Ukraine's former commander in chief warns that modern warfare is 'far from what NATO is now operating'
NATO's current model of warfare is far removed from what is happening on the battlefield today, according to the former commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces.
Valerii Zaluzhnyi, now Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, delivered a warning to the country's Western allies about the rapidly changing nature of modern warfare — amid what he described as the disintegration of the rules-based world order.
This isn't just about updating defense industries or "some rearmament," he told the London Defence Conference at King's College London on Friday. "You need a new state policy."
This means a root-and-branch refresh of tactics, organization, doctrines, training, and budgeting, Zaluzhnyi said, per a transcript of his comments published by Ukrainska Pravda.
"All this requires not only additional resources, but also, most importantly, additional time," he added.
A fast-changing battlefield
Ukraine's Western allies have increasingly seen the war in Ukraine as a laboratory for modern warfare, one that provides a host of lessons.
Military experts have told Business Insider that Russia's performance in Ukraine shows that NATO's air dominance could well be tested in a future conflict.
NATO and Western defense officials have also said that alongside large-scale, expensive systems central to their capabilities, the alliance needs masses of cheap, expendable weapons like drones.
But Zaluzhnyi said that lessons like these aren't being adopted fast enough in the West.
Despite drones playing a transformative role in the defense of Ukraine, Zaluzhnyi said that he wasn't just referring to "drones taking over the battlefield."
He said that if NATO stopped using tanks in favor of more high-tech means of warfare, it would still take about five years to catch up with Ukraine's abilities.
"But technology will move on during this time. And so will the enemies," Zaluzhnyi added.
Like space exploration
Zaluzhnyi likened what is needed to "the days of nuclear energy mastery or space exploration," and said that the next step is to "build a completely new security architecture for Europe."
He also said that Europe needs Ukraine as a shield, since it has the biggest army on the continent, and is the "only one with an army that knows how to wage modern, high-tech warfare."
While some countries may have a technological advantage in certain areas, he said, "none of them will be able to secure their own independence in the full range of modern defence technologies."
This is also playing out against the backdrop of "destructive trends in the global security system" that have weakened the power of NATO's Article 5, Zaluzhnyi said.
His remarks, made in London, came as the UK gears up for a planned overhaul of its defense policy. The UK has pledged to raise its defense spending to 3% of GDP, if economic conditions allow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on June 5, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and Trump's general disdain for the 70 plus year-old agreement are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit. Max Boot, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, shares his expert analysis on the issues at hand. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. The 2025 NATO summit will be held at the World Forum in The Hague from the 24th to 26th of June. Among the topics of discussion will be defense spending, strengthening the alliance, support for Ukraine and bolstering defense capabilities. With the summit fast approaching, how might European powers fill the leadership and aid vacuum left by the US as the Trump administration's appetite for foreign conflicts dissipates? Here to share his insights on what to watch out for leading up to and coming out of the summit is historian and author Max Boot, senior fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thanks for joining me Max. Max Boot: Good to be with you. Dana Taylor: First, give us a very brief history of NATO, how it came to be and its overall aims. Max Boot: Well, NATO was created in the late 1940s as a way for the United States and Canada to work together with our European allies to counter the Soviet threat to Western Europe. And it's become the most successful alliance in world history. It's still together after all those years, and it has been throughout its history, the linchpin of security and stability in Europe. And after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO expanded to the east to take in the newly liberated former Soviet satellite states and republics, including the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and others. And it has played a massive role in stabilizing that part of Europe and preventing Russian aggression. I think it's very significant, for example, that Vladimir Putin is attacking Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, but he is not attacking the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are members of NATO. I think that's a demonstration of the importance of NATO and the deterrent effect that it has in action. At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and a general lack of U.S. enthusiasm are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit. Dana Taylor: Max, are we seeing a return to the United States pre-World War II diplomatic isolationism? What's the historical significance of President Donald Trump's threatening to change the US's participation in NATO? Max Boot: Well, it's very concerning to see a US president who labels his foreign policy America First because of course, that was the label used by Charles Lindbergh and other isolationists in the pre-World War II period, and their philosophy was completely repudiated and discredited by the outbreak of World War II. In similar