Ukraine may join NATO on Germany's example - expert Fried

Well, I also greet you and the American people with the fact that we all now in the world are facing some new, fundamentally new events. A lot of things unite us, but a lot of things remain unclear. I now have a feeling that we have found ourselves in some kind of phantasmagoria, that we are experiencing the work of George Orwell or Isaac Asimov. These are extremely strange and disturbing statements, including from the administration of President-elect Trump and from the American president himself. We understand that these are unprecedented statements.  If they come to fruition, I am talking about Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, and about Canada, as a separate state of the United States, and about the Panama Canal. The world is entering an extremely serious dynamic here. Ambassador, you have the floor.

[These statements] are meant to shake up, shock, and give the United States leverage. I think they are a terrible mistake. I think it is wrong for an American president to sound like he was speaking as a European imperialist in the 19th century. I do not think Trump's threats are meant seriously except as negotiating leverage, but I think they do damage. I will not defend them. I think it's simply wrong. 

Fortunately, Trump has not shown this degree of, I will call it irresponsibility, with respect to Ukraine and Russia. There, at least, the policy signals seem more reasonable. Not always what I would prefer, but more reasonable. 

Mr. Ambassador, what can Keith Kellogg, President Trump's special envoy for the Russian-Ukrainian war, bring us? We understand that most likely some things have already been discussed. Perhaps through closed channels, perhaps there have already been attempts to formulate a common position, in particular during the meeting at the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. But Keith Kellogg is going to pay us (Ukraine - ed.) a very specific visit. I understand that we don't know everything, but what are the possible parameters of this?

Keith Kellogg will be the special envoy for Ukraine and Russia in the Trump administration. It has been announced that he plans to visit Kyiv in January. I think this is a good idea. So far, President Trump's and General Kellogg's remarks about Ukraine suggest that they are going to push for a ceasefire in place and some sort of security arrangements for Ukraine. 

Now, we can discuss what sort of security arrangements there can be. In my view, the best security for Ukraine would be full NATO membership. The Trump people seem to have something else in mind. But before we discuss the details, it's important to remember that so far Vladimir Putin shows no indication whatsoever in being willing to engage in a serious diplomatic process to end the war. He and his spokesmen are still demanding Ukraine's surrender as a precondition for discussions. This is not serious.

So my first question — to myself — is, what will the Trump team do if it becomes clear that Russia has no interest in serious discussions? I should add that the Ukrainian government and President Zelensky has shown some wisdom in accepting the principle of negotiations. They have said yes to Trump. Russia and Putin are saying no to Trump. And if the Russian position continues to be a hard-line position, what will Trump do? 

A hundred years ago, the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which was extremely progressive at the time, was signed. We now feel a certain coincidence in the names. The then-Kellogg was an American Secretary of State a hundred years ago. Today's Kellogg is the U.S. President's special envoy for the Russian-Ukrainian war. And 100 years ago, there was also an idea to put in place a certain pact that would prohibit the use of war as a tool of politics, at least on the European continent. And we understand that after that Nazi Germany broke this pact. And this pact lay, so to speak, in the basis of what later became known as the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Now I am extremely worried about Trump's willingness to meet with Putin. We understand that Putin is responsible for aggression and an unprovoked attack on a peaceful European state, on Ukraine. Accordingly, if some talks between the American president and the Russian dictator take place now, it may encourage what is called an international law system as such. And here, if Donald Trump is really willing, it will simply fix the transition of the world into a new unstable phase, the phase of building a new world order. What do you think might be behind the meeting between Trump and Putin?

Experience suggests that Putin will not be an honest and good faith negotiator with Trump. He will say things that aren't true, he will make accusations, he will filibuster, that is speak without end, to simply try to dominate the conversation. In short, I do not have confidence that these conversations can be useful if  Trump is looking for some sort of deal with Putin. 

The talks can be useful if Putin, as I suspect he will be, is so demanding and aggressive that Trump concludes that he has to give Ukraine even more support and put even more pressure on Russia rather than simply allow Putin to bully him. But this is speculation. I don't know how these talks will proceed. I think that it would be a mistake to count too much on one meeting to resolve anything. I think that Putin will respect only what the Russians and Soviets used to call the correlation of forces. And therefore, the best policy is to continue to put pressure on Russia and help Ukraine in the hopes that the balance of forces will shift in Ukraine's favor. 

Mr. Ambassador, what could be the parameters of the so-called just, stable peace? We understand that no one wants a truce for the sake of a truce.

