I can’t name any specific changes because everything we started is an ongoing process. In July 2023, at the NATO summit in Vilnius, we signed a memorandum on the "F-16 coalition." In reality, the F-16s appeared in the skies and on the battlefield only this year. All elements of air defense like Patriots or NASAMS, as well as the F-16s, we began to secure while I was still minister within the so-called Ramstein Group.
Recently, it’s been over a thousand days since the Russian invasion began, and we are still fighting. People in various capitals, our friends in the civilized world, predicted that Kyiv would fall in 72 hours. Ukraine was supposed to fall.
More than a thousand days have passed, and we are alive, fighting, and know how to stop the Russians. We are fighting for our independence and our very lives.
I know many members of the government. Denys Shmyhal was Prime Minister even when I was minister, originally minister for the reintegration of occupied territories. The first threat back then was COVID, then came the invasion. Shmyhal is the best Prime Minister in Ukraine’s history, and I know many former prime ministers. He is a strong man.
The situation dictates everything the government does. Especially world political events, such as changes in the United States, Germany, or France, but also in other countries. There is a peculiar situation in South Korea, an interesting one in Syria and the Middle East. We live in a changing world.
When I used to lecture at the university, I would tell my students that if they want to survive, they must know how to change. That is the formula for survival, for evolution.
Our biggest challenge now is the fatigue of the world. Fatigue from war, from economic problems. We must find new arguments for the citizens of neighboring countries.
We understand that fatigue is also a problem in Slovakia. But if you surrender, you send a signal to your politicians, and they will surrender too. They will stop supporting us.
This is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the Axis of Evil—Iran, North Korea, and Russia—against the civilized world. We already see North Korean soldiers in the war; it’s no secret.
I won’t criticize my colleagues. If you’re not in the room with them, you don’t have the same information they do. I don’t have it either; I’m now a private citizen.
I won’t criticize them because I know they’re working as best as they can. Maybe I would do some details differently, but the goal would be the same.
This is a war of resources. It’s mathematics—you take a calculator, and it becomes clear. If you calculate on a primitive level and input the population or territorial size, you see that Russia is bigger. They have 130 million people, while Ukraine has roughly 32 million, including ten million people outside Ukraine, including in Slovakia.
But I want to remind you of the biblical story of David and Goliath. Goliath was a monster, but David was a small yet clever boy with a stone and a sling.
This is the last conventional war in history. Many people try to compare it to the First or Second World Wars. It resembles them a bit, with trenches and the Russian meat grinder tactics.
But we and the enemy also use electronic warfare, various robotic and remotely controlled systems. The Western world thus gains valuable knowledge on how to conduct modern warfare, such as ground, air, or naval drones and satellites.
These are also resources. We are David. We use a sling provided by the West and have a clear ability to defeat and deter the monster that is Russia and its allies.
It is definitely possible. But the psychological problem lies in the West, especially in the United States. Already during George H. W. Bush’s era, when the Soviet Union still existed and countries like Slovakia and Ukraine were given a chance for freedom.
In 1991, Bush came to Moscow and met with Gorbachev. He tried to save the Russian empire under the name Soviet Union. Then he came to Kyiv and delivered a speech before the Ukrainian parliament, which went down in history as the "Chicken Kiev Speech." He called the aspirations of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine for independence suicidal nationalism. That also applied to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland.
In the minds of some experts and political advisors, the idea that Russia could lose still doesn’t exist. They see a threat in it—what will happen if Russia loses? Migrants will come, nuclear weapons will go out of control? Will radical Islamist movements start in Russia? Will China's influence increase?
They are, but you can’t live with such thinking for years. It must be realized that there is no room for empires anymore. That we are no longer someone’s colony, that we want to live as an independent state.
Therefore, I think the main key is not just resources in the sense of money or technology but also in the psychological realm. To realize that it is possible.
When I came to Washington in November 2021, fresh after my appointment, I had no experience as a Minister of Defense. I asked for Stinger missiles—short-range, shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. They told me it wasn’t possible. Why? Because the law forbade it. Excellent, I said, I’m a lawyer; we can draft a law right now and send it to Congress.
They repeated that it wasn’t possible. Two months later, Ukraine received its first Stingers from Lithuania, undoubtedly with the blessing of the United States.
