Espreso. Global
Interview

U.S. still undecided on direct confrontation with Russia — Colonel Grant

11 May, 2025 Sunday
19:08

Retired British Army Colonel and military expert Glen Grant discussed Trump’s stance on the war in Ukraine, Russia’s future strategy, and the UK’s preparedness to defend NATO’s borders in an interview with Anton Borkovskyi on Espreso TV’s Studio West program

client/title.list_title

The world is rapidly shifting toward a wartime footing, and while several scenarios lie ahead, we can only guess what’s going on in the minds of Putin, Trump, or even Friedrich Merz. When it comes to Russia, the picture is somewhat clearer — Putin remains defiant, rejecting even the idea of a temporary ceasefire and seeking a closer alliance with China. But the key question is: what should Ukraine do? How should our European partners respond? What can we realistically expect from the United States? What does modern warfare look like today, and how is “victory” defined in this new context? After all, this is about the lives of our soldiers, about timing, and about having a strategy grounded in reality. How do you see the road ahead?

That is an extremely large question. I think the first point I would make is that you are right about Putin. There has never been any question about Putin wanting peace. Unfortunately, what has happened with the peace talks and peace efforts is that we've lost a lot of time.

It's time that Putin has used wisely and time that we've wasted. The simple truth is that there was never going to be any peace from Putin. This really highlights the problems we have on the Western side.

If you take the Europeans, they are split. There are countries that are close to Ukraine and to Putin, and they know full well that this war is not going to stop until we stop it. Then there are countries in Europe that are further away like Spain, Portugal, and sometimes Italy which do not feel the same sense of urgency about the war as Poland does.

Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic States are very close to Russia and understand that if this war stops, it will only stop in one place and start somewhere else. Putin will simply move his troops and start something new elsewhere. And I think we all know that.

There is a core of resolve within the northern group led by Great Britain that understands the only way to end this war is to win it and to defeat Putin. That said, all the Europeans will support any decision Ukraine makes. They are not going to stand in Ukraine’s way.

If President Zelenskyy sues for peace, he will have the support of the Europeans for whatever choice he or Ukraine as a nation makes. But in general, most of those countries know full well that they could be next if there is a false peace.

The United States, however, is in a completely different place at the moment.

President Putin has been manipulating Donald Trump. Witkoff, who visited Putin, was clearly and completely deceived by him, by Putin’s talk of a ceasefire and his supposed willingness to compromise. Witkoff returned with what was essentially a pro-Russian plan, which the White House then tried to promote, pressuring Ukraine to accept it.

Donald Trump wants peace, he wants a deal. To be blunt, he does not care how that deal is achieved or what kind of peace it is. He just wants to be able to say that he stopped the war.

However, Donald Trump does not represent the entire United States.

There is a large part of the American population that wants to support Ukraine no matter what and will continue to do so. Tragically, just yesterday, one of the American volunteers who had been working on mine clearance was killed. So the sincere and committed part of the United States will continue to stand with Ukraine regardless of what happens.

Now, what kind of peace does Ukraine want?

I believe every Ukrainian understands that if Ukraine does not fight and defeat the Russian Federation, the horror will continue. Because Vladimir Putin is not going to stop. I have said this many times. He will not stop until either Ukraine is destroyed or he is removed from power. So I do not believe there is any real choice at the moment.

Yes, Colonel, the outlook is far from optimistic. The United States seems unclear about its own objectives, with shifting statements that resemble geopolitical ping-pong. In just a hundred days, they have created more confusion than Theodore Roosevelt did in his time.

The situation is deteriorating. As David Lloyd George once said, it feels like politicians are watching themselves slide into disaster — and today, the global security order has essentially collapsed. Law has given way to force and nuclear threats. Russia led this shift, and others like Pakistan and India may follow.

Russia has taken the lead and is moving toward the EU’s borders. So I ask: are they bluffing? I believe Putin is ready to sacrifice up to two hundred thousand troops for his goals. But does he have the resources?

War is not just about manpower. It is about capacity. And Ukraine’s drones and unmanned systems have seriously challenged Russia — from the Black Sea to deep inside its territory, even in recent days.

First of all, I do not think Russia is bluffing. It has a lot of weaknesses, and in many ways, you could argue that when you look at the broader picture involving armed forces, politics, and strategic activities, Ukraine is actually doing quite well.

