Krieg in der Ukraine: »Eine Niederlage würde Putin das Leben kosten«

Welcome to the main conversation, it's good that you are here Since the beginning of the Russian war, German talk shows also discuss the correct way to deal with Vladimir Putin and Ukraine. Often apodictic, often implacable, at least unforgivable. That's how I perceived them and that's why I invited them as if I were Claudia Major, she heads the research group on security policies at the Science and Politics Foundation and spoke out from the beginning in favor of strong support for Ukraine, even with heavy weapons. War is part of that. She is one of the most recognized democracy researchers in our country.

He taught for many years as a professor of politics at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He was one of the first to sign Alice Schwarzer's open letter against the energy supply. weapons and apartments says that Ukraine will not be left without weapons. Ukraine will also be left without people. A warm welcome to you, Mr Merkel. First, the question for both of you: Are you really open to new perspectives and arguments? I think if we don't ask and I keep trying to understand what the other person is thinking then we won't be able to move any further with our thoughts and thoughts, so if you lock yourself in then the debate is over.

This is because the debate on the correct way to deal with Ukraine has stalled, how do you see that, Mr. Merkel, yes, war is something highly contingent that is also a coincidence in the development of new situations? If your mind starts interpreting these new situations in the context of your own normative values, then you are missing something and then you are leaving the debate. The phrase that you quoted me at the beginning about Ukraine will not be left without weapons, it will be left without weapons. How is this conclusion reached? If you hear this phrase again, as you think, somehow people are running out of weapons.

In my opinion, the problem and question for Ukraine is whether it is getting enough weapons. , there are more and more, but if we look at the proportion of the respective armies of the two countries, the aggressor and the attacked, in Russia there are a million unarmed people, 2 million interested, the old 45 million. It has more inhabitants than Ukraine, because we do not assume that NATO will intervene directly with troops in this conflict. This can be a very decisive question in war. I'd be very interested to know if you think Merkel is right about this. To what she says, okay, the weapons are all very well, but the real problem with Ukraine is actually the number of people they can send to war.

I think the real problem is that, of course, I don't think it's an important aspect. Of course you are right that Ukraine, as a country with 40 million people, is significantly smaller than Russia with 140 million people. But what we also have to say is that these figures alone did not help us much in this war. Everyone said that the Russian one is much bigger, it is much better for the most modern and what we have seen in this war is that numerical superiority alone does not make a big difference. Ukraine has managed to recover approximately half of the territories in the last. year and a half thanks to the West's extensive financial, economic and military support to the people who live there and who Russia has occupied since February 24, even though they are smaller, even though they were less well equipped and that's all which excellently demonstrates that just the numbers of who has more tanks or people is not decisive and then there is the fact that Ukraine gradually received more military support but relatively late and not to the extent it might need and also asked how the support would be replaced systematic with spare parts and ammunition if the tank was broken, I just wanted to do it slowly and that's why you are right on the point.

I mean, of course, Ukraine's population is smaller, but in the war so far that hasn't been the decisive difference. It may be briefly updated, the thesis could be sharpened today The longer the war goes on, the more it becomes a central question because what should Ukrainians do if the government sends them to the countryside when they run out of men and sometimes women who can ? fight, who they should send to war and if we have to wait for the war to last two or three years, this shortage will have an increasingly stronger impact, to put it in neutral economic terms, in fact I think they make a wonderful argument like Ukraine is becoming fundamentally stronger militarily and politically and it should support it so that this long war does not happen, but it puts them in a position to shorten this war if possible and that is what I say again, very important because it is practically tangible to liberate areas with the people who live there.

We always talk about areas and it seems that there are people living in a territory in this area and we have seen what is happening in areas under Russian occupation as is happening with Mario Pool. and that's why it's not a bit cold to the territory, but to the population that lives there and that's why to me it's more of an argument that actually says we shouldn't do much more with it. Ukraine can liberate even more areas and hopefully there will be a ceasefire soon. Russia may have a supply problem, but for now we are talking about the Ukrainian spring offensive, which has long been speculated about.

