Commissioner Andrius Kubilius. The Americans Have Changed The Formula: Now They Talk About Peace, But Without Strength

In the interview with “Le Monde”, the former Lithuanian Prime Minister expresses his concern about the United States’ turn on Ukraine and Russia’s intentions.

Interview by Sylvie Kauffmann, 20 February, 2025 (translation from French)

While at the Munich Security Conference on 14-16 February in the Bavarian capital, European Commissioner for Defence, Andrius Kubilius, met US General Keith Kellogg, US Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. In Paris on Tuesday 18 February, the former Prime Minister of Lithuania (1999-2000 and 2008-2012) questioned the Trump administration’s strategy, fearing that it “risks strengthening Putin politically”.

You participated in the Munich Security Conference. How do you rate the transatlantic relationship after this very tense sequence of events?

Let us say that expected things have come unexpectedly. We face two challenges in two different timeframes: one is urgent, the war between Russia and Ukraine, with the possibility that Russia wants to test us militarily by 2030. The other is the rise of Chinese military power, with the possibility that the United States will increasingly switch its security resources to the Indo-Pacific and reduce its presence on the European continent. We were always telling that we must have both things in mind when preparing our European defence. What is still unclear is what kind of strategy the Americans are trying to define, or if there is a strategy.

You met with the US envoy for Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg. What did you tell him?

We spoke very openly. I told him: yes, we need peace in Ukraine, but peace through strength – everybody repeats it, the Americans too. But I would start with the second part of the formula: strength. To achieve a just peace, Ukrainians need additional strength, and this strength can only come from our side, American and European. So first strength and then peace.

But now, the Americans are changing the formula, they are first talking about peace, but without strength, and this risks strengthening Putin politically. I hope that the Americans will not make serious mistakes, but I would be much more positive if they made a decision on a peace through strength strategy and agreed about it with us, their European partners, or with the G7. Now, they are progressing without consultation. This obviously creates a lot of confusion and emotion in Ukraine. I am worried that for Ukrainians, such a situation can create a feeling of abandonment with very negative consequences. I remember when we [the Baltic States] struggled for our independence in the early 1990s, how sensitive our societies were to what the Americans and the French said… We need to pay close attention to how our decisions and words are perceived by Ukrainians who are fighting to defend themselves – and to defend ourselves.

Do Europeans have a plan?

We need to articulate very clearly the parameters of peace. I told General Kellogg, there are some very clear principles: territorial integrity of Ukraine, no recognition of occupation, no partition; a strong, unrestricted Ukrainian army – in case Russians call for limited capabilities of the Ukrainian army; and maintaining sanctions, as it is foreseeable, even in the event of a peace agreement, that Russians will not stop their war economies. The reports of the intelligence services of several European countries that Russia can be ready to attack us before 2030 must be taken very seriously.

Other point: Russia has to pay for the damage it has caused. Negotiations do not take place between equals, they are between an aggressor and a victim. It is therefore necessary to keep Russian assets frozen until an agreement is reached on compensation. Finally, elections cannot be part of the negotiations. Decision on elections is a sovereign decision of the Ukrainian legitimate authorities and, if organised too early, elections will play in Putin’s hand.

Finally, of course, strong security guarantees are needed. I do not know what form they will take or who will implement them, but a US backstop is crucial. And I hope that we will be able, on the EU side, to swiftly send a strong message to Ukrainians, to strengthen Ukraine, militarily and economically.

What did General Kellogg answer to you?

That the Americans want a ceasefire very quickly! Their only argument is that they want to stop the massacre. We too, and this can happen if the Americans convince Putin to stop killing people and withdrawing his troops. But if this is not done carefully, the massacre will resume, on a much larger scale. When I read the Americans about the Rubio-Lavrov talks[the heads of US and Russian diplomacy met in Riyadh, Tuesday 18 February] that they will establish a mechanism to deal with the “barriers” to their bilateral relationship, I am concerned whether it means that the Americans see Ukraine as a “barrier” that needs to be brushed out of the table because the United States wants to have good relations with Russia.

I would like the Americans to explain how good relations with Russia are compatible with intelligence reports on Russia’s preparations to test us in the next five years.

What is your assessment of the meeting that brought together several European leaders in Paris on Monday?

It is a very clear statement of support for Ukraine and strengthening our defence: Europeans understand this need much better now. But this was just one step among all we have to do. For the time being, we do not have a concrete agreement on security guarantees. Some countries are ready to send troops, others are still discussing it. I told General Kellogg that it would be much better to agree on these things before starting negotiations.

What levers do Europeans have to convince the US to involve them in the negotiations?

I don’t know. What I know is that any decision on a ceasefire or peace must first be acceptable to Ukrainians. This is a question of survival for them. They know perfectly what danger a bad deal may entail. We are ready to support them. We will not change our position. I cannot imagine an agreed ceasefire between Americans and Russians while Ukrainians are under the fire of Russians.

You will present a White Paper on Defence on 19 March. What will be your priorities?

The mission letter specifies for the first time that we need to define the measures to be taken to deal with the most extreme contingencies, i.e. the possibility of armed aggression. There are major flaws in our preparedness. We need to develop our defence capabilities, and very quickly. It is not enough to increase our defence spending to 3 % of GDP. Our defence industry is too fragmented, and we order too much equipment outside the EU. This is a weakness in times of war when we need to repair and renew this equipment. And there is, of course, the funding component.