fashion by the way, President Trump is not only the most unilateralist or isolationist US president since the 1930s, he's also the most protectionist and the Greatest Generation saw the consequences not only of isolationism, but also protectionism because protectionism like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 was widely seen as one of the influences that made the Great Depression as devastating as it was and helped to lead the world to war. And so after World War II, the Greatest Generation in the United States and our European allies vowed never again, and they instituted policies of pursuing security alliances like NATO, of pursuing free trade, of trying to promote and defend liberal democratic institutions around the world, all in order to avoid the outbreak of World War III. And those policies have been stunningly successful in keeping the peace and expanding the global sphere of prosperity and democracy. And now they're, all of those basic tenets of US foreign policy for more than 70 years are under assault by President Trump, who doesn't seem to believe in any of those ideas that have served America so well for so long. Dana Taylor: During an ABC News interview with President Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, he said that Russia's concern over the Eastern enlargement of NATO was fair. He also reiterated that the US does not support Ukraine's entry into the alliance. Is this now a moot point heading into the summit and is the US the lone holdout? Max Boot: It is a moot point. NATO is certainly not going to extend an invitation to Ukraine at this summit or any summit anytime soon. On this issue the US is not the lone holdout. Germany among others has also been very reluctant. And this is not just the Trump administration, this is in fairness also the Biden administration was also not here to extend NATO membership to Ukraine. That's not a crazy position because obviously if NATO were to extend an invitation to Ukraine right now, there's a real concern that NATO would become embroiled into war against Russia. But there's a lot that the European countries and the United States can still do to help Ukraine without the NATO membership, including helping Ukraine to become a member of the European Union, and also ensuring that the pipeline of weaponry from the United States to the Ukraine continues, that pipeline is almost dry right now. But one point I would make about NATO, and I think very important to keep in mind, Vladimir Putin has used the boogeyman of Ukraine and NATO as an excuse for his unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And that is to quote a previous US president, that is just malarkey because it's been evident that Ukraine was never going to join NATO anytime soon. And NATO is, in any case, a defensive alliance. It's not a threat against Russia. And by the way, if Putin's primary concern is to avoid the expansion of NATO, his invasion of Ukraine had the opposite consequence because it led Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which they had not done in the past, but now they have done because they are so afraid of Russian aggression. So that rationale that the Kremlin has advanced for its war against Ukraine doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, in part because everybody knows, and everybody knew even before the invasion that Ukraine was not going to be admitted to NATO anytime soon. Dana Taylor: Leading up to the NATO summit were peace talks that took place in Turkey on June 2nd. As of this recording, Russia is still refusing to back down on its demands that Ukraine give up large swaths of territory and agree to limit the size of its army. This is according to a memo reported by Russian media. What might move the needle in this negotiation? Max Boot: That's a great question because clearly at this point, Putin has no interest in negotiating. President Zelensky and Ukraine have agreed to a thirty-day unconditional ceasefire as demanded by President Trump. Putin has consistently rejected that demand and made clear that his war of aggression will continue until Russia achieves its war aims, which include annexing a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, changing regimes in Kiev, putting limits on the Ukrainian armed forces, and basically turning Ukraine into a quasi-colony of the Kremlin. And those are all conditions that Ukraine will fight to the death in order not to agree to. So clearly, as long as Putin sticks to those hardline demands, negotiations over a peace settlement are not going to go anywhere. And so far they haven't gone anywhere. In terms of your question, which is I think the right one to ask, what could possibly move the needle? I think it's sending clear signals that Putin will not be able to defeat Ukraine, that he will not win this war because right now he thinks he can still advance. He thinks that Trump will cut off Ukraine. He thinks that the Russian armed forces can still make major gains. I think it's imperative to signal to Russia that there is no battlefield solution for Russia here, that there is no way they will achieve their battlefield objectives. And how do we do that? Well, there are several ways of doing it. One way at the moment, the European countries have about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. They should turn those over to Ukraine immediately so Ukraine can use that money to finance its own arms industry and build the weapons it needs to defend itself indefinitely. The US should also give or sell weapons to Ukraine and crack down on sanctions on Russia as called for in a Senate bill. All of these things combined together would send a very clear message to Putin, you're not going to win this war. You have to compromise. You have to negotiate in earnest. But so far, that message has not gone out. President Trump has said several