The situation is extremely serious. There are several indicators suggesting that Russia may be preparing some kind of provocation with potential military consequences. In particular, we’re talking about the Baltic Sea region and violations of NATO member states’ airspace on the European continent. The situation is indeed serious, but I wanted to ask you — do you believe it could escalate, or will the Russians refrain from crossing any red lines?My impression is that basically, NATO has now the necessary steps in order to be, basically, more alerted against hybrid threats from Russia. And nowadays, basically, today they have to meet, and they will discuss and address some additional methods to basically incorporate and encompass these threats.So, I think Russia will get away from further hard aggressions, especially regarding the airspace violations. We must be alerted, and we must be vigilant in order to prevent Russia from additional threats. I just wanted to clarify whether any additional protocols for action have already been adopted. Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, said that a decision has already been made. If Russian aircraft violate airspace, then those aircraft can be shot down.Yes, of course, first thing — it's the right of every nation besides NATO to defend the airspace. But it's better, basically, to do it in comparison and in conjunction and cooperation within NATO. So, there are some decisions against a kind of wall against Russian drones. Some of the methods might be secret. We shouldn't give anything too much away to Russia, what are the methods to defend ourselves within NATO territory.But there are, of course, some agreements behind the official lines. How might the current situation affect support for Ukraine? We understand there are two key points: financial assistance for Ukraine’s budget and EU support to procure American weapons. These involve substantial sums, so my question is: is there already a consensus that we need to increase assistance if we want to secure a rapid victory?Absolutely. And today, the American Minister of Defense, Mr. Hegseth, has encouraged NATO nations and EU nations to purchase American weapons, high-tech weapons, in order to deliver them to Ukraine.So, what we see is a kind of indirect support of the United States to Ukraine, whereas possibly European partners have to purchase those weapons in order to give them, hand them to Ukraine.So, that's basically a deal which was done today until midday. And what we see is that in the afternoon, the contact group — headed by Britain and Germany and other states — will say, basically, how do we do that? Where does the money come from? Having said that, of course, there will also be weapon deliveries from European nations to Ukraine.So, I think that today is a very important day to continue the outstanding support to Ukraine — whether it's indirect, that we buy weapons in the United States, or whether we actually give money.What is now being discussed is to lifе the frozen funds from Russia in order to help Ukraine bring up their own defense industry.So, that's another thing we have to discuss and proceed with. Regarding Tomahawk missiles: we understand these are both militarily and symbolically significant — weapons that cause real alarm in the Kremlin. Ukraine needs them. We know discussions have been long and much of the debate is confidential. In your view, is there any realistic prospect of Ukraine obtaining them — and in meaningful quantities? Not a few units, but several dozen Tomahawks.First thing is, I think this is a pure and only decision by the American President. I think, even if NATO discusses it, the last decision on delivering Tomahawks to Ukraine is completely up to President Trump.Having said that, we are aware that Ukraine actually has developed a Flamingo cruise missile and that they are improving their own capability for long-strike precision weapons.But, as I said, it would make a big difference. And I think that if President Trump decides upon giving the Tomahawk, nothing as an escalation by Mr. Putin would happen. And what about Putin's willingness to escalate the situation? In your opinion, what are the risks that the escalation could reach an uncontrollable level? What is your view of the situation?We have learned, whenever the West or Ukraine showed strength — and the strength was shown by Ukraine, actually the second day after the intervention of Russia — whenever we have shown strength and willingness to defend ourselves, Mr. Putin hesitated to escalate. So, what we have to do: be vigilant and bring up our military forces in NATO, support Ukraine, and, if we do that really successfully, Mr. Putin would hesitate of any escalation or even any invasion into one of the NATO nations. I see that as very unlikely for the time being.But we have to be vigilant, and we have to increase our willingness to defend ourselves. That means more procurement, more training, more forces, as soon as possible. General Wolski, we understand that Ukraine knows what constant escalation from Russia means — the Russians regularly attack the country with drones and missiles. We also believe a very dangerous, criminal scenario is being prepared: the Russians are preparing to leave the country and its citizens in the cold by knocking out power generation and distribution systems — not only electricity but gas as well. Accordingly, Ukraine is preparing an appropriate response targeting Russian energy and oil refining. Given the Russians’ willingness to inflict these terrible blows, and with severe frosts approaching, what might the collective response be?The first thing is, of course, that Russia will continue to attack energy and power lines, the grid system, and the gas system, and so on, in order to basically bring Ukraine into the cold — which is absolutely unlawful, and it's a violation of any law, any human law, and any international law. So, that's the first thing.The second thing is that we must enable Ukraine to prevent those attacks as fast as possible. That means, basically, more anti-air artillery, more anti-aircraft, more anti-drone capabilities, but also the right, of course, of Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia.In addition to that, the West, especially