A very important meeting recently took place between the current Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, and President Trump, joined by the top ranks of the U.S. military. The meeting was unannounced, and no details of the agenda were made public.It appeared that Trump and Hegseth are preparing to introduce a new U.S. national security doctrine. Interestingly, much of what was discussed seemed unrelated to deterring Russia or China. What was the real purpose of this meeting? Was it meant to showcase Donald Trump’s strength to the military establishment, or perhaps to send a message to the American public ahead of time?It’s a little bit hard to know exactly what the intended rationale was. I think it was likely for Secretary Hegseth to preside over all the senior admirals and generals and to show them who’s boss.He was essentially condescending toward them. He was somewhat insulting, calling them fat and physically unfit, and adopted a lecturing, hectoring tone toward his senior generals. I think many in the room felt like they were being talked to by a headmaster at school rather than respected as senior military leaders who deserve the trust of their boss, the Secretary of Defense.It was a very strange speech. It came across as somewhat amateurish. And if its intent was to instill loyalty in the officer corps, I think it did just the opposite. Most of the generals and admirals who walked away from that meeting probably felt that their boss was a little out of touch with reality.Again, I don’t know what the intended rationale was, but it certainly wasn’t a particularly effective speech. And of course, there was no national defense strategy to announce because it’s still being worked on.Of course, the key issue isn’t what was said but what concrete actions the U.S. administration may or may not take next. One of the main items on the table is the potential deployment of the legendary American Tomahawk missiles, which has already sparked a hysterical reaction from the Kremlin. Clearly, this isn’t just about long-range missiles. It is about symbolism, about readiness, about signaling America’s resolve if Russia continues to escalate in ways that could also endanger European Union countries.The real question is how far the U.S. administration is actually willing to go. Will it move beyond words about deterrence and pressure and truly act to achieve peace through strength?Well, you have to look at the various types of assistance that have been considered and provided to Ukraine so far.Frankly, there hasn’t been a single dollar of military assistance given to Ukraine by the Trump administration. So I don’t know why anyone would expect that the administration would be willing to provide an advanced capability like Tomahawk missiles to partners in Kyiv when, so far, it hasn’t provided any capabilities at all.I know that the Ukrainian side would very much like to have the Tomahawk missile, which would help partially equalize the correlation of forces on the battlefield, because Russia is using long-range missiles against Ukraine, while Ukraine does not have missiles of comparable range to strike back at Russia. The Tomahawk would help level that imbalance, and from Ukrainian territory, it could reach Moscow, which is a significant factor.That’s why I think there has been such a strong negative reaction from Russian leaders.But I have to say, I am not optimistic that the Trump administration would approve either the sale or the transfer of this capability to Ukrainian partners.Last week, our studio guest was former U.S. intelligence officer Ralph Goff, who previously headed the CIA’s Special Operations Center for Europe and Eurasia. He suggested that Ukraine is now capable of conducting special operations even more sophisticated than the “Spiderweb” mission, targeting key nodes of Russia’s military logistics and energy infrastructure.What we are seeing is a kind of strategic duel. Around 40 percent of Russia’s oil refining capacity has been destroyed or severely damaged. In response, Russia has been lashing out with increasing aggression. How do you assess this confrontation, and how much are these strikes actually hurting Russia?So far, you’ve seen that the Ukrainian side has been far more innovative than the Russian side. Operation Spider Web is the perfect example of that – an operation executed flawlessly that took the Russian side completely by surprise and had a significant strategic impact. I think we can expect Ukrainian special operators to launch similar missions in the future, and they are among the best in the world.I would expect them to achieve gains that the Russians are probably unable to achieve in Ukraine. However, the Russians have the advantage of greater mass, and because they are supported by China, they have an almost endless supply of components for their military-industrial complex, including microprocessors, which are vital for the rockets and missiles they fire into Ukraine.This war will continue to test both sides in their ability to innovate and adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield. I believe Ukraine has the upper hand, especially if it