times over the last couple of months that he's unhappy about Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian civilians, but he is not backing up those words with actions. And unless we do something to increase the cost to Russia, its aggression, that aggression will continue. Dana Taylor: President Trump promised, of course, to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office. After initially siding with Russia, Trump recently expressed his frustrations, as he said, saying Putin is gone, quote absolutely crazy unquote, with this massive ongoing military strikes against Ukraine. What's been the effect of Trump's mixed messages regarding Putin on a relationship with our NATO allies? Max Boot: I think this is very worrisome for our NATO allies because they want the US to take a tough line against Russian aggression as we were doing under President Biden. So they're very concerned about the mixed signals from Washington, and those mixed signals undercut any impetus for ending the war. I mean, if you want to talk about why Trump hasn't had any success in peacemaking, even though he promised that he would end the war in a day, a lot of the reason why he's not being more successful is he's not doing anything to put pressure on Russia. He's sending signals to the Kremlin that he is more interested in doing business with Russia than he is in forcing Russia to end its war of aggression. And so as long as that continues, it'll be very hard to bring this war to a close. But this is definitely a huge transatlantic divide because our European allies see this Russian invasion of Ukraine as an existential threat to themselves. They are very, very worried that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, Putin will continue moving further west, that the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are both NATO members, could be next, and an attack on those countries could trigger a massive global war. So the European countries want to hold the line against Russian aggression in Ukraine, and Trump seems to be at best ambivalent in terms of the war. And having the US and Europe at cross purposes, the only person that helps is Vladimir Putin. Dana Taylor: I want to turn now to the funding of NATO. President Trump has pushed for NATO members to pay their quote fair share, 2% of each nation's GDP on NATO defense. How have other nations responded so far? Max Boot: Well, actually, most NATO countries are now spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. But Trump is moving the goalposts. He's now demanding that NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defense, which by the way is more than the US itself spends. We spend about 3.5% of GDP on defense. So I don't think this is a realistic demand, but I think the European countries are recognizing that even 2% is insufficient, and they're, I think, going to set 3% or 3.5% as a benchmark for their defense spending. And then they're going to do some creative accounting and claim that they're getting up to 5% by counting infrastructure investment as part of their quote unquote national defense budget. But I think clearly there is a recognition in Europe that they need to spend more on defense. They are spending more on defense. And the fact that we now have a government in Germany that is willing to do deficit spending, which is willing to take on debt in order to expand its defense budget, that's a big deal. That's a huge amount of money potentially that Germany's going to be able to pour into its defense budget. It's going to vastly enhance European defense capabilities. We see the UK just came out with a defense white paper that calls for an expansion of the British military and British defense spending. I think this is pretty universal across Europe. All these countries recognize that there is a threat, but it's going to take them a while to scale up spending. And I think the primary impetus is not so much President Trump's browbeating, it's the threat that they see from Putin, and they're concerned that they're going to be abandoned by the United States, so they're going to have to fend for themselves. Dana Taylor: In terms of the US remaining in NATO, some Americans may be joining Trump in asking, what's in it for us? So what's in it for us? Max Boot: Well, what's in it for us is a more prosperous, stable and mutually beneficial world order. I mean, Europe is one of our largest trade partners. It's a massive continent of 350 million people. We do a tremendous amount of business with them. We share common values with them. These are all liberal democracies. So it's imperative that we stand with our allies as we have done since 1945 to ensure peace and stability in Europe. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate. We're already getting a small taste of it in Ukraine with the most serious war of aggression that Europe has seen since 1945. We don't want to see the rest of the continent becoming embroiled in war. And the most effective way to avoid conflict is to deter aggressors. And nothing deters aggression more than NATO. We've seen that over more than 70 years. NATO has keep the peace, that's very much to America's benefit, as well as to Europe's benefit, and indeed, the entire world's benefit. Dana Taylor: And finally, Max, as I mentioned, this year's summit will be held in The Hague, the city synonymous with international justice. What's at stake with this year's talks? Max Boot: Well, I think there's a lot at stake we've talked about, the divisions between the US and Europe on how to deal with Ukraine. There also, although this is not a NATO issue per se, the fact that President Trump has declared trade wars on our allies is also something that strains ties and makes it harder for us to cooperate on defense and strategic matters when we're at war with each other on tariffs. And again, this