In many respects, it is in better condition than Russia. However, the problem is that Russia is fully geared for war, and the West is not. You can see this clearly in the attitudes of European countries. Almost none of them are willing to fully prepare for war.

The step of taking this situation seriously has not yet been taken, especially by the Europeans, with some exceptions. Finland, Sweden, and Estonia are doing their best to place themselves on a war footing without completely damaging their economies.

Still, you have to acknowledge that Ukraine could do more. You mentioned Roosevelt, and when he spoke about politics, it was in the context of a broader commitment. When President Roosevelt decided to enter the war, he mobilized the entire country, including industry and car factories, toward war production. The same was true of Prime Minister Lloyd George.

When Lloyd George became Prime Minister, he turned the country over to war production as much as possible. In other words, all the men were freed up for fighting, and women took over their jobs. Women went down the mines. Women took on air defense duties during the Second World War. We have not yet reached that stage of taking this war seriously.

If you look at the United States today, it does not want to take the war seriously either. This is because it is not part of Donald Trump's agenda. Trump's agenda is to gain power in the United States, keep it, and perhaps even make himself ruler for life – or, if not him, then his son.

That part of the world has changed, and the United States is uncertain about whether it truly wants to fight Russia. I do not think we will know for a few more weeks whether Trump realizes he is being manipulated by Vladimir Putin, or whether his pro-Putin stance will remain unchanged. We will have to wait and see.

But what we cannot do is wait when it comes to fighting Russia. The drone attacks, especially on airfields, are working. That effort needs to be reinforced. Perhaps on Friday, President Zelenskyy will decide not to attack the parade, but he can still strike airfields and destroy Putin’s palaces.

There are many things Ukraine could do to make it clear that it is committed to winning this war. So far, it has not fully demonstrated that. Ukraine has mostly been on the defensive, rather than taking the fight to Russia in a way that truly inflicts serious damage.

General Zaluzhnyi, now Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UK, recently emphasized a key point in his latest article: drones and electronic warfare are transforming modern warfare. While Russia was initially unprepared, it has had time to adapt. Ukraine, however, is advancing faster, and it is hoped that Western allies are drawing the right conclusions.

In this context, I would like your view on Russia’s broader strategy. Donald Trump has claimed, perhaps naively or intentionally, that he reached an understanding with Putin, who allegedly has no intention of taking all of Ukraine. This claim seems questionable.

A few days ago, I spoke with General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander during the Balkan wars. He believes Russia is preparing for an escalation in the northeast, particularly in Kharkiv and Sumy, and still intends to capture Odesa. This is not alarmism but a clear warning that should be taken seriously.

I completely agree. The point about Russia’s strategy is clear. Russia wants control of the country. It certainly does not want to fight its way all the way to Lviv. What it wants is control, and it would also like to take Odesa. If it gains control of Odesa, it can effectively strangle the country financially, economically, and politically.

There will always be the threat that Russia may try to push for Odesa, perhaps when people are not expecting it.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with General Zaluzhnyi, the ambassador, and we discussed how warfare has changed. His last speech was excellent and gave most European countries a clear picture of what they need to do. I am not yet convinced that most countries have fully grasped how much things have changed.

It is not just that warfare has changed. The requirements have changed as well. You could argue that the shift has been from go-kart thinking to Formula One thinking in terms of technology. Most countries are still clinging to old structures and what you might call tank thinking, hoping it will still work. But that aspect of warfare has moved on.

I am concerned that Donald Trump has not understood how much things have changed, though I do know that his generals have. They understand that this is a different kind of war.

I believe we will see significant changes in American exercises and cooperation with NATO over the next 12 months.

Whether that leads to broader changes in the European defense system, however, I am doubtful. At the moment, I do not hear or read any analysis deep enough to match what has actually happened.

If we speak, for example, about the defense strategy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Just recently, reports emerged that various response protocols are being developed in case of an actual landing on the British Isles. Updated procedures are also being introduced for dealing with drone systems and other threats. This is a very serious signal. As far as I understand, London has not undertaken anything like this in the past 25 years. We are talking about a comprehensive revision of defense planning.

