Donald Trump has once again reversed his position. Just days ago, the Pentagon’s decision to limit military aid to Ukraine sparked outrage. However, it later emerged that Trump was unaware of the move and is now working to reverse it. The emotional and geopolitical swings continue.More significantly, Trump has begun to publicly acknowledge that Vladimir Putin deceived and humiliated him. He admits that many of his past initiatives were built on Putin’s lies and hypocrisy. The war continues — and notably, immediately after a conversation between Trump and Putin, Russia launched a massive missile strike on Kyiv.The key question now is: how seriously is Trump prepared to support Ukraine in this war?Everyone has probably already become convinced that Donald Trump is an unpredictable person and that his behavior is built only by his own logic. Moreover, in this logic, there are very few cases when cause-and-effect relationships work. One such case is the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. If we take all the others, these are completely spontaneous decisions that are not connected and are not incorporated into the logic of events. Although in this regard, the first thing we need to understand is to distinguish between information and the steps of Donald Trump, his administration, the Pentagon, because here, when we mix up just information and real actions, we further deepen this problem of Donald Trump.Looking at Donald Trump’s actions over the past six months, one can expect a continuation of his unpredictable course, punctuated by major shifts in specific areas or decisions. I'm not referring to the information noise that surrounds the process — because to many, it seems as though Trump is forgetting things: he says one thing today, and something entirely different tomorrow.However, certain developments follow a discernible pattern. For instance, all that information and then actual actions regarding revisions, pauses, suspensions, or redirections of military aid and weapons contracts to Ukraine, can be explained. These changes are largely tied to the Pentagon’s work on a new U.S. defense strategy. This strategy is expected to be presented to Trump in late October or early November. Only then might we see more consistent and structured behavior from him. To put it bluntly: more of the Pentagon; less of Donald Trump.However, it would be a serious exaggeration to believe that Donald Trump will remain steadfast in his apparent turn against the Moscow Führer. Just as it would be an exaggeration to believe that if he said there would be more weapons and new weapons, this would be upheld.In this regard, several things overlap, which create a sense of chaos. The first is Donald Trump himself, the second is the incompetence of Donald Trump's team. The third is that structurally all these supplies, assistance, all these programs are passing into the hands of Europeans. And here there are a number of inconsistencies, problems with the quantitative indicator of the state of the defense-industrial complex, joint projects. All this, superimposed on each other, creates a somewhat chaotic picture.Although here we need to focus not on what Donald Trump and everyone else say, but, relatively speaking, ask the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, what is really going on. Here it is a matter of how ready they will be to say what is coming, what has stopped. I would not recommend them to disclose this information in any case, positive or negative. Because I have the impression from what I read, see and communicate at all 360 degrees — that there is more information of various kinds than specifics of the course of events.The war will expand depending on how hysterically the Kremlin reads Donald Trump's Twitter and constantly reacts in the public space — the Kremlin is guided by Trump's position. Donald Trump's unpredictability can be a communicative strategy: they say I am so mysterious and you cannot predict whether I will raise strategic aviation and use it against Iranian nuclear facilities, or, on the contrary, I will gratefully accept a portrait from Putin. I think this is his strategy — to pretend to be a naive fool. This strategy is dangerous because it can meet unpredictable actions.In the current phase of the war, Russia is relentlessly deploying Shahed drones and ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities. The question is: are we witnessing a new stage, or is this simply a brutal attempt to undermine the confidence of Ukraine's Western allies?I accept this position of unpredictability and, to some extent, perhaps, even bets on such tactics and strategy. However, it is important to understand that this approach does not affect only the enemy — it also impacts partners and allies. Since this unpredictability is unacceptable to them, it has a seriously detrimental effect on relationships within NATO, the EU, and beyond, including partners in the Indo-Pacific region.Now, let’s address some statistical aspects of the attacks on Ukraine and how they have evolved. I would recommend that even specialists pay close attention to what has changed — not just the number of attacks, but the structure, including how many are dummy or decoy drones. This detail offers important insights into the current situation. While tactics have clearly shifted, have the strategic parameters of the conflict changed as well? Answering that requires very serious, in-depth