is not going to be something that's going to be resolved at the NATO summit, but I think it is imperative for the Trump administration to back off its tariff threats and to reach accommodations with our European allies. I think there's a general sense of that what's at stake is the future of the Transatlantic alliance. Do we have enough in common anymore between the US and Europe to keep this alliance together? And I would emphatically argue yes, but nobody knows if Trump is convinced of that, because in the past and even now, he's been much more critical of US allies than he has been of US enemies. He continues to denounce the Europeans as freeloaders and people who are taking advantage of us. None of that is true, but it puts a massive strain on the alliance, and I think there'll be an opportunity to try to heal some of that strain at the NATO summit. Dana Taylor: Max, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Max Boot: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Russia spreads false prisoner exchange claims and manipulates sensitive issue
On Friday 6 June, Russia claimed that repatriation efforts had begun, later asserting that "Ukraine refused to retrieve the bodies of its citizens". Ukraine's Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War has emphasised that Russia is manipulating a sensitive issue, adding that preparations for the exchange are ongoing. Source: a statement by the Coordination Headquarters Quote: "Claims by representatives of the aggressor state about the start of body returns or repatriation efforts following the agreements in Istanbul are not true. Preparations are underway for the exchange of seriously ill, severely wounded, young people and the return of the bodies of fallen defenders. Any unilateral claims or actions by representatives of the aggressor state are merely further manipulation regarding the sensitive and important topic of repatriating the bodies of our defenders." Details: The Coordination Headquarters stressed that it is ready to conduct both repatriation activities and prisoner swaps, including the all-for-all exchange. Background: At the negotiations in Istanbul on 2 June, Ukraine and Russia agreed on a 6,000-for-6,000 exchange of bodies of fallen soldiers. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations also agreed on the all-for-all exchange involving severely wounded and young service members aged between 18 and 25. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that out of the 6,000 bodies of soldiers that Russia is seeking to hand over to Ukraine, only 15% have been identified. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Rising NATO Ally Builds Its Own Aircraft Carrier
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Turkey's ambitious naval expansion is taking shape as new details emerged about its first homegrown aircraft carrier, Mugem, now under construction in Istanbul. With design and system integration work ongoing, priority will be given to homegrown aircraft, including unmanned combat drones and light jets, according to statements by Captain Hakan Uçar, director of the Turkish Navy's Design Project Office, reported by Jane's OSINT on Friday. Newsweek has reached out to Turkey's Presidency of Defense Industries, overseeing defense projects, for comment. Why It Matters Turkey's defense industrial growth signals Ankara's drive to assert greater strategic autonomy and its importance both within NATO and for the Middle East under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump. Turkey's expanding naval and air defense capabilities—including a fifth-generation fighter jet —could also change global defense industry dynamics. What To Know About 285 meters long and 72 meters wide, Mugem will weigh arounds 60,000 tons and should carry up to 50 aircraft, with two runways for takeoff and one for landing, according to a description on the Turkish government's Directorate of Communications' website. The ship will have a flight deck built for aircraft to take off from a short runway and land safely, known as the STOBAR system, according to Jane's OSINT, a prominent open-source intelligence and defense analysis provider. Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, lacks a full-sized traditional aircraft carrier; its largest ship, the amphibious assault vessel TCG Anadolu, serves mainly as a drone carrier but has limited capabilities compared to a true carrier. The Turkish Ministry of National Defense revealed the warship last year and announced the start of construction in January. Turkey is also building a submarine and the TF-2000-class destroyer. Erdogan has established himself as a key figure across multiple geopolitical arenas, with Trump acknowledging and turning to the leader of a longstanding ally, as he seeks to redefine Washington's Middle East policy. Turkey's expanding defense capabilities come amid an escalating rivalry with Israel, especially in Syria where Turkey maintains bases in the north and has set out to leverage close ties with Syrian opposition factions. Turkey is also an important buttress against Russia and has been a diplomatic player on the Ukraine war. What People Are Saying Turkish Presidency's Directorate of Communications in January 2025: "With this project, Turkey's goal of maritime independence and regional superiority is clearly visible. However, as long as foreign dependency continues in critical areas such as power systems and aircraft technology, more time and investment is needed to achieve these goals." Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in 2024, as quoted by TRT World: "We will not stop or turn back from our path until we achieve the goal of a fully independent Türkiye in the defence industry." What Happens Next Turkey will continue accelerating major defense projects, drawing increasing strategic interest from regional powers.