Then I asked about 155mm howitzers—impossible. Tanks—impossible. Air defense—impossible. F-16s? Impossible. But now it’s possible. What wasn’t possible yesterday is possible today.
I was never a politician. I am a lawyer and negotiator who served in public office for my country, for my family. I try to find the best arguments. To convince them that providing modern military assistance is also in their interest. That we have a shared interest because we are fighting for freedom and for all of Europe.
We are the eastern wing of the civilized world against the world of Orcs. We call Russian soldiers Orcs after Tolkien’s books. They behave like Orcs, like barbarians. They are an army of looters, rapists, and murderers. You know about the crimes in Bucha, Irpin, and other Ukrainian towns.
It is therefore also in the interest of European countries to invest in aid but also to test new technologies directly on the battlefield. Ukraine is now the largest military laboratory in the world, so the technologies tested here will have a label—tested in the war in Ukraine.
Therefore, when I met with the ministers of the Ramstein Club, I convinced them to create a different type of cooperation. Because various ministers had different levels of willingness to cooperate.
More energetic and courageous were then the defense ministers of the Netherlands, Denmark, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, or the United Kingdom. They understood the seriousness of Russian threats. So I communicated with others through them, and they helped me.
Exactly. Various coalitions were formed based on weapon systems—tank coalitions, artillery coalitions, fighter jet coalitions. In each, there were ministers inclined to provide specific types of weapons. When a Danish or Slovak defense minister was more active and decisive, others rallied around them. The Americans realized that this was in the interest of Europe’s security. And that the Ukrainian state serves as a shield, which they can reinforce to protect their own people and soldiers who wouldn’t need to die on the battlefield.
As a lawyer, I dislike making predictions; I focus on arguments and facts. So I can only tell you what I feel in my bones based on what I know. I am a well-informed optimist. Russia has serious economic problems. They pretend everything is fine, but they are struggling. I spoke with professors of economics, and they agreed.
They analyzed the data and concluded that Russia has one year until it reaches a breaking point if the war doesn’t end.
It is in Russia’s interest to end the war so they don’t have to spend so much on it. They need money for social systems, pensions, and so on. It is in the United States’ interest to end the war because Trump promised it, and they also need funds for their internal affairs. It is in Europe’s interest as well.
China and India are interested in ending the war so that Russia doesn’t lose. They want the Kremlin to save face. If Russia collapses, similar to Syria currently...
Yes, but Russia promised to protect Assad’s regime, just like in Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan, where they are the guarantors. And now this guarantor might collapse.
China and India notice this. They care about ensuring Russia doesn’t lose. So they will persuade Russia to sit at the table and come up with a solution that saves its face.
For Ukrainians, the goal is peace and a normal life. My wife and I regularly hide in bunkers. We want to live normally and travel abroad.
I can’t describe the final state. But in negotiation theory, there is the concept of ZOPA—zone of possible agreement. Each side has positions, interests, needs, and limits. They will converge toward the center of this zone.
This doesn’t mean it will end 50:50. It could be 70:30; it doesn’t matter. The main thing is that this war between Russia and the civilized world began in 2004 in the mind of Putin and his team. That was during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution when the pro-Kremlin candidate Viktor Yanukovych didn’t become president. Liberal democrat Viktor Yushchenko became president, and the Kremlin was insulted. They called it American and NATO interference because, for Russia, it was a fiasco. That’s why they started this war.
In 2008 came Georgia, in 2014 Crimea, and the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In December 2021, the Kremlin demanded NATO and the USA return to pre-1997 positions, meaning Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland outside NATO. Washington and Brussels refused.
The Kremlin responded with the invasion in February 2022. Now we are at the peak, and from here, we will go down. And going down will happen in stages. First, there could be a ceasefire in the skies, but not on the ground—that’s not possible. Controlling thousands of kilometers of trenches isn’t feasible. I was deputy prime minister; I know how we negotiated ceasefires in the Minsk process. That was a 300-kilometer contact line.
I repeat, a ceasefire along the line of contact is impossible. During the Minsk process, the line was 300 kilometers, and the gray zone around it was supposed to be two kilometers on each side. That is the range of sniper rifles, and four kilometers is the range of mortars. Artillery fires at twenty or more kilometers.