analysis.I’m not an expert in these matters, but based on what I’ve read, I would say the quantitative parameters of the attacks have remained largely the same. What has changed is the tactic: almost half, and sometimes more, of the incoming objects are simply decoys. Yes, these dummies still force us to spend valuable resources on air and missile defense. That’s true. And while this creates a kind of quantitative advantage for Russia, it also highlights the urgent task facing both the Armed Forces of Ukraine and our partners: to adapt to this evolving threat. We must not lose sight of what’s really happening on the battlefield.So, what might happen next in this situation? Frankly, all the talk about a major summer offensive and preparations for breakthroughs seems increasingly like an information and psychological operation. What’s more important now is the clarity of response, both from Europe and from Donald Trump, who continues to waver on it. That is: Moscow's talk of negotiations is just that — talk. The New York Post put it well, and it’s clear that Donald Trump read it, judging by his emotional public comments and the language he used. The article emphasized a hard truth: Putin only understands strength. If you don’t show strength, the final line said, he will mock you and feed you bullshit. It’s obvious Trump took that last sentence to heart — he even blurted it out during one of his media appearances.The number one task now is the development of the defense-industrial complex. It is now clear that this task is shared by both Ukraine and Europe, along with the need to increase the production of the most essential types of weapons and ensure their delivery to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If we look at all the types of weapons used since 2014, we can see how Russia's use of armored vehicles has significantly decreased, while other capabilities are expanding. This is a structural answer to many questions. I hope — and I am convinced — that the General Staff, as well as our partners, recognize this and understand how to shape the next steps. It is no coincidence that this topic was raised during talks not only with Ukraine's top military and political leadership and European counterparts, but also in bilateral meetings held just this Wednesday and Thursday between representatives of France and the United Kingdom — discussions focused on how to respond to the evolving changes in tactics. Unfortunately, the United States is not yet participating in this process to the extent required.I have only touched on a few key points that are essential to answering how to analyze these developments and how to respond to them. The same applies to all other components that are now widely discussed. However, what matters most is making concrete proposals and truly understanding what is happening.Ukraine's Western allies are waiting for bold steps regarding proposals that Ukraine would make at its own peril and risk. It is not just the use of the latest weapons that is ongoing - both offensive and defensive strategies and tactics are being modernized, everyone is learning from the Russian-Ukrainian war. At the same time, not only our Western friends are rearming, but the Russians are also rearming their army, and the Chinese are also drawing conclusions.The situation almost looks like the Third World War. I would like to believe that no, but NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has clearly outlined the Chinese position, the media quotes Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who said that if the Chinese wanted to, the war would look different. But we see a systemic rearmament, Abrams tanks will now play a much smaller role than fiber-optic drones.Do you have a feeling that there could be global negotiations that will end the war, or, on the contrary, everyone is rearming in order to destabilize NATO due to an attack by Russia or a military provocation against the Baltic countries? China is playing a big game and are ready to bargain big too.As for China, you and I talked about the role it plays two years ago. China supplied weapons components, microcircuits, China financed and finances Russia's military-industrial complex, and we knew the answer to this question even then. It's just that at the present time, it has become so politically mature that Europe has begun to talk about it openly. The topic of provocative strikes on Europe has not only been predicted and is being predicted, European forces, including NATO forces, have been practicing a possible reaction to such a test in exercises (including the "Baltic Sentinel" as an operation), they are oriented towards the probability of such a provocation. Those cases that occurred in the air over Europe, at sea, in particular in the English Channel, when Russian oil tankers and cargo ships accompanied military ships - this has also been analyzed, studied and countermeasures are being practiced.Regarding the statement that sounded as if from the lips of Wang Yi, I can say with certainty: it sounded like a necessary thing in the current situation, but Wang Yi could never say it. By the way, it can be said that it was very useful, because everyone thought about who in the Moscow-Beijing duo plays a key role and whether we can hope that China can influence Russia, encouraging it to peace. I'm not talking about the fact that this statement sounded like a clear admission that China has indeed