receives additional financial support from the European Union. And if the reparations currently being discussed in Brussels come to fruition, I think the Ukrainian side will find itself on much stronger footing than Russia.Do we have a clearer sense yet of what specific signals China is sending to Moscow? Recently, we hosted retired Australian Army General Mick Ryan in our studio. He has a sharp understanding of the risks embedded in China’s updated national security doctrine and its growing reliance on threats and force to advance its interests, and this is about much more than just Taiwan.General Ryan told me that in the current situation, steel will have to be met with steel, otherwise it may soon be too late.When it comes to China’s influence on Russia, how do you see it? Are they encouraging Moscow to take more aggressive actions, including against the European Union? Are they trying to hold Russia back? Or are they simply waiting and using the moment to profit?It’s very hard to say because I’m not privy to those conversations. I don’t think we have any clear indication of what the content of those closed-door discussions between officials from Moscow and Beijing actually is. However, I suspect that Beijing is not encouraging Moscow to be more aggressive or to undertake specific types of operations.They are primarily providing support to Moscow, particularly if they sense that Russia is beginning to lose ground on the battlefield or that its position is becoming weaker. In that case, I think Beijing could consider putting more resources into Russia, because from China’s perspective, they don’t want Western democracies to prevail over autocratic Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine.That said, I don’t think China is managing Russia’s battlefield operations on a day-to-day basis. That remains under Russia’s control – they assume full authority over their forces and their decision-making inside Ukraine.That’s how I see it, but of course, I could be wrong, since I’m not privy to those conversations.There are distinctly Russian objectives in this war. Putin is using it not only to tighten his grip on power but also to pursue broader ambitions. He is taking enormous risks, and Trump openly mocks him, calling him a paper tiger.At the same time, we are witnessing major global shifts – rearmament, the rewriting of military doctrines in many countries, and a growing awareness of new security threats within the European Union. Yet there is still no clear vision of what kind of world is emerging. Developments in the United States and Africa show that where China fails to advance its goals in Europe, it is doing so in Africa and Latin America instead. The world is undergoing a deep geopolitical transformation.The question is, where are we heading – toward a Third World War, or toward a renewed system of alliances and a revitalized NATO?Here’s how I see it. The world order is now undergoing a process of multipolarization. The bipolar structure of the Cold War was followed by the unipolar structure of American hegemony after it ended.Now we are seeing the rise of new powers, greater competition among major states, and the erosion of the so-called rules-based international order. The war between Russia and Ukraine is crucial because it serves as a crucible in which the growing contest between global democracies and global autocracies is becoming clear. The United States has assembled a coalition of roughly 50 democratic nations in support of Ukraine.Just look at the membership of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, also known as the Ramstein format – all democracies supporting Ukraine. The same is true for the G7 and the Ukraine Reconstruction Conference, both composed of democratic nations backing Ukraine. On the other side, we have Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, and China cooperating as autocracies to prevent the victory of Western democracy.So, the way I see the global order evolving is toward a far more contested reality between the forces of democracy and autocracy worldwide. Ukraine is the epicenter of this contest, but it will likely manifest in other regions and other forms in the years ahead.How do you assess Russia’s overall strategic plan? Moscow shows no real willingness to engage in serious negotiations. At the Valdai Forum, Putin made several thinly veiled threats, including one directed at EU countries. We now see provocations unfolding in the Baltic Sea region, with drones targeting Poland, Denmark, and others. At the same time, Putin has claimed that Ukraine’s nuclear power plants could be under threat.How prepared do you think Russia is to launch a full-scale strategic offensive? What separates Putin’s rhetoric from mere bluff? And if he isn’t bluffing, how seriously has he developed a scenario against Ukraine and Europe?I think you’re absolutely right that Putin has no intention of sitting down for any kind of meaningful negotiations. He will continue the war until he achieves his aim, which is the subjugation of Ukraine and the elimination of an independent Ukrainian nation. I do not need to tell Ukrainians this; I think you