Over the weekend, the Supreme General Commander of Ukraine released a propaganda video. on Twitter The soldiers look determinedly and the tanks advance and we will take a quick look, yes, the Ukrainian grandfather in command has announced on Twitter that the time has come to take back what belongs to us. Battles are generally expected. Being heavy with losses and also being bloody Mrs. Major, wait. From a Ukrainian military strategic point of view, it makes sense to launch a spring offensive. We have to temper our expectations a little about what this offense can do. I think we all have images in our heads that there will be a big war and then it won't be one big offensive, but several small ones, and it won't be the last, which means we have to temper expectations.

In reality, it is not so much a focus on specific cities or areas as a focus on Russian military installations and the Russian armed forces around them that are fundamentally weakened by the fact that centralized command centers and logistical routes are eliminated central, of which Russia is becoming less and less. Russia is less able to continue the war; it currently owns 17 percent of Ukrainian territory, so it does not assume that large parts of it will be recaptured by the Ukrainians. I guess some parts will already be released, but I think so. In the West we have high expectations that something really big has to happen and something like what we saw last summer - the liberation of fachkies must have escaped or rachson, where Ukraine has slowly starved Russian troops - I don't think we will .

I see such big steps, also because Russia has systematically and brutally fortified the front line with a trench system, so it will simply be much more difficult for the Ukrainian troops to talk about it, so we have to do it. For us too, I think it is better to mentally create very brutal images that the attacker must be superior to the defender in a ratio of at least 3:1. This is not something that can be stated, but Western support, so to speak, can be brought back to reality. The first question is to compensate, but one solution was always to say that quality is not completely compensated, but at least partially.

The Western weapons systems that Ukraine received are clearly superior to many of the Russian ones, the training is significantly better. obviously we work partly with the American and British systems, that was the case with last year's offensive, so the information and advice there is better and that's why I think it's not just a question of numbers but also of quality and we heard enough reports about last year's disastrous situation. The state of the Russian army, from equipment to morale, that does not change overnight, we look at this open spring and you will notice, well, first of all, it does not exist yet, it was announced a long time ago.

Obviously, there are some postponing considerations, which can be of different types. Preparations have not been made enough, the aggressor has largely taken refuge, and the ratio is three to one. It means that the Russians are attacking, the Russians are paying a blood toll of 3 and Ukraine is paying a toll of 1 and you could say that in case of a counteroffensive the situation could change. A question comes into play that we probably do not discuss enough and do not know empirically enough how the Ukrainian population really reacts to the increasing number of victims and the invisible successes, for example in the reconquest of territories, as the war escalates. prolongs: that's a program.

According to international law, Ukraine's program is completely legitimate, so this anti-offensive call that we hear in new tones in the debate on disabled people, so to speak, do not expect too much, it is not great progress or a victory, the war can drag Now we hear all this in new and light tones and sometimes we have the feeling that, to some extent, this offensive is there for the supporting Western countries, because even there the population is not chosen infinitely to bear the costs in a integral sense. Therefore, this offensive and depending on how it develops, it is a kind of test.

I would like to fundamentally disagree with him on one point: whether it is worth continuing to support Ukraine with weapons and ammunition. Yes, if you had imagined. A year and a half ago one could have imagined that Ukraine would manage to expel Russia from the gates of Kios, otherwise it is actively liberating itself again, but 14 months ago and not since the last few months, the situation has changed, but we can I still say that Ukraine has managed to recover about half of the occupied Russian territories and I think that saying there are no successes, that is actually not true, the other thing is that for the figures you get, of course, you always have to question them.

There is a very high level of support among the Ukrainian population for the struggle and there is a very high level of rejection. More than 80% of the population is the same in all parts of the country against territorial concessions and I think that should at least be taken into account for Ukraine, but Ukraine decides, which would now be very brief. We also talked about what should happen to the territories or not, but the question of whether this offensive is also considered a test, whether it is worth continuing. Support Ukraine to this point? I think it's a bit of Western egocentrism.