confirmed what we talked about with you two years ago - that China does indeed supply Russia with a lot of things that keep Russia and its military-industrial complex afloat.Therefore, I can say this: although Wang Yi did not say this, it is very good that this phrase was attributed, which simply shot down the ultimatum demand of both Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen to China to stop supplying Russia with weapons, as well as weapons components, and microcircuits, because this will affect, as they both said, the relationship between Europe and China.It is important to understand the following: Europe, when building its security and defense system, proceeds precisely from the fact that the partnership between China and Russia will be maintained, including in the military-industrial complex.Therefore, all the calculations that were made within the framework of NATO and within the framework of the EU's defense initiatives and programs take this into account. There is another side to this: in fact, Europe has an enemy, a threat, and an adversary with unpredictable behavior. Because Trump is not just trying to somehow push Europe to increase spending - his behavior is incomprehensible towards Europe and even more incomprehensible is his behavior regarding how he will act in the Indo-Pacific region. And at the same time, he demands help both in Europe, in the North Atlantic from the Europeans, and in the Indo-Pacific region. These are two tasks that Europeans must solve today in the course of implementing their defense programs - rearmament and development of the defense-industrial complex.The Kremlin is reacting hysterically to Trump's initiatives - less than two hours pass, and either Peskov or someone from the Foreign Ministry reacts, they are extremely nervous. Trump promised a surprise. Do you see any initiatives, impulses in the diplomatic sphere that could indicate that Russia could be forced to sit down at the negotiating table in the next six months?There is only one tool to force the Kremlin to conduct constructive negotiations - it is force. Force is the only tool that will force the Kremlin not just to sit down at the table, but to conduct a constructive conversation from the point of view of accepting a truce, ceasefire, or signing a peace agreement. All other options - whether in Rome, or on the Moon, in Istanbul, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, the Kremlin will consider only as a continuation of the war and will only agree to work there and conduct some dialogues when this issue and this place will be worked out by it from the point of view of control - where it would be possible to conduct wiretapping, video recording, including provocations against the participants in the negotiation process.And this should ultimately be understood in Washington. Therefore, if there are to be any surprises from the U.S., it would be very important that, on one hand, the “Spider’s Web,” and on the other hand, similar measures from the U.S. and Europe, including sanctions, come into play. Only then can we expect that the Moscow Fuhrer might be brought to the negotiating table on a whim and begin talks without issuing ultimatums.It’s a strange situation: in Istanbul, Russia puts an ultimatum on the table — while Washington and Brussels start talking about negotiations. Tell me, who negotiates with someone who issues an ultimatum? They are at war with that party! Because ultimatums are not meant to reach agreements, but to fight — and that is already a set program. Therefore, to expect any constructive progress on the diplomatic track with such a Kremlin stance — why fool ourselves?The Kremlin has calculated its medium-term prospects — how many of its citizens it can afford to lose as killed, how many as wounded, and where to get finances. But there is still something that truly hurts them, such as the destruction of part of the Russian strategic triad — their aviation — which was severely damaged by the “Spider’s Web” operation. In your opinion, what do you think would be the most painful aspect for the Kremlin in the current situation?Such strikes not only cause material destruction to Russia but, even more importantly, morally undermine it. Under the current conditions, much of this depends on certain space-based forces, which provide important opportunities for action. Another key factor is the preservation of the military-political leadership and international communication systems. Pay attention: once again, Ukraine demonstrates that components of “Russian weapons” — drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles — include parts not only from China but also from many enterprises around the world, including allies of Ukraine. This presents avenues to work on. More broadly, the issue of discipline in enforcing sanctions is another area requiring attention.Therefore, the full range of tools that can influence the Kremlin’s behavior is quite broad. Coordinated actions between Washington, Brussels, European capitals, and Kyiv can leverage these options. Currently, 57% of Russian crude oil exports pass through the Baltic Sea and the Sea of Japan. This accounts for about 48% of the energy sector’s budget revenues — here’s another key point. This means there are clear vulnerabilities that should be targeted in various ways. These must be carefully studied and implemented appropriately depending on the situation and the objective.