Interview with Edward P. Joseph, Foreign Policy expert
Mr. Joseph, thank you for joining us today, it's a pleasure! I'd like to start with the shocking clash between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. It's been widely commented on, but I'd really like your opinion on what happened. Was Zelensky wrong in the way he approached Trump, or was it all a trap, to put his back against the wall in front of the whole world...
The key point here is that the US position on the war in Ukraine, on the actors in that conflict, Russia, which is the aggressor, which attacked Ukraine without reason, and Ukraine, which has been bravely defending itself, this position has completely changed. So that's the main point. The main thing is that the US currently sees the parties involved very differently than the Biden administration. The Trump administration, which rightly wants to stop the war, which is a very good and positive step for all parties, has an approach where it believes it has to put pressure on Ukraine and praise Putin. That's the question here, whether this strategy will work. First he praises Putin and then he puts pressure on Ukraine. And, of course, the indicators are that if you praise Putin, you usually don't come out with a good result.
Donald Trump announced the suspension of aid to Ukraine and the sharing of intelligence information with Kiev. This strategy, according to him, will make it impossible for Ukraine to continue the war, and will lead to the end of the conflict. Do you think he is right?
It's very hard to see and understand the tactics here. It's very strange because to reach a solution, you need pressure on both sides. It's very easy to put pressure on Ukraine. There's no need for a lot of drama. It's very clear that the Biden administration knew this. Any administration would know this. If you cut off support for Ukraine, it makes it very difficult for them to continue the war. The point is that Russia is also in a difficult position. It's under pressure. It's lost so many soldiers that it's looking to North Korea for help. That's a clear indication that it's suffering. It's looking to Iran for drones, another indication. There are also other indications that Vladimir Putin is under pressure. So the normal way to proceed here is to keep the pressure on Russia and insist to Ukraine, look, we want you to engage in peace talks. So it's not clear what is achieved by easing the pressure on Russia. That's what we don't know. And it just doesn't make sense. But, you know, this is Donald Trump and his approach to the world is not the same as others. But it's a very strange thing to ease the pressure on the side, which in this case, is the aggressor. So by easing the pressure on Russia, their demands will increase. And the more their demands increase, the harder it becomes for Ukraine to accept the deal. So if you're Donald Trump and you want peace, which is a good thing, and it's right for President Trump to want peace, you're making it harder to achieve that if Russia increases its demands.
How real is the possibility of Trump negotiating a deal on Ukraine with Russia, and what would that mean for the country's fate?
Well, of course, it depends on the terms of the deal. So, to answer your question, we don't know what the terms are going to be. The future of Ukraine is going to depend on what the terms of that deal are. Now, the last we know, and you asked about the very difficult meeting that President Trump and President Zelensky had a week ago today. Well, in his speech to Congress this week, President Trump seems to accept President Zelensky's proposal that he respected President Trump's leadership and wanted to make peace.
So we can hope that the relationship between Kiev and Washington will return to some kind of normality. We can hope that Kiev and Washington will sign a fair agreement on mineral rights and that this would then put Ukraine in a position where it would become a party to the negotiations and not just be left aside and told by the US, these are the terms, you have to sign them!
Officials in Washington have mentioned a deal that would involve territorial concessions by a sovereign state to an aggressor. Would this set a dangerous precedent?
Well, first of all, we don't know if these are really conditions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal has to be acceptable, that there has to be an acceptable deal. And he has given signals that there have to be concessions. Now, what these concessions are that Russia has to make, we don't know yet. But if, of course, if it were a unilateral deal in which the United States simply recognizes Russian sovereignty over Ukrainian territory, of course it would be a disaster. And I don't see how that would serve U.S. interests in any way. It wouldn't help with the tensions with China at all. So that's very clear. It would be very dangerous and it would be counterproductive. It wouldn't be America first. It would be a very damaging position for the United States of America. But again, I'm telling you, it's still not clear that this is the position of the Trump administration.
Professor, Ukraine is insisting on strong security guarantees for the peace agreement, and the possibility of sending European peacekeeping troops is being discussed. Is this a move that Moscow would accept?
They would ultimately have to accept such a move because it is clear that the Europeans would not accept some kind of peace agreement that has no security guarantees. And if the Europeans are willing to contribute troops and Russia refuses, then the question is, will the United States simply say, too bad, you have to take Vladimir Putin’s word for it that it can’t attack again? And everyone knows that the vast majority of European states, except Hungary, would reject such a claim. And again, that would not be in the interests of the United States, because that would mean that Washington would be against not only Ukraine but also the European Union. And if the United States loses the European Union, then it would make its war with China even more difficult, because, for the Trump administration, that is the main concern. So it would not make sense from the perspective of the America First policy.
Europe seems more uncertain than ever about the future of its security. Is the EU ready to face a scenario where the US gradually withdraws support for Ukraine, but also for Europe?