I mean, that's what it's about, but the best person can see that it's partly about yourself. I agree with you that this is also an issue for the West. Are Western weapons systems worth supporting? Can Ukraine achieve something? That is true, but in my opinion it is not so. The main factor here is that, of course, we find ourselves in a difficult political situation in the Western states that support them. We have a whole series of elections this year and next that can fundamentally change political support and because the good thing about democracies is that there is always support.

If we have a president in the 2024 US elections who thinks this is less important, the situation will change. change fundamentally, so I agree with him that this is also supporting evidence, but I think that, first of all, and that should not be ignored, this is about the survival of a country; It is not a problem-free formulation when it is said that support must be promoted. Advertising means an offensive. Advertising means killing. In that offensive, people who die every day under Russian occupation are murdered. That's why I say negotiations, negotiations, mass negotiations, because they die. In the occupied zones, war crimes occur there, they can occur even more in the shadow of war, that is why this war must have changed as quickly as possible from this perspective, take another leap because they are absolutely right in the elections.

I have addressed government in democracies responding to the approval or disapproval of voters, that is quite decisive and if dramatic changes occur there is a radical change in politics and the real elections will be the primaries and the presidential elections in the US. and that's why I think this is also an offensive. I thought we had to support the US to show that it makes sense for more and more weapons to be delivered and I am the and that is a central point if the Republicans gain momentum or if there is a strong ischium to some extent. to a controversy in the The electoral campaign comes with Ukraine then it will be difficult for the Democrats and for both of them to maintain this massive support and if there is no success they will say: "you comply, you comply, it is not our war that costs and a lot of that, what?

What is the point? So I would like to clarify a semantic point: Russia is not committing war crimes in the occupied territories, but it is not that a woman is being raped, but that there is a woman being raped. violated. The culprit of this is completely clear, I completely agree with you that we need negotiations.honest, it must also be said that negotiations take place all the time, there are negotiations on the grain agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency is trying to avoid a catastrophe in Saporis. There are always talks between the United States and Russia between the Secretary General. between the Turkish president, Chancellor Macron calls on the phone, there are negotiations.

I think what we in Western Europe always find difficult to recognize is that Russia has no interest in the negotiations, but that it sets preconditions for them and that Russia still believes it can win. this war and what I think is sometimes difficult for us to understand is that this is not a war that can be solved with compromises and a checkbook, but it is a war that has to do with power and what I. People, of course, that's how people live and would be happy if we could find a peace solution or at least a ceasefire, but how can you sit someone at the negotiating table who clearly doesn't want to?

Yes, that's always in the run-up to negotiations, so? Each side has maximum conditions. Ukraine sets conditions, that's what Ukraine does too. They even have it in different ways, yes, but they do it if you only have the opportunity to negotiate, you have two parties, neither party wants to do it because. Both sides still believe they can win the war. By the way, I don't think either side will actually win it and whichever side wins will achieve a pure victory, meaning they will suffer as much damage and sacrifice as they are. is not a real goal if the Chancellor were called Merkel again and you were Chancellor, what would you specifically actively do to increase the likelihood of negotiations with the Russian side?

This seems to be a question, it is a very difficult question and not so I would have the solution immediately, so I would have no choice but to share two ideas like yours, at least it would increase the probability of negotiation that we have. Yes, everyone wants to make it more likely, so to speak, the key is if the two parties in conflict the two parties in conflict are not willing to negotiate, a third party is needed or a third party is needed Germany could not be such a powerful actor the third must be the United States, which is the key indicator and Germany could push not only these marginal talks or they are not even accurate but are not directly addressed to a German Chancellor who simply asks the American President to invite Zelensky Putin to a summit , that would be the goal, so to speak, but it doesn't sound that likely, but Ukraine also doesn't seem likely to win the war in the short term, escalation options are far from exhausted, so also a closer connection with France, something How strange, since there are deficits in the current policy of the federal government, an urgent joint effort would certainly be better than talking about the question of German policy, among other things, one gets the impression that there might actually be something more in terms of commitment, ideas, inventiveness, income, as Merkel would have liked. , so I think that, of course, we should generally use the diplomatic variants.