Earlier, there were reports that the French had also started to react and reconsider the prospect that Russia may pose a threat not only to Berlin. Russia has a long historical memory — and equally long-standing imperial appetites. At one time, Russian troops washed their horses’ hooves in the Seine, in Paris.

So the question is: are these updates to military doctrines and response plans just procedural exercises, or do London, Paris, and Berlin know something that gives them real cause for concern?

What we have seen over the past year and a half is that the Russian frontline infantry is generally of low quality. There are some capable units, but Russia has been holding those back and deploying them only when it needs to break through.

At the moment, their strategy appears to be to use soldiers in so-called "meat attacks" and rely on mass assaults. However, it is important to remember that behind those human waves, Russia still possesses highly technical systems. It continues to have large stockpiles of artillery and significant electronic warfare capabilities.

Due to support from Iran and North Korea, Russia still has a considerable number of missiles and drones, which it can launch at Ukraine. General Zaluzhnyi referred to this approach as the Russian doctrine of destruction. I believe that description is accurate. The strategy is to destroy everything in the path and slowly advance, consuming territory piece by piece.

I do not anticipate any change in this doctrine because it is something Russia is capable of executing effectively. Therefore, it is likely to continue with this approach.

What is also clear to me, despite the adjustments in France and within the British defense system, is that both have become almost too professionalized and too small in scale.

They now face a major decision: how to expand, how to increase their reserve forces, and how to scale up their military capabilities, along with Germany, to a level where they can collectively confront Russia. The reality is that most European countries lack the capacity to project military force beyond their own borders. Some countries are unwilling to do so. Poland focuses on internal defense. Finland’s approach is also primarily defensive. Sweden may provide limited support, but in general, most countries have just enough resources for their own emergency self-protection. They are not in a position to deploy forces to Ukraine and directly confront Russia.

This calls for serious strategic reflection.

I know the United Kingdom is thinking about these issues, but it has not yet reached the difficult conclusion that Russia will persist in its aggression.

Colonel, is the United Kingdom truly ready to engage seriously in a war today? Back in 1914, London declared war on Germany after it violated Belgium’s sovereignty. That was the red line.

Today, the situation in the Baltic region is extremely tense, and things could quickly spiral out of control. It is not just about a potential attack near Narva. The Baltics remain a traditional sphere of British influence, and the UK appears ready to respond, though the extent of that readiness remains unclear.

We have heard about the so-called "coalition of the willing," but there is still no clear action plan in case there is no ceasefire with Russia. Moscow avoids peace talks because it does not want to see foreign troops in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the situation remains largely unchanged.

In terms of acting on behalf of them with NATO, they are completely ready. So if Estonia, where the British battalion is based, is attacked, Great Britain will put everything it can into it and fight.

But I do not see them doing anything unless there is an attack on NATO by Russia. One of the reasons for that is simply that they do not currently have the firepower or the technical wherewithal on the ground. Remember that Britain has basically given all its major artillery pieces to Ukraine.

And that is a fundamental fact. All of them have been sent. So at the moment, they only have light artillery while they wait for new guns to be delivered. They are not in a position to do much ground fighting right now. I am sure Russia knows that.

But fighting is not just about ground troops. Great Britain still has a formidable air force, and it also has quite a good navy that is modern and up to date. Those are the assets they would use.

I can almost say that at the moment, none of the European countries have the land forces to properly support Ukraine. But collectively, they have enormous air power, and they would have to work out how to use that air power to the maximum by bombing everything possible to bring Russia to the negotiating table.

So I do not see this as hopeless. It just would not be the same kind of war or fighting that many Ukrainians imagine, which is focused on the front line in the east.

Ukraine is going to have to hold that line because I do not see any alternative.

From time to time I get the sense, one shared by many military and political experts, that the situation is approaching a strategic deadlock. Additional efforts are needed to break the Russian advance.

Russia does not have the resources to overcome Ukrainian resistance within a few years. Europe is preparing but not entering the war. In this context we are seeing signs of weakness, especially given the inconsistent policy of Donald Trump's administration.

In your view, Colonel, what should Ukraine improve to maintain at least a degree of parity? Russia is preparing and will likely seek support from the People's Republic of China. The two sides are clearly communicating and cooperating.