instinctively understand it.Putin has been quite explicit about his aims, and more people in the West need to pay attention to what he is saying rather than try to infer some other goals from his actions. In the coming months, I think he will likely target the Ukrainian electricity grid. He seems to believe that if he can plunge Ukraine into darkness and cold this winter, he can terrorize the population and achieve results he has not been able to obtain on the front lines. For that reason, I expect continued large-scale missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian critical infrastructure. The key now is to surge as much air defense capability to Ukraine as possible. Western countries, rather than wasting time talking about a reassurance force that is unlikely to deploy before a cease fire, should consider the SkyShield approach, which I think is viable and could be implemented relatively quickly. Instead of discussing ground troops, we should talk about Western planes flying from Poland, Slovakia, or Romania to protect the skies of western Ukraine, and potentially allowing Ukrainian pilots to operate further east, closer to the front lines and to Russia. That combination would be a strong and effective step if Western countries were willing to take it.It’s clear that Russia is pursuing several possible scenarios in its war against Ukraine. They have expanded drone production and are systematically targeting our energy infrastructure, not only electricity but also the gas sector, including processing, extraction and transportation facilities. In essence, Russia is preparing Ukraine for a “cold genocide.”The key challenge now is to ensure Ukraine’s protection. This is not just about Patriot systems but also about aircraft and broader resources. Military resources mean more than money; they include actual combat units that can be deployed to Ukraine in the near future.How do you assess this competition in military capabilities between Ukraine and its partners on one side and Russia and its allies on the other?It’s very unfortunate that the United States eliminated the U.S. Agency for International Development, which had been heavily involved in providing passive protection for substations and other parts of Ukraine’s electricity grid. That was a very helpful form of assistance that helped preserve much of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. European countries will now have to step in and do more of this.You’re right that it requires an all-of-the-above strategy – using air defense systems, strengthening layered air defense, and potentially providing more aircraft so that Ukraine can patrol its skies. It also requires resources to stop Russia through long-range strikes that could destroy some of the airfields from which Russian planes take off. All of this is necessary.I believe Russia is much weaker than many people realize today. The Russian economy is in poor condition: inflation is high, interest rates are high, and there is little room for growth. If Western countries were more deliberate in their efforts to limit Russia’s energy revenues, particularly from oil and gas, Moscow could be left with far fewer financial resources to sustain the war.Unfortunately, the United States is largely absent from this equation under the Trump administration. It is therefore up to European countries to take the lead – to devise a strategy that includes using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and to invest in the capabilities that will be critical for the coming winter, which will likely be brutal as Putin tries once again to terrorize the population.What do you think really happened in Anchorage, Alaska? Did President Trump and Putin actually reach any kind of understanding? A few weeks after their meeting, Trump said that Putin had let him down. Trump has been very deliberate in how he talks about Putin – he avoids insults but draws clear lines that Russia must not cross. One example is nuclear blackmail, which the Russians have since largely stopped using.But did Donald Trump ever have a genuine peace plan? Is that plan still on the table today? And could it still be discussed between the Kremlin and Washington?It’s hard for me to know the specifics, and of course I wasn’t in the room. It seems that the Trump administration truly believed it could achieve some sort of ceasefire deal, but one that would have required Ukraine to give up roughly a quarter of its territory, as Putin was demanding. As you know, Putin wanted all of the Donbas, formal recognition of Crimea, and also the Zaporizhzhia region. In other words, he was demanding a lot.Trump seemed to think he could pressure Ukraine into agreeing to such a deal – ceding that territory to Russia – in exchange for promising Moscow sanctions relief, believing that would be enough to get the Kremlin to sign on. That’s my best interpretation of how the Trump administration was prepared to approach these negotiations. As you noted, the Alaska summit produced nothing. Putin was unwilling to accept any deal, and Trump walked away empty-handed.Of course, Ukraine would never agree to give up a quarter of its