I would like to remind you once again that Chinese special envoys toured kyiv, Moscow and Europe in the last weeks of May to find out exactly what we do. What I don't want to admit is that Russia has no interest in it. They always make it sound a little bit like we're just not trying hard enough, like we haven't done enough, and I think that's the wrong assumption. "I completely agree with you, but I think we also need to be honest to some extent about the Russian position with WDR," said the former Russian prime minister and now vice-president of the Security Council.

Let's not negotiate with the animal, but the Ukrainian regime has to be divided. If you listen to the speeches of Putin or others there or Russian officials, then the Russian demands are that the four annexed Russian-controlled areas do not even have to be recognized as Russia, that Ukraine is neither an EU nor a NATO: that It is a clear Russian position. I think we simply don't want to accept it because it is part of our conception of foreign policy that we negotiate, that we seek compromises. that we are looking for peaceful solutions Looking for solutions because it doesn't fit I would like to ask again and also continue with this specific example because it is very clear what he thinks would happen if the plan was tested Merkel the Chancellor asks the uh o Motivated the American president to invite a summit between the heads of state of Ukraine and Russia.

What do you think would happen at this moment? At this moment, that is a wish that actually not only Mr. Merkel has, yes and again. I think we have to prepare the Terra Fire and that's why they are in it. The beginning of this itinerant diplomacy between different European capitals is important, what would happen at this moment? I know if the two of them, I don't know if Russia would agree, but I honestly don't believe in attempts for lack of such a concerted attempt at that time. So the alternative that we then discuss when we say that there are such maximalist demands, especially on the part of the aggressor, does not stand a chance, we have to answer what is the alternative, what is the alternative to negotiation.

We know that most wars are somehow stopped through negotiations that sometimes are even resolved. alternative of one side bleeding, that if possible Russia bleeding the Russian army, wouldn't a situation in which Russia, so to speak, and the Russian regime were against the wall, wouldn't it be a dangerous situation? escalation situation? The demands differ. We didn't go into it, but we sat at a table and tried to resolve the big issues, not just the grain issues and the like, but the big issue of the ceasefire and the fact that the parties. from tariff agreements to major wars are always fought to end a war if there is no war.

If there is a winning solution, then all efforts have to be made, so to speak, and negotiations have their own dynamics. I can say that luck is everything, that would be nonsense. Each of these decisions always has a telematic background, but we have no other alternative than for both of us at some point to be at the table in such a way that they say. We cannot, all sides cannot win the war, so the irrational momentum would increase and we would probably also run into a situation of heartburn and you say that Mrs. Major making war is part of the negotiation process, that means Translated , is naive.

To expect that there will actually be even more casualties on the battlefield - it sounds very cynical - and there must be a change in things so that one of the parties is more willing to negotiate. I completely agree with Mr Merkel that there will be negotiations. In the end, we agree on that, what we disagree on is the way to get there and I would say, in very simplified terms, that the requests to the Russian President and the Russian government to come to the table negotiating table obviously did not work. but Russia tried to escalate this war, but could not, that is what we saw in Bakhmut, which fell after several months as a completely devastated city.

That's not really a victory, but how to say it again. to the Russian government to stop this war withdrawing or sitting at the negotiating table without preconditions has not been fruitful, that is, how can we get from the current point to the point of negotiations where wars normally end, as a rule it is So? that the loser ends the war and not the winner is Russia. So far it has not responded to political calls and has responded very well, it has also rejected Chinese proposals to freeze the conflict or war, which means that for me the most promising solution at the moment seems to be to subject Russia to such military pressure that it is about to stop.

He sees more success than continuing and therefore accepts negotiations without preconditions. Let me talk about a recent development: the increase in drone attacks. On Tuesday, especially from the Ukrainian side, on Russian territory there were reports of bombs in several buildings on the Moscow reefs. Kieft denies being directly involved in the attacks, Ukrainian presidential advisor Podoljak threatened Moscow, but at the same time claimed that such attacks. Now they could be more frequent, what do you say about this type of reports, Mrs Merkel? At first I realized this was only now happening, I'm surprised these drones were stationary.