Today we have drones flying 20–25 kilometers carrying grenades. Both sides have them. How can you guard the front line in such a situation? Someone sits in a trench, their comrades were killed a week ago, and sends a drone to the other side. It’s impossible to guard.
Freezing the contact line is not possible; other solutions must be found.
Withdrawal of troops and establishing some kind of buffer zone. At least twenty kilometers from each side, so forty in total. That’s the range of standard artillery; let’s leave missiles out for now.
Who will guard it? The UN? Blue helmets? I don’t know. You can’t build a wall like in Berlin or something like on the Korean peninsula. A completely new scenario needs to be devised. Ideally, the solution would be for Russia to withdraw troops from our territory, and we would start negotiating some kind of peaceful coexistence. Then some security guarantees would have to be created. We will no longer believe in another Budapest Memorandum.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who signed the memorandum, told me an interesting story. Officially, the memorandum was signed by the USA, Britain, Russia, and Ukraine. The next day, France wanted to join, but President François Mitterrand was sick and stayed in a hotel. Young Kuchma came to him. When Mitterrand signed it, he told him—young man, they will definitely deceive you.
Yes. That they would betray him.
I told you what I heard from Kuchma.
Exactly. That’s why Ukraine will no longer believe in another Budapest Memorandum. We will only believe in a serious model that guarantees our independence and integrity.
That’s why we convince our partners that the best model for us is full NATO membership.
Again, what was impossible yesterday is possible today. I have already experienced this approach; as a minister, I lived with it constantly. It is certainly possible; it can be debated. Let’s recall Germany—it is in NATO, although East Germany was once a member of the Warsaw Pact.
As a negotiator, I try to find the interests of all parties. It is also in the interest of NATO states. At the Madrid summit, NATO states set a new ten-year strategy and identified Russia as the main threat.
If Russia is the main threat to NATO states, who has the best experience fighting Russia? Ukraine. So it is also in the interest of Slovakia, Poland, and other NATO states to invite Ukraine and share experiences with it. Especially since Ukraine is the eastern shield.
NATO accepted Finland and Sweden, extending the border with Russia. The Baltic Sea has become an internal NATO sea. So the new border with Russia isn’t a problem.
Fine, but what is happening between Turkey and Greece regarding Cyprus? Are they friends?
Sure, that’s why we’re talking about various stages of negotiations. The first is stopping the active part of the war. That doesn’t stop the political or economic war between the Axis of Evil—Russia, Iran, and North Korea—and the civilized world. But we can stop the stage of active fire. Then Ukraine can become a NATO member like other states after 1997.
I understand that as long as the war continues, no one will vote for it, and unanimity is needed. But I’m talking about membership after this war stops. Because we want to live in peace.
But if I may use the symbol of the dove of peace, then the dove of peace needs the wings of a fighter jet to survive.
I don’t want to comment on politicians’ statements, especially high-ranking ones. But I’ll illustrate it with a story. When Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership, we saw Turkey and Hungary disagree. They set conditions, but look at the outcome. It is positive for Finland and Sweden.
When the USA, as the leader of NATO, says Ukraine should become a member, and most states agree, arguments will be found to persuade hesitant states that it is in their common interest. I believe it will succeed.
It should learn from what happened. From Ukrainian experiences on the battlefield. It should invest in the defense industry and its own security. This includes armed forces, industry, drones, electronic warfare, and cognitive warfare. Information warfare is part of the battles.
You should continue supporting Ukraine with your resources, technologies, and weapons. Because we are not fighting just for ourselves but for everyone on this side of the world.
The main thing is probably to maintain unity. I have seen unity in the Ramstein group; I have seen the courage of people from Slovakia, the Netherlands, Estonia, and other countries. The Kremlin is trying to destroy Europe’s unity, especially now.
The Kremlin’s main goal is to divide European states. We, too, are Europeans. We must preserve unity, and we will win this war.
This article was written in the framework of The Eastern Frontier Initiative (TEFI) project. TEFI is a collaboration of independent publishers from Central and Eastern Europe, to foster common thinking and cooperation on European security issues in the region. The project aims to promote knowledge sharing in the European press and contribute to a more resilient European democracy.
Members of the consortium are 444 (Hungary), Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), SME (Slovakia), PressOne (Romania), and Bellingcat (The Netherlands).
The TEFI project is co-financed by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Dzisiejsza gazeta (e-wydanie)
