Georgian security analyst: "Russia understands only language of power"

As Russia’s war in Ukraine reshapes the geopolitical landscape, the world is facing increasingly complex challenges—from nuclear threats and economic sanctions to intense frontline battles. In an interview with Front News, security expert Andro Gotsiridze analyzes Donald Trump’s recent statements, the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, the effectiveness of sanctions, and developments on the battlefield. He also reflects on how realistic Moscow’s expectations are and what factors could shift the course of the war.

– Donald Trump stated that former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev frequently makes nuclear threats. In response, Trump said he deployed two nuclear submarines to the region. How do you assess this move, and how real is the nuclear threat from Medvedev? Is this an effective means of nuclear deterrence?

- First of all, we should not expect an apocalyptic outcome. US nuclear submarines already regularly patrol regions where a nuclear threat from Russia is possible. So, in this case, there is nothing particularly new in terms of military posture. What’s new is Trump’s change in rhetoric. Previously, he used more conciliatory and accommodating language toward Russia. It now seems that even within the US administration, there is growing recognition that Russia only understands the language of force, and only forceful messaging can contain Putin.

As for the threat itself, Russia actively uses nuclear blackmail. When things aren’t going well for Russia, it frequently resorts to threats through Medvedev, emphasizing their nuclear capability and the willingness to use it if necessary. We also remember Putin’s repeated threats. Trump’s statement is important as it signals that the US is tired of these constant threats and is ready to respond in kind. Interestingly, the first such bold response came from former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. For a long time now, the US has distributed its nuclear arsenal in a way that’s specifically designed to deter Russian aggression.

– Trump also said, “If we don’t reach an agreement with Russia, we will impose sanctions. Putin knows how to get around sanctions. He’s a tough guy.” In your opinion, how effective are today’s sanctions against Russia, and are there any new, truly painful sanctions that could significantly impact Putin’s strategic goals?

- We know that Russia’s strength largely depends on oil exports, particularly through partnerships with countries that rely on Russian raw materials and oil products—India, China, Brazil, and several South American nations. To avoid military escalation, economic tools must be prioritized. Right now, the West is responding to Russia using the same weapon—economics—that Russia uses in its hybrid warfare to exert global influence.

Trump, as an experienced businessman, is strategically leveraging economic levers. This approach may reduce the likelihood of a full-scale war. This hybrid war is largely an effort to avoid an even bloodier conflict.

– However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently claimed that Russia has developed immunity to sanctions. He pointed to evidence showing that many Western-made components have been found in Russian weapons used to bomb Ukrainian cities—even ones produced after the war began. Does this mean Peskov is right?

- Unfortunately, Russia has indeed managed to maintain its logistics for purchasing weapon components even during wartime. This is not new. Russia uses various countries to obtain microchips and other dual-use items. Therefore, US and EU sanctions will only be truly effective if they strike these supply lines directly.

Western intelligence and financial institutions are aware of these routes, and if necessary, they can shut them down to a level that would severely impact Russia’s military capacity and create significant economic strain. This, in turn, would affect the Kremlin’s foreign policy decisions.

– Let’s touch on the situation on the frontlines. In recent days, Russia has intensified its efforts in Donetsk, particularly trying to capture the city of Chasiv Yar. Ukraine denies that the city has fallen, but the Kremlin appears determined. What strategic value does this city hold, and how would its capture benefit Putin in future negotiations?

- Any territory that Russia seeks to integrate into its autonomous republics is crucial for it to extend its borders. However, despite small tactical gains on the frontline, Russia has not managed significant breakthroughs. The situation is likely to remain unchanged unless the West provides Ukraine with weapons capable of altering the battlefield dynamics.

At its current pace, it could take Russia decades to achieve its objectives. So, the front remains relatively stable. Russia has gained only a few settlements—territory that shifts back and forth—at the cost of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of soldiers’ lives.

– Analysts often say that Russia has three times the manpower of Ukraine and, as you noted, treats human life with little regard. In this context, is it realistic that Russia’s military-industrial output cannot keep pace with its human resources, as some analysts suggest? How would this impact the long-term outlook of the war, particularly in Donetsk?

- Sanctions are the key issue here. With effective sanctions, Russia’s military capabilities could be severely hampered. Even replenishing manpower is becoming more difficult, and that’s already causing political problems domestically. While protests in Russia are suppressed, they don’t disappear without consequence. Sooner or later, the political elite in Russia will feel the pressure.

– Do you see any likelihood of a temporary ceasefire? There is hardly any talk about ending the war. Russia continues to advance slowly, believing Ukraine and the West will eventually accept its terms. Are these expectations realistic, and what could be the deciding factors that influence the course of the war?

- We live in a time when global politics is dominated by unpredictable leaders. Putin is clearly working toward achieving stronger positions ahead of any potential ceasefire or negotiations. It’s widely known that the line at which the fighting stops often becomes the de facto status quo for decades. It rarely changes quickly.

No one will officially recognize Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory, but once Russia consolidates those gains, removing them by military force becomes extremely difficult. Negotiations won’t achieve that—we in Georgia know this all too well from our own experience. The only way to compel Russia into a ceasefire is through strong, continued support for Ukraine, including providing powerful weaponry that puts Russia at real risk of military defeat on the battlefield.

By Elza Paposhvili