Colonel Beridze: NATO membership is security guarantee for Ukraine, or new European security system without US must be created

As the Russia-Ukraine war drags on, diplomatic efforts and political statements are becoming more frequent, though their effectiveness remains in question.

In an interview with Front News, Colonel Lasha Beridze said that Western leaders’ statements — including US President Donald Trump’s about “quickly ending” the conflict — are merely imitations of negotiations, which will not produce tangible results.

According to him, Russia is deliberately prolonging the process to buy time. Beridze noted that sanctions, despite Moscow’s official rhetoric, still exert some pressure. However, in his view, the decisive factor for resolving the conflict is strengthening Ukraine militarily and financially.

Q. How would you assess Trump’s statement that he will speak to Putin “very soon” and “end” the conflict? What type of negotiations could this imply, and what might be the outcome?

A. The U.S. President is trying to produce some results, to show determination, and to cling to this opportunity until the end. He hopes to reach a tangible agreement with Putin, but that is impossible. This will be only about Russia dragging out talks — negotiations for the sake of negotiations. I do not expect any significant outcome.

Q. Trump has stated that he is ready to move to a second phase of sanctions against Russia. How realistic is this, and how might it affect the ongoing conflict?

A. In reality, what Russia and President Putin fear most is the West’s firm support for Ukraine, whether through weapons or other means. That is what must put slow pressure on Russia. Sanctions work to some extent, but not fully. Russia has experience — even from the Cold War — in circumventing such measures. They have found loopholes and, with the help of third countries, continue to sell oil and gas quite successfully. Their economy has not been struck a fatal blow. The main factor remains military and financial support for Ukraine. That is what will influence Russia the most. Ukraine must be armed and battle-ready so Russia cannot fully achieve its objectives.

Q. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said sanctions have had no effect on Russia. Do you agree, and what levers remain for the West if sanctions are ineffective?

A. Their rhetoric is understandable; they want to pretend they do not notice the pressure. But if sanctions do not work, why do they keep asking the US to lift them? Russia’s conditions are unrealistic and irrational. Essentially, Russia’s message is: “Either surrender this way or that way”. Every proposal is about capitulation. But nobody will surrender to Russia.

Q. We also heard Putin’s offer to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but only if he comes to Moscow. Zelenskyy jokingly replied that Putin had the chance to come to Kyiv but failed. How do you interpret this? Many see it as a diplomatic maneuver.

A. This is outright mockery, highlighting his image as an “emperor” who must be approached and revered. He wants others to come to him, but no one will submit to him, least of all Zelenskyy. The West will not either. That is why this statement was simply ridicule, which received an appropriate response.

Q. Trump has urged Europe to stop buying Russian oil, arguing that Russia should be deprived of full-scale war financing. At the same time, Europeans are discussing providing Ukraine with security guarantees. Yet Putin responded that if even one European soldier appeared on the frontlines, Russia would respond accordingly. What kind of security guarantees are possible?

A. I see only one solution: Ukraine’s NATO membership. There is no need to “reinvent the wheel.” Temporary guarantees are shaky and meaningless. How can Article 5 apply to Ukraine without NATO membership? I have never heard such nonsense. If Article 5 is to apply, then NATO membership is essential. That is the reward we all seek as small nations; everything else is technical detail. The real security guarantee for Ukraine is NATO membership — or the creation of a new European security system without the US, which so far has not materialised.

Looking at Europe’s military and political potential, they are capable of providing security themselves. Until now, they relied on the US and its system. But the situation is changing, and Europeans will eventually have to make big decisions. This is still unclear, but they must take bolder steps.

Q. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán claims Ukraine will be divided into three zones: Russian, demilitarised, and Western. How realistic is this scenario, and what impact would it have on regional security?

A. Orbán is essentially spreading Russian narratives. Nobody takes his statements seriously. That said, a division between occupied and non-occupied areas could theoretically become part of some agreement. But Orbán’s vision reflects only what Russia wants.

Q. How should Ukraine respond to Russia’s large-scale air attacks, when Zelenskyy is asking for more air defence systems and the EU is pledging additional sanctions and support for Ukraine’s defense industry? What is the way out?

A. This issue is not easily resolved. When your opponent is Russia, with vast resources for air strikes, however much the West supplies Ukraine, Russia will increase attacks proportionally. It is like a game. Ukraine simply needs more systems to strengthen protection of its territory, though 100 percent defence will never be possible.

Q. Do you expect any tangible results in negotiations or even a ceasefire agreement by the end of the year?

A. No, I expect neither this year nor next. From the start, I have said this would be a long and exhausting war. Russia will not stop until it faces serious difficulties both on the front and economically. Only when they are forced to abandon territory, as they did in Kherson and Izyum, will we see progress. But achieving this requires long-term, heavier operations — and for that, Ukraine’s army must be further armed and strengthened. At this stage, I see no other way forward.