DW: At the Munich Security Conference, unlike in previous years, practically no Western leader mentioned that Russia would lose the war against Ukraine. Do you think that this option is no longer being considered? Do European leaders no longer believe in it?
Stephen Biegun: I think the prospects for ending this war on the battlefield have changed and weakened over time. Now we are in a completely different situation: Our goal is to achieve such an outcome through any process, be it an end to the war, a ceasefire or negotiations, that will deprive Russia of the possibility of victory to the maximum extent.
DW: A new round of negotiations is coming up in Geneva. What do you expect from them?
St. Biegun: It is said publicly that only one issue remains unresolved in the negotiations. But this creates the impression that all issues are equal. In reality, the main issue has not been resolved - who will win the war and who will lose. I hope that the United States will show determination and will not allow Putin to present his brutal aggression against Ukraine as a victory.
"The important thing is that Ukraine remains sovereign"
DW: According to the “Financial Times“ and some other media, Donald Trump's administration is pushing Ukraine to reach an agreement by June and insisting on holding presidential elections, otherwise it is threatening to deny any security guarantees. Is this a correct interpretation?
St. Biegun: I have participated in many negotiations, including during President Trump's first term. Negotiations should not be based on a deadline, but on a result. What is important is that the war ends in a way that Ukraine remains, to the maximum extent possible, a sovereign, peaceful, secure, and ultimately economically prosperous country.
DW: What should we expect from the new bill on sanctions against Russia that Senator Lindsey Graham is talking about?
St. Biegun: The bill is ready for consideration in the Senate. I have even heard predictions from Congress that this could happen within the next two weeks. In any case, the president already has all the authority to impose sanctions, and we must recognize that the Trump administration has indeed imposed new and very sensitive measures against Russia in recent months. The adoption of the law would be an important symbolic signal of readiness to increase pressure. But ultimately, it is not declarations that are important, but actions.
DV: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio practically did not mention Ukraine in his speech, as did German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. What signal does this send to President Zelensky?
"I am concerned about the lack of American leadership"
St. Biegun: At such conferences, many things reflect internal debates in the US and Europe. But I am really concerned about the lack of American leadership. Not a single US representative was present at the meeting with President Zelensky. And in general, with its presence, the US does not demonstrate commitment to Ukraine. The negotiations may be at a delicate stage, but I fear that this is more of an internal political positioning than a demonstration of leadership. This is a missed opportunity.
DV: Zelensky expects the US to focus mainly on the midterm elections in the second half of the year. Will diplomatic efforts weaken?
S. Biegun: Every democratic country lives within the framework of the election cycle. Negotiations often depend on the elections. But the outcome of the elections does not necessarily mean something bad for Ukraine. Most Americans believe that its struggle is just and support the restoration of the 1991 borders. Support for NATO and transatlantic commitments is also very high. That is why the idea that these midterm elections pose a threat to these very important US interests does not seem serious to me.
DW: Is it possible that Ukraine will receive Tomahawk missiles?
S. Biegun: We can do more to arm Ukraine, and these missiles could significantly change the situation on the battlefield. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the US has acted too slowly and not decisively enough in terms of arms supplies. I hope that in the future we will act more actively.
DV: The main topic of the conference in Munich was the relations between the US and Europe. Is recovery possible after the tension?
"The signal this year was different"
St. Biegun: The conference since 1963 has been dedicated precisely to these relations between the United States and Europe. I have been coming here since the 1990s, and the conference was often held against the backdrop of some European concerns - because of Yugoslavia, NATO expansion, the war in Iraq, the intensification of Putin's aggression. It is important that we continue the dialogue with the Europeans. If last year the signal from the United States was “Europe, we don't like you as you are“, then this year the message is more like “Europe, we would like you to like us as we are“. In my opinion, this is a sign of progress in transatlantic relations.
Author: Roman Goncharenko