Russia is also already using North Korean fighters. While they face serious manpower issues, that does not yet amount to strategic defeat. Meanwhile, Ukraine remains in an extremely difficult position.

There is no question in my mind that Ukraine is developing its technology extremely well. But still, the most important thing is looking after the people and providing proper training.

It requires developing a better training system, not just 45 days, but creating soldiers who truly know what they are doing. And maybe that means changing how we think about using people. It should not be about using Ukrainians as cannon fodder, but about building sophisticated, capable soldiers. That also means making changes to the recruitment system, which is not functioning effectively at the moment.

It involves changes to basic training, to second and third level training, and a serious rethinking of doctrine, focusing on how to use technology to save lives and keep people alive as long as possible. The longer a Ukrainian soldier stays alive on the front line, the greater the chance of winning, because that soldier becomes more experienced and more effective.

If people continue to be killed unnecessarily, there will be no progress. Taking care of the troops and training them properly is the key, because technology can only be used effectively by highly trained, high quality people.

There is no benefit in simply handing someone a drone and expecting them to use it well. They cannot. They need proper training to operate it effectively.

That is how Ukraine will win. Eventually, Russia will crack.

What do your colleagues — military experts from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, or the Baltic states — say about the possibility of Ukrainian retaliatory strikes?

It is clear that the main centers in Russia are Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Putin tries to portray them as fully protected. However, drone strikes on military or strategic targets in these cities are entirely possible.

Russia regularly launches ballistic missiles at Ukrainian civilian cities. At the same time, it threatens the West with the possible use of nuclear weapons. Every time the situation worsens for Moscow, the Kremlin resorts to nuclear blackmail, whether strategic or tactical.

Working backwards from that, the first thing is to forget about nuclear weapons. If he is going to use them, he will use them. We cannot worry about it.

I think it would be foolish to use our weapons against civilians. The Russians already want to destroy Ukraine, so actually killing more people will only make them more determined to continue their assault. What we have to do is break the system.

You will recall that one of the major turning points in the Second World War was the bombing of key industrial targets, such as ball bearing factories. A tank turret cannot rotate without ball bearings. If you eliminate ball bearings, you create problems for wheels, machinery, and anything involving rotation.

We need to identify and strike similar targets, places where a serious attack would create long-term problems for the Russian defense industry and, consequently, for its military capability.

We have made a good start by attacking critical factories. Now we must continue identifying weak points in the Russian production system and destroying them so that Russia cannot bring those capabilities back online.

That is how you defeat a country like Russia. It requires a systemic attack on both the defense industry and the economy, not on the population.

If we talk about Ukraine’s internal transformation, how do you see it? In your opinion, what areas need improvement? I am not referring to anything classified, but to general directions that are likely already obvious even to the enemy. Where do you believe efforts should be strengthened — in the General Staff, the Ministry of Defense, or elsewhere? It is clear that we need to train people, prepare personnel, and introduce new technologies in a structured and consistent way. But I believe you have a much clearer sense of what is truly needed.

I mean, the major issue is management. The management has to improve, starting directly from the Ministry of Defence downwards, and it needs rethinking. It requires appointing people to positions who are skilled managers and experienced in business. We need more businesspeople in the system, people who have actually managed large companies, regardless of the sector, so that they are used to making decisions about better use of resources and exploring different ways of doing things.

One of the challenges is that the Ministry of Defence simply does not take advice. It may accept military advice, but it does not take management advice. As a result, it continues to repeat the same kinds of mistakes it has been making. That is a major change that must happen.

And as I said, at the soldier level, there must be better training.

We have used foreign training to a degree, and in many cases, it has failed. The unit we sent to France returned to the front line and failed. Some of the units trained in Britain saw their soldiers die because they were not trained for modern warfare.

There must be some rethinking at the structural level about how we use the skills that NATO units possess, not necessarily to teach drone warfare, but to manage training and run large organizations effectively. Because we were all trained in that. We were trained in that throughout our careers.

And so it is very obvious that when I go to somewhere like the Rivne training area, I can see how much has improved, but I can also see large areas where further improvement is needed, especially in training. The reform is happening, the technological reform is underway, and the reform at the front, moving toward establishing corps, is also progressing. But if that is going to continue, there must also be some rethinking about the structure of those corps and what units they include, so that they can operate independently and effectively.