All of them have been available on the Internet for a long time. The Ukrainian side clearly has international law on its side to the extent that Ukraine can also attack targets on the territory of Russia as long as it has infrastructure, especially militarily usable infrared or, it should be said, militarily usable infrastructure. That would be a problem of international law, but it is also smart. I can not say that. I would say that it is a possible new level of escalation and Russia will have to respond in some way to show that we will not accept it, so in my opinion.

We once again have a situation in which it is clear that there is a next turn in the escalation and the expectation that this will bring us closer to a victory or that Russia's strength will push us to defeat is a certain fetish when thinking about technological equipment of the The weapons systems that make us have that Yes, they belong to all the new species that launched into war. I see here a possible opening of the next turns. Escalation is something that neither the parties to the war nor the world really have. This concern and you also said the fetish, I think so.

I was wondering where the thought fetish comes from. Technology makes Russia have this fourth thought because it sends the Iranian drones to the big cities of Kiel or who has this fetish. way of thinking, so I think we should try to stick a little to the plot and the theme to stay and not open such a sideshow, I think the point you raised is important, that is, to say that because Ukraine was attacked by Russia, the right to self-defense is in Article 51 and that means you have access to strategically important places like that. For example, last year the Engels airfield was attacked, this is covered by international law, but there are two guardrails, one guardrail i.e. it has to be proportionate and the other barrier is that international humanitarian law must be respected and that means that you should not attack civilian infrastructure or civilians and that is where this attack becomes difficult, we do not know who sent them, we do not know. if they were armed we still don't know for sure where they were supposed to fly which means we're just speculating and I don't like that, I think it wasn't the first time it happened.

Threats of attacks on Moscow in May There were attacks on the airfield wing on the fuel runway and on communication routes. There was also an explosion over the Gremmel, where to this day we do not know exactly when Ukraine or what force. A small action on the part of the Russians to be able to say, see, they are now pushing their war into Russian territory, so I think you believe that, I don't know, I say it in all honesty and as a scientist I always like I think that politically not It is very prudent to continue in this direction towards civilian objectives.

Yes, Russia is waging a war of aggression, a war of annihilation, and that is no different from international law. I think from the Ukrainian point of view, in my opinion, it is wise to focus on strategic objectives to concentrate but not make yourself vulnerable, especially when it comes to this question of international law, especially since Western supporters have said very clearly that they support the liberation of Ukraine but not the war against Russia in Russia, so we reached a point where I at least heard that the procedure of theBoth view Ukraine with some concern in this regard.

You, Mrs Merkel, complain, among other things, that they lack a strategic objective and that the West also justifies Germany's arms supply. Ukraine must not lose the war. That is also a strategy that can be passed off as a strategy or, so to speak, as an evasion. They say that Ukraine has to win the war, probably because Scholz fears that this path towards this goal could have so many risks of escalation, including nuclear risk, that it is better not to do that and much more, that one of the parties win. so easily, but that is at least implicitly the idea that the negotiations must move forward with more force.

Do you know what the strategic objective is that Mr. Merkel cannot see? I will stay with this question of negotiation. I find it really irritating. that not enough is being done because it implies that the obligation to comply is the factor with Ukraine and Western states and negotiations are based on this or only work when both sides have an interest in it. Should they work when both sides are so bloodied? exhausted or Russia says we have lost, we take up arms. From his point of view, Putin should not lose the war because not only his political existence but also his physical existence depends on it.

He won't be able to retire afterof a defeat. Sochi or anywhere else or to the cream and settle in peace in a facility perceived as such. The violent apparatus of the army and the secret services would probably cost the dictator his life, so he must not lose the war and that could also produce him irrational situations that could lead him to a tactical nuclear attack and I think that such scenarios are always as probable and unlikely as they are, they are also in the thoughts of the Chancellor and his faction etc., and what is your suggestion that the soot be offered? to Russia something that sounds but it sounds as if they had said it and let's toast to that, first let's present these maximum demands that both sides are making.