On the other hand, we understand that now our enemy, the Russian Federation, is on a certain rise. They managed to receive military assistance from the side of North Korea, from the side of the People's Republic of China, and now an additional security agreement with Iran was set up. That is, the Russian Federation receives resources, including human resources — North Korean soldiers. 

On the other hand, we in Ukraine understand that a just peace provides for the return of our temporarily occupied territories. And a just peace provides for the provision of our sovereignty, our state and national sovereignty. And in the package that Lavrov announces, this does not exist. There is talk about demilitarization and additional occupation of those territories that the Russians do not control. This is the ultimatum. And they have been repeating this ultimatum for three years. 

You are right, of course, that the Russian demands are demands essentially for Ukraine's surrender in advance. These are not serious. They may be a bluff by Russia, or they may be an assessment of Russia's confidence that it is winning and will continue to win. 

Now, a just peace has to start with security for unoccupied Ukraine. That is what Putin doesn't want. He wants unoccupied Ukraine to be weak and open to further Russian aggression. And that would be a disaster for all of us. 

The West German history in 1955 provides a possible way forward. That is, the German government never abandoned its claim to be the government of all of Germany. It never relinquished the territory of the eastern zone occupied by the Soviet Union called East Germany. West Germany entered NATO on the understanding, however, that it would pursue only peaceful means to achieve German reunification and NATO's Article 5 security provisions did not apply to East Germany. It applied only to West Germany. At the time, this historic compromise by the German government was not universally popular, but it turned out in retrospect to be a wise decision. President Zelensky has suggested something like this might be achievable. Much depends on security for unoccupied Ukraine. No one in the West should recognize Russia's annexation of any part of Ukraine. The United States refused to recognize Japan's occupation of Manchuria, part of China, refused to recognize Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, and during the first Trump administration, Secretary Pompeo, following these precedents, issued a declaration saying that the United States would never recognize the Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea. The United States should follow these precedents. We must respect the temporary reality of the battlefield, but we must not give up the basis of the just and lasting peace which is respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. 

Dear Ambassador Fried, do you see any specific dates when it will become clearer what the scenario of war and peace will be? We do not know how everything can be realized, but the Russians are demonstrating their willingness to continue the war until the last Russian or the last North Korean soldier. 

I think the Russians are bluffing. And here we understand that very powerful economic leverages play a role, I hope you will say a little more about them. But still, if you take a diplomatic libretto for 2025, what could be the guidelines? Well, let's say, if Kellogg arrives in January, in February or March, some kind of talks begin or do not begin, and in half a year there may be a certain concept of a new world, new relations in the world and, so to speak, new proposals.

Whether it will be pressure on Ukraine from the American side of the new administration, or, on the contrary, it will be the willingness to help Ukraine with the forces of the Mediterranean aviation group. I have, so to speak, conditionally outlined the idea.

The next move may come as the Biden administration prepares and announces its final set of sanctions against Russia. It has been preparing these for some time. There was an article in the Washington Post, I believe, that outlined what some of them may be. The United States is likely to put more pressure on Russia in the energy area, which it should. This is the correct move. And additional pressure on the Russian economy will hurt the Russian war effort. The signs of economic stress in Russia are clear. That will not save Ukraine by itself, but it does put more pressure on Russia. So this is the next move. Then we have Kellogg's visit to Ukraine. I said earlier that the Ukrainian government and President Zelensky had shown both skill and wisdom in dealing with the incoming Trump administration. They are not saying no. They are saying yes and trying to influence American thinking. The Russians are saying no. The next date is January 20th, when President Trump reassumes office for the beginning of his second and final term. And we shall see after that. 

There has been speculation in the Polish media that President Trump will visit Warsaw later in the spring. And obviously for the Poles, Ukraine security is their number one security issue. So this will also be an important date. In any event, much will depend on Putin's response. Right now, he is pushing everything he can to put pressure on Ukraine. He is attacking Ukraine, including on Christmas Day, which, by the way, General Kellogg condemned publicly. And the Russians are trying to show that their victory is inevitable. But we know that while they are making advances on the ground, they're doing so with very high levels of losses. So it is not clear to me that the Russians can sustain this effort.

Ukraine needs to be able to fight even more effectively. The Ukrainian soldiers need to have complete confidence in their officers. And the United States needs to provide more weapons and remove restrictions. The only restrictions on Ukraine's use of weapons should be the laws of war.

In any event, it is hard to talk about a diplomatic calendar because none exists. The final date I'll mention is the possible date for a potential meeting between Trump and Putin, but this is not a certainty. 

Thank you very much, Ambassador Fried, for this very important conversation on Espreso TV. 

Glory to Ukraine.

Glory to the heroes.