There are still serious problems. People do not fully understand that geography is everything in warfare. The land matters.

If you move a unit from the flat southern region to a wooded and hilly area, soldiers are going to die. Likewise, if you move troops from hilly northern areas to flat terrain, they are going to die because they are not prepared for that kind of change.

There needs to be serious consideration of geography and how the corps system can be used to train soldiers for the specific areas where they will be deployed. These areas differ significantly and require focused preparation so that troops can actually fight effectively there. Not generalist knowledge, but specific understanding.

Kherson is not Kursk. They are two completely different environments for fighting.

Tags:
Read also:
  • News
2025, Wednesday
18 June
21:45
Exclusive
Migrants seeking work will head to Ukraine after war — demographer
21:30
Germany appoints Ambassador to Ukraine Jäger as chief of intelligence service
21:17
Updated
'Let's mediate Russia first': Trump to Putin on Israel-Iran mediation
20:55
OPINION
Why Ukrainian missiles are matter of survival
20:36
Ukraine to become first non-EU country with free roaming for its citizens
20:15
Even peace in Ukraine won’t bring back Russian gas, says EU Commission
19:55
Exclusive
Trump may have left G7 early to avoid meeting with Zelenskyy
19:35
Russian forces in Belarus not sufficient for major attack on Kyiv during Zapad-2025 drills — expert
19:13
OPINION
Seeking new allies: Ukraine in new reality
18:52
Exclusive
Ukraine finds new markets in EU, U.S., Canada as Poland blocks its trucks — economist
18:30
Zelenskyy and Trump may meet at NATO summit on June 24
18:10
Ukraine fends off thousands of cyberattacks each month, minister says
17:53
Ukrainian journalist Dmytro Khyliuk held in Russian colony
17:34
Australia sanctions 60 Russian shadow fleet vessels
17:15
Trump’s abrupt G7 exit leaves Ukraine in limbo as Zelenskyy’s hopes for U.S. support fade
16:54
Slovakia tries to arrest ex-minister over military aid to Ukraine
16:28
Ukraine says identifying bodies returned by Russia could take over year
16:14
Lithuania summons Russian ambassador over June 17 strikes on Ukraine
15:53
Estonia buys €2M SUVs for Russia border patrol, sends old vehicles to Ukraine
15:28
EU's Kallas: If we don’t help Ukraine further, we should start learning Russian
15:20
Updated
Kyiv death toll reaches 28 after Russia’s June 17 strike, search efforts continue
15:13
Spotify founder Daniel Ek invests €600 million in German startup supplying drones to Ukraine
14:50
Ukraine’s NATO bid to be postponed at upcoming Hague summit - Lithuanian FM
14:30
Exclusive
Trump could apply same hardline approach to Russia as he did to Iran, says analyst
14:15
“Putin is testing limits”: Ukraine’s Parliament speaker outlines when truce with Russia is possible
13:50
Exclusive
Trump’s actions at G7 weaken group’s anti-Russian stance — political scientist
13:33
Russia's attack on Kyiv “runs counter to President Trump’s call to stop killing”, U.S. Embassy says
13:14
G7 leaders ready to consider all pressure tools against Russia, including sanctions – Zelenskyy
12:56
Russia expands military presence in Arctic, preparing for resource expansion — Ukraine’s intel
12:38
Ukraine adopts law introducing multiple citizenship
12:17
Review
Zapad-2025: Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland — who’s targeted by Russian-Belarusian military drills?
11:55
Exclusive
Ukraine develops effective anti-drone tech but lacks funding - aviation expert
11:36
OPINION
Iran’s power shift as mirror: What it reveals about Russia’s future elite
11:15
Exclusive
Russia focuses summer offensive on two key directions — military expert
10:55
France, Germany hope Trump will back new sanctions against Russia
10:23
Kellogg to visit Belarus soon to meet Lukashenko – Reuters
09:51
Russia loses 7 tanks, 37 artillery systems, 1,040 troops in one day of war in Ukraine
09:33
Zelenskyy leaves Canada without meeting with Trump
2025, Tuesday
17 June
21:59
Taiwan signs agreement to get UAV software battle-proven in Ukraine
21:45
Zelenskyy meets Canada’s Carney at G7, calls for tougher sanctions on Russia
More news