In such a conflict, Ukraine is certainly legitimate, but that is not the question, but it is not the political question. Let's put this aside and think about how we can create a half-wind situation out of this situation and only the US can do it somehow and also intensify talks with China, but Russia can, what do we do then? Yes, he currently rejects it publicly, but. The US probably doesn't know, but it's strange that we don't know, it certainly hasn't started at a politically relevant level. Russia, its In my opinion, if it can't lose the war, that implies that yes, that's something it has. to accept it, what would it be then?

Well, that's what you have to think about when I started saying now, so they should just withdraw from the areas they have been busy in since February 2022, then of course the criticism would come immediately. And there is a German professor who dares to recommend territorial losses to Ukraine, that is what the negotiating partners will surely say, but that Ukraine and the Don Bass can and should be reconquered without terrible consequences. Losses, very few people will claim That and that is why you shouldn't try it. I don't think you should try to reconquer Crimea at this point, even if there were legitimate claims under international law.

The expected victims are too great for any political ethics to consider 20,000 30,000. One or more people are allowed to die because of this, these are important issues, so on the one hand, you are right, there is a dilemma between the imperative to protect lives and the imperative to protect the survival of Ukraine, but I think this is a question that Ukraine decides and not us, and the other thing is that they say that going from the sidelines to give advice is a bit. I think I didn't look at it properly, but from what you just said at the end it means that Ukraine should make sections that should do something to end the war and in my opinion that is a misunderstanding or misjudgment of the Russian position.

Russia if you look at official speeches, Putin's articles, Russia not only wants four provinces of Ukraine Russia defends the right of Ukraine to exist as its own State with its own identity in question and as long as this belief does not change and as long as Russia creates that can achieve its objectives by waging war by military means there will be no peace or stability with Russia The argument, if we look at it critically, there is only one solution: there has to be a victory for Ukraine and, in doing so, something is excluded or overshadowed by the fact that the risks of escalation of the most massive are there if no solution is thought of, that a victory is necessary.

I have no imagination to imagine that the dictator sent his troops home, that waves of people who had been liberated from civilization and. his society would sink into rivers, which would be an equally terrible situation. That's why I want to make it very clear from the beginning: negotiations are the goal, because wars end with negotiations. I have not yet heard anyone who can convince me how we can move from the current state to negotiations if Russia has no interest in it. The only thing that comes after is yes. But for that I need you to give me suggestions on how to do it.

Let's get to the point of saying that we have to negotiate and that the United States is really one of the main actors in a situation like this when two people refuse to come to the negotiating table, and I'm not saying that these are model solutions that are not humane. and it is also full of obstacles, but the alternative is simply too horrible to say only when Ukraine has enough negotiating tips, so many successes and Russia is, so to speak, against the wall. I don't see that either. They are doing an alternative here. I didn't say that and that's not true and that's why, of course, diplomatic efforts have to continue, but again they're finding that instead of failing right now because of Russia.

The will to negotiate in Ukraine must be divided, which means, of course, that diplomatic negotiations must be tried again and again. Of course, there must be a shuttle for diplomacy, but in the meantime that does not mean that Ukraine cannot continue to defend itself. yes, but of course it must continue in parallel and if so. It is possible to bring Russia to the negotiating table by weakening the Russian army, then much better, yes, that would be wonderful, but where do you get the probability that it will be weakened so much that the dictator will say that we withdraw.

We know that this is at least as illusory, how can we not believe that the negotiations will be promoted in a more massive way? On the contrary, I just think we have to move forward with these two things. and, above all, that in the end it is up to Ukraine to decide whether we are talking about peace, whether peace or a ceasefire is only sustainable. This is what research shows: if both sides perceive it as fair, if more than 80% of the Ukrainian population excludes territorial cessions, then it will please, then it will not be perceived as fair, if a peace is not implemented and is not accompanied internationally, then it will not be more resistant Being Peace Peace is not fair that there is no longer war, it means that the causes of the conflict have disappeared and that countries can develop what should not be, we have seen with mint or not that it was considered fair, it was not implemented and it was not really done by both sides they are persecuted and that is why the first step must be a should, should not be, at best, a ceasefire and then there is a long way to go until May peace once again be a peace that not only is not a war but is one. a fundamental process of mood change.