territory, including areas currently under Ukrainian control. So the whole proposal was a nonstarter from the beginning. Fortunately, it appears that those talks have now been shelved, and Trump seems to be stepping back from any active role in negotiations for the time being.Now it will fall to European leaders to take the lead – to show more initiative in diplomacy and in supporting Ukraine. We are already beginning to see that with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans for a reparations law, which truly could be a game changer in how resources are directed to Ukraine.When it comes to resources, unfortunately, Ukraine still depends heavily on support from its European and American partners. At the same time, we see the U.S. administration trying to shift much of the responsibility onto Europe, suggesting that European countries should be the ones buying American weapons for Ukraine. Meanwhile, our own budget is under severe financial strain.As Washington steps up pressure on Russia, it may also increase pressure on Ukraine. Some European governments are actively cooperating with the Trump administration, raising concerns that their support may not always align fully with Ukraine’s interests. The overall balance of relations in Central Europe and between Europe and the United States is clearly changing.How much pressure are our American friends actually able to put on Kyiv?Right. My reading of the situation is that the Trump administration is likely to step back, as I mentioned earlier, from any active role in negotiations. That probably means less pressure on Moscow, but also less pressure on Kyiv, since the United States is unlikely to be directly involved. President Trump appears to be shifting his focus toward the Western Hemisphere, particularly targeting drug trafficking operations in the Caribbean and off the coast of Venezuela.If my sources are correct, the upcoming National Defense Strategy will place the Western Hemisphere as the top U.S. strategic priority, the Indo-Pacific as the second, and the Euro-Atlantic region only as a tertiary area of focus. That gives you a sense of where U.S. strategic thinking is heading.This means European countries will have to take on greater responsibility, both in providing financial support for Ukraine and in supplying weapons. European defense production will have to increase substantially.The good news is that some of the funds from the reparations loan, if it materializes, could be invested directly into Ukraine’s defense industrial base, which is already highly innovative, adaptive, and technologically advanced, particularly in the field of unmanned systems. This could be a winning strategy, channeling resources into Ukraine’s own defense industry to drive innovation and expand production, giving Ukraine a significant advantage compared to where it stands today relative to Russia.Of course, Russia continues to receive support from China, but I don’t think that assistance is as significant as the potential impact of the assets that could start flowing to Ukraine in the coming months.Everyone is now discussing several possible scenarios for the war: Russia backed by China on one side, and Ukraine supported by Europe on the other. What do you see as the pessimistic and optimistic outcomes of this war? The best-case scenario is that the Europeans, and to some extent the United States, work together to apply heavy pressure on the Russian economy. This would mean fully ending European purchases of Russian energy, including oil and gas, and, in the case of the United States, halting imports of Russian nuclear fuel as well. It would also require imposing secondary sanctions on major buyers of Russian oil and full blocking sanctions on Russia’s entire financial sector.Combined with the reparations loan, this could put Ukraine in a much stronger position relative to Russia. It could reverse the momentum on the battlefield. Putin’s aura of invincibility, or at least the narrative he tries to project of inevitable victory, would collapse and Ukraine could begin to push back on the front lines and regain territory. That is the optimistic scenario.I believe it is entirely achievable, but it will require greater European political will, unity, and solidarity than we have seen so far.The negative scenario is that this winter Putin continues attacking Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and Ukraine lacks sufficient technological means to protect its power stations, energy grid, and gas transport systems. As a result, the country could be plunged into cold and darkness during the peak of winter, causing parts of the civilian population to consider leaving and potentially triggering another wave of refugees. That is the worst-case scenario, and it could happen if additional assistance, especially in air defense, is not provided.Still, I see that outcome as less likely. Ukraine will likely be able to distribute its energy generation capacity across regions, reducing the risk of single points of failure. With continued Western support, Ukraine should be able to endure the coming winter, though it will undoubtedly be a very difficult one.