Does the threat of a nuclear conflict, the war in Ukraine, a new American president … Is peace possible in 2025?

Euronews : All year 2024 was characterized by the threat of nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia, global expenses in nuclear weapons that increased by 13 % to reach the record figure of $ 91.4 billion in 2023 . The outbreak of war in Ukraine. But Dmitry Peskov recently said that Moscow was ready to resume negotiations under certain conditions. What do you think of the reality of such a perspective?

Harald Kuyat:I assume that your question refers to the Newsstart treaty between the United States and Russia. This treaty limits the number of nuclear warheads and vectors for intercontinental strategic nuclear weapons. He is the last in a series of agreements of this type since 1972. He entered into force on February 5, 2011 for an initial period of ten years. In 2021, it was extended by five years by both parties. In 2022, Russia suspended its participation in the treatywithout withdrawing it, and Moscow then broke the negotiations for a new extension of the agreement

The declaration of Mr. Peskov according to which Russia is ready to resume negotiations shows that Russia, like the United States, wishes to carry out the negotiations, which expire on February 5, 2026. Apparently, despite certain challenges still to overcome, the Two parties wish to maintain a stable intercontinental strategic balance and limit the enormous financial expenses devoted to this category of weapons. President Trump has already tried in vain to include China in negotiations as a third party during his first mandate and will probably continue to pursue this objective.

Euronews: The new NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte called on the countries of the Alliance to increase their defense expenses. According to Bloomberg Economics estimates, they could reach up to $ 10,000 billion over the next ten years. Kaja Kallas, head of European diplomacy, also faced the Russian threat. But are Europeans ready to tighten their belts and reduce social spending to increase the military budget?

Harald Kuyat:Recently, calls have multiplied to increase the share of defense expenditure in GDP beyond the 2 % stipulated. Trump even asked that it be brought to 5 % of GDP. These are arbitrary figures, motivated by political considerations, which are not based on any factual basis corresponding to reality. The need and the magnitude of the increase can only be determined by a NATO study, in which budget planning is analyzed at the same time as defense planning, and participation objectives for member countries in result. This process now seems to be engaged, since the next NATO summit conference, which will be held in June 2025, is expected to set a 3 % target of GDP instead of the previous 2 %.

At the same time, it should be noted that member countries have also been committed to bringing the share of the defense budget devoted to modern weapons and equipment to 20 %. It is only by combining these two aspects that modern and effective armed forces can be maintained instead of wasting financial resources in excessive operational costs and in costly maintenance of exceeded systems.

But the question of whether NATO member states are ready to finance an increase in defense expenses by reducing social benefits should be decided by themselves, not by the secretary general of NATO.

Euronews: Do you consider that the danger of a Russian attack on EU countries is real?

Harald Kuyat:I think this is a very daring statement. Whoever says it claims to be able to assess with precision not only the military potential of Russia and, on this basis, his strategic capacities compared to NATO, but also to know the intentions of Russian leaders. The threat of a Russian attack can only be deduced from the combination of these two aspects. In addition, whoever thinks that a war between Russia and NATO would repeat the Ukraine War, which are largely static, which is partly comparable to the war of trench of the First World War and only vaguely comparable to the war of movement From the Second World War, is heavily mistaken.

A war between Russia and NATO would take a completely different direction from the war in Ukraine, encompassing all military aspects and extending far beyond Europe. Consequently, Russian leaders certainly realize that Russia cannot win a war against NATO in the short term, whether today or in three to five years, and that a longer conflict would allow the States -Anis to send reinforcements to Europe. The war would then extend on a global scale. In this case, Russian leaders would be ready to knowingly accept the risk of nuclear escalation, which is highly improbable. After all, without the conventional superiority essential to war, one or the other of the parties could be in a situation of existential danger which would force him to consider the first recourse to nuclear weapons.

Consequently, despite the attack on Russia against Ukraine, it is very unlikely that Russian leaders will plan a war of aggression against the Western alliance. In any event, American intelligence agencies, which ranked Russia second in national security threats after China, are not enclosed on such an option. In their 2024 report, they are convinced that Russia “does not wish a direct military conflict with the forces of the United States and NATO and will continue its asymmetrical activities beyond the threshold of military conflict in the world”.

The Russian government is obviously concerned with preventing the expansion of NATO through the entry of Ukraine into the Western defense alliance to the Russian border. This is why, for some time, Moscow has been insisting again on the objective it pursued in the mid -1990s, namely to suit NATO to create a strategic buffer zone, a “health cord”, to the ‘regard that President Trump even has recently been understanding. But Europe will face serious challenges. It will not only have to become more independent in key political fields, but also find a “Modus Vivendi” in its relations with Russia and China. Or, in other words, find the courage and the strength to assert themselves politically, economically, technologically and, finally, militarily.

Euronews: Now that Donald Trump has become president in the United States, there are noisy calls for negotiations and even a promise to stop the war in Ukraine in the spring. In interviews since 2023, you said that the more hard conflict, the more difficult it is to put an end. How do you assess the prospects today? How can we achieve lasting peace and what concessions do you think that the parties in conflict should make?

Harald Kuyat:Yes, I said at the time and I repeat today that war created facts that it is very difficult to modify in the context of peace negotiations. This is why President Trump has been repeating for some time that he will end war. Until now, only the elements of the American peace plan have been known. According to them, President Trump carries out a policy based on a peace strategy by force, balancing incentives and pressures on Russia and Ukraine as a way to peace. Ukraine should declare its neutrality and not join NATO, but will be able to join the European Union in the future. Europeans will have to bear the cost of reconstruction of the country. Russia would retain control of the conquered territories. Although Ukraine must not officially recognize the Russian annexations, it will have to refuse to use force to modify its territorial status.

A demilitarized area would be created along the current front and the Ukrainian defenses would be strengthened to prevent a possible Russian attack in the future. European troops, and non -American, should be deployed to monitor the demilitarized area. It is true that I think that the deployment of soldiers from NATO countries, even if it is not NATO soldiers under NATO command, is risky. Indeed, a human or technical failure could make the situation degenerate beyond political control and lead to a military conflict with Russia. One of the belligerent parties may also cause such a situation. In the end, Moscow and kyiv will decide which countries will provide peacekeeping forces, and Russia is unlikely to accept troops from NATO countries.

ADVERTISEMENT

But we have to wait for the plan to be announced before discussing it. I think it is important that the problems that have led to war are finally resolved, failing which tensions and conflicts between Russia and Ukraine could resurface. End the war on the basis of an agreement taking into account the security interests of the two negotiation partners should open the way to a future European security and peace order.

Finding an alliance with China for peace talks could be a great advantage. China has already published a constructive proposal last year and revealed shortly after, with Brazil, a six -point plan to end the war. China can also play a crucial role in the reconstruction of Ukraine and thus make an important contribution to the stabilization of future relations between Russia and Ukraine. One question arises, however: Washington will he want to recognize Beijing as a mediator in negotiations, taking into account his close ties with Moscow?

Euronews: Putin called Zelensky as an illegitimate president for the umpteenth time. How do you overcome this?

Harald Kuyat:Putin’s declaration does not seem to refer to negotiations, but to the fact that he believes that Zelensky, as “illegitimate” president who was not elected in due time, has no right to sign a treaty peace. The question could be resolved by organizing anticipated presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine after the finalization of peace talks.

ADVERTISEMENT