’s aggression against Ukraine? What kind of world is China trying to build today? And who will it build it with, apart from North Korea and Russia?

I believe President Trump and many others made a mistake in underestimating just how strongly Xi Jinping supports Vladimir Putin in this war.

The support goes right up to the line of actually supplying weapons, but the technology used in those weapons is certainly coming from or through China. This is a strategic partnership. Xi does not want to see his friend Putin lose.

That said, I have felt, as I know many Ukrainians have, that in the long run this war could go on so long and become so damaging to Europe that it would no longer serve China’s interests.

China has a strong interest in trade, economic ties, and political relations with Europe, especially as the United States pulls back from the region. I can imagine a situation, perhaps not this year but maybe next year, where China might offer itself as an intermediary in negotiations.

China already has a special envoy who visits Kyiv, as your viewers know. So far, they have not done much in terms of diplomacy. But if the war becomes more difficult from the perspective of Chinese interests, it would not surprise me to see China take on a slightly broader role in trying to help find a settlement, especially if President Trump remains uninvolved.

Trump will not be able to turn a blind eye if China launches a landing operation on the island of Taiwan. He will have to respond. Similarly, Trump will be forced to act if Iran obtains enriched uranium to build a dirty bomb and then directs it toward Israel. These are extremely serious matters, so I understand why Trump is taking certain pauses because the very concept of war is changing rapidly. Given today’s enormous technological leap, do you feel that we might be able to shift the course of the war with the help of new technologies? Because the nuclear curse always hangs over us. Russia possesses nuclear weapons and has updated its nuclear doctrine. So the question is, will the US administration be ready to act if the Russians cross a certain line? And what about our European allies? In Warsaw and Vilnius, there is growing concern. Will Article 5 of the NATO Charter be upheld?

Let me take the last part of the question first. I believe this question of American assistance to Europe if it were attacked under the NATO understanding that an attack on one is an attack on all is the most fragile issue going forward. And it is something that Americans need to focus on much more. We refer to this as the American backstop in conversations about the future of Ukraine.

But for our European allies, as they become more involved and take more risks in stopping Russia, they need to know that in the end they will not be alone. Regarding the broader question you raised, we have entered a new era of warfare. The Ukraine war is unlike any we have seen before.

The role of technology, the rapid advances in technology, sometimes month by month, even week by week, the changes in how drones operate, how electronic warfare tries to defeat them, and how drones then respond to the new electronic warfare are extraordinary. Militaries around the world are trying to learn the lessons that the Ukraine war is teaching.

From everything I can see, although the Russians are a learning army and have become more effective than they were in the first year, Ukraine still appears to be ahead in this constant back and forth. That is one thing that gives me some hope for the future. But Ukraine is going to need friends, especially friends in Europe.

We have to accept that for the moment Trump speaks for the American people, who clearly are tired of being involved in these wars. And it is Europe whose interests are directly affected as Putin threatens and expands. It is the European countries that have the most at stake, so it is appropriate that they take on a greater role.

As I said earlier, when I see someone like Chancellor Merz, someone like Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and leaders in Finland, the Baltics, and the Nordic states, it seems to me they stand very firmly with Ukraine. I believe you have some reason to hope that you will get through this year and the next. And I believe the world will begin to look a little different.

We need to strengthen our relations with partners and allies in Europe, and this must be done urgently. Ukraine is holding back potential Russian aggression against European countries. On the other hand, about six months ago, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said something extremely important: "I started to realize that Putin is not joking." I believe that French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have come to the same realization — Putin is not joking. We are waiting to see whether Macron or Starmer will be ready to act. This is no longer a time for declarations or even support. This is a time for political will and readiness. What is your view? How willing would they be to engage in serious discussions with us? The idea of a potential foreign contingent that could help maintain balance and guarantee Ukraine’s security after the war may become relevant much sooner than expected. So what is your perspective on that?

We cannot answer that with confidence, but the early evidence suggests that Macron, Starmer, Merz, and others are serious and are prepared to take more risks as they stand with Ukraine. Russia is doing everything it can to intimidate them and to frighten them into not getting more deeply involved.

The question you mentioned about sending troops has been in people’s minds as a reassurance force after a ceasefire. The Europeans have made it clear that they are prepared to do that. In terms of sending troops while the conflict is still ongoing, I do not see signs of that yet. But there could be other ways in which Europe becomes more involved.

If the Germans do in fact send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, that would be a game changer. That would put Moscow at risk. That would be a major step for Germany to take.

On the final question you have been asking, which we all think about, what is the danger that Russia could use its nuclear weapons and escalate this war to a new level through the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it seems to me that for all the Russian rhetoric, that danger is significantly lower than it was two years ago, for a simple reason.

President Xi Jinping has made it clear privately to President Putin, from what I am told, and also publicly, that China does not believe it is appropriate for nuclear weapons to be used in this war or in any war. And I believe that matters. Putin cannot operate without support from Xi. If Xi tells him that nuclear weapons are off the table, we should take that seriously.

I cannot help but ask what is happening in the United States right now. Americans have started protesting, they are taking to the streets, and this should to some extent cool down Donald Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. However, democracy requires more than just protecting institutions. It also requires defenders, people for whom democracy is a core value. In Ukraine, we stopped Viktor Yanukovych twice. First in 2003–2004 when he was trying to seize power, and again when he attempted to fully usurp it. What processes are unfolding in the United States today? How seriously are senators and members of Congress prepared to act to bring the country back on a democratic path?

It is good to see people coming out to the streets saying we do not want kings in America. We are a democracy. We have presidents, and their power should be limited. That is what the demonstrators were saying last weekend.

The basic truth about politics in America is that Republican senators, who hold the majority and are the key group right now in terms of the balance, will not change until they become more afraid of voter anger than they are of Donald Trump.

Right now, when Trump says something, they all rush to do what he wants. But I believe a time is coming when voters will hold their senators accountable, and people will begin to change positions. You can already see the very beginning of that. Trump has made a lot of mistakes, and those mistakes are going to cost people money.

I never want to see an American president fail. We are one country, and we need to move forward together. But an honest, factual assessment shows that many of these policies are not working very well, and all signs suggest that the situation may get worse. That has consequences for how people vote.

We have elections coming up in two years, and if current trends continue, it would be surprising if the Republicans are able to keep control, certainly of the House of Representatives. If the general political tone in Washington remains the same, we will not have a Maidan Square here in Washington, but I believe politics is always a pendulum. It is always swinging back and forth, and from my perspective, the MAGA pendulum has swung about as far as it can. I believe we will begin to see a swing back toward something more normal. I hope I am right.

God bless America.