the EU, should continue to give engineering help and aid in order to be able to keep up the grid system, the power system, and the energy system on the civilian aid side — not only militarily, but also bring more money and construction capabilities into Ukraine. That's absolutely necessary. How would you assess Russia's air defense system in general? We understand that Russia is a very large country, and its air defense assets are concentrated mainly around large cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, and around various military targets. But there is also, for example, the Yamal Cross — that is, the intersection of pipelines, and so on. How do experts in your field assess the readiness of Russian infrastructure to withstand the long-range strikes we are talking about?The first thing is, right from the decades ago of the Soviet Union, Russia has always put a high effort upon air defense in every area — far more than NATO ever did. So, the Russians protected nearly everything within their forces, possibly not all their critical infrastructure. However, they cannot protect everything in their critical infrastructure — it's thousands of kilometers of pipelines, gas lines, oil lines, etc. So, they cannot protect everything.But I think their main effort will be to protect, first of course, their forces, then their critical infrastructure — which is military infrastructure — and, of course, also energy. But they cannot protect everything, and they have to put many, many air defense assets far more forward in order to protect their forces. Extremely complex and difficult negotiations have recently taken place in the Middle East — specifically regarding the Gaza Strip. We wish the State of Israel success in achieving a comprehensive arrangement — I wouldn’t call it peace, but at least a ceasefire and a reduction in escalation. It will not be easy, but President Donald Trump has managed to achieve that. And now President Trump promises to seriously focus on the Russian-Ukrainian war.However, we understand that Russia is not Hamas, and that Putin’s plans are also supported by China. What diplomatic scenarios do you foresee? And, more broadly, is it realistic to expect that sooner or later some kind of negotiated — even if only temporary — outcome could be reached?First thing is, I don't believe that China will officially intervene into a kind of peace building between Russia and Ukraine. I think they will stay out. Mr. Xi Jinping, a couple of months [ago], said that Russia should not lose this battle. Yes, definitely said that. So, that's a kind of statement.So, I think that the United States plus European leaders have to cope with bringing a kind of peace or ceasefire first, and then some kind of agreement by themselves. I hope that the American President will stick to his line he has taken — that “I want, basically, to force Russia to stop this war,” which, basically, he said. So, hopefully, he works upon that together with the European partners. General Wolski, I’d like to clarify something: is there any understanding of the evolution or possible shift in Russia’s position? Putin launched the full-scale invasion with rather abstract demands toward Ukraine and very specific ones toward the West.Regarding Ukraine, he demanded that we surrender part of our sovereignty and become a controlled territory. From the West, he demanded the demilitarization of Central Europe and a return to NATO’s old borders. But has there now been any clearer definition of what Putin actually wants? And, more broadly, is there any understanding of what took place in Anchorage, Alaska — what he discussed with President Trump?Yes, we can only speculate what happened between Trump and Mr. Putin in Alaska. Having said that, we have to observe that Mr. Trump's perspective toward Mr. Putin has, I think, significantly changed since that meeting, because Mr. Trump is basically now on the side of the West — more on the side of the West than having actually Mr. Putin as a companion. So, I think we are on a good side, hopefully, and stay there.Mr. Putin's approach, however, against the West — as you said, bringing Russia back to the borders from before, when the Soviet Union existed — has not changed. I think that's his illusion, and that's his historical thesis, that's his historical aim: to reinstall the Russian empire within those borders. And that's the reason why we have definitely to stop him. Why I bring up Anchorage: we understand that both Putin and Donald Trump primarily trust themselves — an egocentric view of the world. Accordingly, Donald Trump said that Putin “let him down.” We don’t know in what way, and I don’t know what they agreed on, but whatever they discussed could clearly affect our shared situation — especially here in Europe: Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and the like. It is our doorstep that the war is approaching.A few days ago I had the honor of speaking with our mutual acquaintance Michael Carpenter, who once led the U.S. Mission to the OSCE and previously worked at the Pentagon and on the National Security Council. In his assessment, unfortunately, the United States will focus more on Latin America and the Indo-Pacific — the Pacific and Atlantic basins.How do you see that?I think it is true that possibly the United States of America will shift their focus a little bit more to the Indo-Pacific area. They have said so and basically stated that Europe, and the Europeans, basically have to organize their continent by themselves.Having said that, of course, there are NATO commitments for the time being, I think that's a radical change in the U.S. President's opinion that he is committed to resolving the Ukrainian conflict. I think he will stick to it.And what we will see then is basically how we organize Europe and what we do in order to support Ukraine and its sovereignty state within its borders, and then the Americans might shift a little bit their focus.You see that there's no withdrawal of any American forces from Europe. They are all here. They're possibly going far more east than before. So, the commitment of President Trump regarding the security of Europe currently is stable and staying as it is. Having said that, it might change when the conflict is being resolved.