Well, it's interesting. Europe is more insecure now about the United States, but it's more certain of its need for unity. So it's not entirely true that Europe is more insecure than ever about its security. It's more insecure because it has to do so without the traditional guarantor, America. We saw that at the extraordinary summit held in London. So we had all these big European Union states, including France and Germany, meeting in London, which is no longer the capital of an EU state. So in a sense, the European Union is more certain that it has to guarantee its defense and is more committed to strengthening its defense capabilities across the EU.
What are Europe's realistic options for helping Ukraine if the US changes course? Can the EU afford such support financially and militarily?
Well, listen, it can afford, provide both financial and military assistance. And in the end it can choose, if it wants, to support Ukraine with its troops as well. That is a decision. These are sovereign states and they can choose to provide support. Even if Hungary were to block this, individual states of the European Union can act individually. There is a very important fact here that I want to emphasize. It is very important and it has to do with France. President Macron talked about the possibility of using French nuclear deterrence on Ukraine. And this is extremely important. And all your viewers should understand this, that France and the United Kingdom have their own nuclear weapons. These are not American nuclear weapons. So France has its own nuclear weapons. And President Macron talked about the possibility of using this nuclear force. And you see, this then changes the calculation dramatically, including by President Trump. He repeatedly mentioned World War III in the meeting with Zelensky. Well, if the United States does not provide security guarantees for Europe and France then he says: well, we will use our nuclear weapons. If Russia does not respect an agreement or if Russia attacks further, guess what? Then we have the prospect of a nuclear confrontation. This is World War III. So for President Trump, for Washington these are the calculations and considerations that need to be made. So if you offer zero assistance from the United States, zero security guarantees, zero pressure on Vladimir Putin, if you do all these things, then you face the possibility of World War III, because you have potentially France using its nuclear weapons.
Mr. Joseph, do you think Europe should also prepare for the scenario of America leaving NATO?
I think that the European members of NATO, including the United Kingdom, should work with the Trump administration and with Secretary General Rutte to make sure that this does not happen. So they should make sure that the United States sees clearly all the benefits of keeping this alliance in place and demonstrating that they are a cooperative partner with the United States, which is of course its main member. So it is up to the European members of NATO to do that. They should not prepare for a departure from the military alliance, because that would be a signal that the United States would simply leave. No, instead, they should insist and reaffirm here the great importance of preserving the NATO alliance.
It is being said that President Trump is getting closer to Russia, with the aim of separating it from China, which is also the main rival of the US. Do you see it that way?
As I said before, the danger with this approach is that if you push yourself closer to Russia, then you could push the European Union closer to China. So whatever the US might gain, or think it might gain from, Russia vis-à-vis China, it could lose because the European Union might say: Okay, you share a deal with Russia, so we in the European Union will make our own special deal with China. And we have to remember that this is not just a theory. We have to remember that the European Union was going to have a strategic partnership with China, but it was stopped by the previous Biden administration, after the dangers that came to light because of the Russian war and China's support for Russia. So if the calculations change and the US becomes with Russia to isolate China, then the EU will be pushed towards rapprochement with China, because the US and Russia will be the threat to the bloc.
What is happening in Ukraine is also worrying the Western Balkans region, where Russia is also trying to penetrate. Considering recent developments, including the cutoff of US aid funds, should the region prepare for a less supportive America?
Well, that remains to be seen, because for the Trump administration, the Balkans are a dilemma. So it's not so clear that the US would simply want to hand over the Balkans to Russia, for example, because this influence also means that China will have very strong influence in the region. These two approaches come together and we know this because we see that the number one partner in the region for Russia and China is Serbia. So if the United States says, well, you know what, we don't really care. We'll just make business deals and investment deals so that you can do what you want. Then the US would open the way not only to Russian influence, but also to Chinese influence. And here we should remember that the first Trump administration, in September 2020, brokered the signing of the Washington agreement in the Oval Office, between Kosovo's Prime Minister Hoti and President Vučić. And in that agreement, there were both provisions that were against Russian influence in energy and Chinese influence in 5G, that is, in technology. So at the time, the Trump administration and he himself signaled that they did not want Russian influence through energy and Chinese influence through technology. So one can imagine that those concerns still hold.
I have one last question. Do you see the potential for further destabilization between Kosovo and Serbia, considering the attack in Banjska and then the one in Zubin Potok?
Then my answer is yes! We will have to watch very carefully the potential for instability, especially because President Vučić is under severe pressure at home. And any politician who is experiencing serious domestic pressure wants a crisis. And no crisis would serve President Vučić more than tensions in Kosovo, especially if there were casualties. All actors who are committed to ensuring security in Kosovo, such as KFOR, EULEX and the United Kingdom, should work with the Kosovo government and the Serbs in the north to prevent this. And the message should be very clear to Belgrade that none of the parties involved wants to see an escalation. My hope is that KFOR is aware of the potential. And the risk of a new conflict with Serbia makes Prime Minister Kurti not in a position to challenge the American administration. So let's hope that the messages will be conveyed that we do not want tensions or confrontations in Kosovo...
Mr. Joseph, thank you very much for the interview, and for being with us today to share your opinion.
It was a pleasure. (A2 Televizion)
A2 CNN Livestream
MUND TE LEXONI GJITHASHTU