In the last few passages I deliberately exaggerate about Ukraine. They are fighting this war not because they have nothing else to do, but because they are also supporting their country in arguing that we should not continue. the war or that Ukraine should not continue fighting because of so many losses No, Ukraine should stop fighting, it is totally, it is not natural, they have to defend themselves, of course they have to defend themselves, how they defend themselves is their business as long as it is in accordance with the law international, but at the same time we have to think just as hard about how this madness can be stopped and in my opinion it won't and that's where we are completely different.

I can't rely on the fact that the positional threads on the Ukrainian side are so big that Putin and his people are moving like this. I didn't even say that, but that means that for them, when I'm apart, then it means that they. support the offensive and support the weapons. I can't defend that without weapons. Well, that's extremely difficult in this case and it's extremely difficult for a government to calculate whether we should send our people into a situation where we might not earn much afterwards. It is always calculated that the military is strategically important but can also legitimize it before the population in the sense of a democratic decision.

At the end of our discussion, I ask a question: In the long term, there are perhaps three possible scenarios. The outcome of this war: which no one wants, Russia destroying Ukraine, then a permanent division of Ukraine, whatever that may be, or a truly free Ukraine, which is what they want, not only do I think that's clear, but Do you really think it's realistic? I think that what we want is obviously a free Ukraine and I think that this is also possible in the long term and that we must work towards it. There will be an extremely difficult time in the middle.

We already have it. Now, but I think we have to make ourselves clear again what it is and there are different factors, this is the question of personnel of the soldiers, this is the question of military support. Do you have enough ammunition? Do you have enough equipment, do you have enough maintenance to be able to continue this war of defense and liberation? Is there enough political support now that we are back to elections in the US, Britain, the European Parliament and is there enough financial support to maintain the national system? the budget is working so that they can cover the destroyed infrastructure they can rebuild the teachers they can pay the soldiers and all these four factors political support financial military and personnel depends on whether Ukraine can exist as a sovereign state and all these four factors largely depend extent of Western support and that is why how this war continues depends largely on us.

In my opinion, we as Germany and we as Europe have a fundamental interest in the existence of a free and sovereign Ukraine because it is one of the best security precautions for us. For us, it is normatively in our interest, but it is also a general interest, political and economic, in a Europe in which Russia learns that I think war is worth it, combined with nuclear blackmail, we are in a worse position in terms of security. And going back to your question, I think the long-term goal is that we agree. My concern is that, due to reluctance on the four points, we ended up in a frozen conflict in which Russia does not make much progress. they can keep such a frozen conflict boiling over and over again, they can hold out for a long time, that's what we see in Georgia, that's what we see in Moldova and in such a bad war where not much happens, Russia will benefit from it , so my concern is that we end up in such a frozen conflict scenario, but what interests us is not that it freezes but that we resolve it.

I explained to them why at the beginning I just invited them both to the discussion and. First of all, Mrs Major, have you sincerely heard anything from Mr Merkel in this discussion that at least makes you think? So I think she has reinforced the things that have happened to me as well. What is on my mind is that, in my opinion, it is not the exclusivity but the parallelism of the negotiations that, of course, this has to be emphasized again and again and I always think that it is good that people exchange positions, explain and listen because, otherwise, you will not move forward, and so will Mr Merkel.

From what Mrs. Mallor said, which at least made her think, I know the substance of the arguments and I have also raised them or weighed them back and forth and I can say that I simply do not share the assumptions in this matter and it is not so easy to erase something like that, so to speak, but what I find positively easy is to be able to exchange opinions on such different positions in a healing-polarized fissured debate and sometimes I have to make that addition that it is simply a professional experience, I also come out of discussions where I have defended massively my position and when I sit down to write something I think about a lot of my opponents' arguments.

And that is, so to speak, a possible long-term effect, which means that maybe it will have repercussions for them. In any case, I would like to thank you very much for this civil debate, an exchange I believe. It was worth it. I would like to thank you, dear viewers, for your interest. You can also listen to the main conversation as a podcast on all the usual platforms. Soon we will be there to help you. Stay cheerful as best you can. and see you soon