“I would support any peacekeeping operation accepted by the parties, going there and guaranteeing a just peace and long-lasting stableness in Ukraine, its sovereignty, its freedom, its territory, and a strong warrant for the future,” says Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the president of NATO’s Military Committee, in an interview with RFE/RL’s Georgian service.
Vazha Tavberidze spoke with Admiral Dragone at the Munich safety Conference about the prospects for securing peace in the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukraine’s possible NATO membership, and Black Sea security.
VAZHA TAVBERIDZE: Let’s start with your fresh Ukraine visit – the reality that you saw there, especially your assessment of the battlefield situation, and your take on the war’s trajectory.
ADMIRAL DRAGONE: I had the chance to meet the minister of defence, the minister of abroad affairs, and president Zelenskyy. The spirit is inactive strong, they are determined. They believe they can succeed. They besides think peace can be reached. I think so too. A just peace, peace through strength – due to the fact that peace through weakness only makes further aggression more likely. A bad peace… would be worse than no peace. On the battlefield – it’s fluid. The Russian Federation is making tiny advances, at the price of dense losses. From the western military point of view, they are truly paying an highly dense price for a very, very, very slow advance, and tiny gains, terrain-wise.
There is simply a consensus among analysts that Ukraine is on the back foot. any even say that Ukraine is losing on the battlefield. Would you say that’s a fair assessment?
I would not. The another thing I would point at is that Ukraine does have strong support from NATO associate countries. They’re backing them up, making a large effort that was never done before, and they have the determination to keep on doing this. This is due to the fact that on 1 side, we want to talk about peace, we think it is time for peace to come, but on the another side, we want besides to strengthen [the Ukrainians], so whenever they decide to sit at the negotiation table, they will do that from a very strong position.
The current US stance is not having any NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, and besides not pledging any safety guarantees. What alternatives do you see if NATO boots are out of question, if a NATO safety warrant is out of question, what can be done?
We can go back to our past, without inventing anything new. There are global organizations like the United Nations that have been already doing that.
The UN that has Russia and China on the safety Council?
We gotta consider everything. I wouldn’t keep anything off the table, we request to effort and find what will support what we want to accomplish and how we can do it. It could be a UN or EU operation. A coalition of the willing could besides be another option. But to avoid any mistakes done in the past, whenever this will happen, we must be certain that our soldiers, the military, who will be safeguarding and watching over the peacekeeping agreement and monitoring, that they have the power, the rules of engagement and besides the strategy armaments to make this happen. You can’t go over there with just your rifle, due to the fact that you should be there and be able to fight whomever is breaking the rules, whomever is breaking the peace agreement. So they must decide who is going there and give them the appropriate means, and besides the rules and the strength to enforce what they are going for.
If this coalition of the willing materializes, and there is simply a peacekeeping force that’s not covered by NATO and so Article 5, what happens if they find themselves engaged in combat? Will Article 5 come into play somehow?
No, no. It will be nation “x” or “z” that will send their forces.
Another US stance is that after the talks are over, whatever the result might be, Europe should safeguard Ukraine’s security. Is Europe strong adequate to shoulder that burden?
Europe is expanding its defence capacities right now. This is simply a way to be followed with determination, strength and speed. Europe [already] has any capabilities, but it depends on what will be the mandate, what we want to accomplish over there, and in which area. So it has any capabilities, with more to come.
If we were to talk about a peacekeeping force, what size of contingent might we be talking about?
Some are talking about 200,000, others about 30,000. It is early to say, as it would depend on a number of factors.
Would 30,000 be enough?
Since we don’t know what area will be patrolled or precisely the mandate, it’s kind of premature to say, for now.
Would you support sending European peacekeeping forces?
I would support any peacekeeping operation accepted by the parties, going there and guaranteeing a just peace and long-lasting stableness in Ukraine, its sovereignty, its freedom, its territory, and a strong warrant for the future. due to the fact that going back, if we don’t do this properly, then there is no reason to be assured that something akin won’t happen again. Just look at 1998, 2008, 2014, 2022. possibly there will be something again in Ukraine, possibly somewhere else.
The predictions about direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, with Russia becoming bold adequate to attack NATO – we’ve seen any forecasts from the British, seen any from the Nordics. 5 years, 10 years, and so on. What’s your take?
I don’t foresee this [as being] very probable, but it’s not impossible either [that this would happen]. Of course, if they attack 1 of the NATO countries, there will be the strongest reaction from the full Alliance. And on the conventional confrontation level, NATO is way above Russia. Also, on atomic confrontation, with the US, UK and French arsenal, NATO is way, way above. I don’t think this would be in Putin’s interests.
I think any military strategist in the West could besides say it was not in their interest to have a three-year long – and ongoing – war in Ukraine, but they are inactive doing it, despite the losses.
But this started as a four-day peculiar military operation. That was the plan. And it wasn’t just a failure – it was a full failure. He most likely thought he would do this like in Crimea, most likely 3 days, almost bloodless.
In Brussels, Secretary General Mark Rutte told us that if Russia were to attack NATO tomorrow, they would lose almost instantly. They would lose within a week. I say you besides subscribe to that view?
Yes, I agree. But whether it would be over in 1 week or not, Russia would rapidly end up as a loser.
If that’s the case, then wouldn’t Russia lose even more badly against a NATO that would have Ukraine amongst its members? Which would bring battle-hardened soldiers, equipment, know-how? If Russia cannot attack NATO as it is now, then obviously, it won’t attack a much stronger NATO with Ukraine in it. If Russia is guaranteed to lose a confrontation with NATO, then what’s the reason for not admitting Ukraine?
Nobody says that Ukraine will be never admitted, erstwhile the time and conditions will be ripe. Let’s start from the fixed point, which is the Washington summit in July 2024, erstwhile Ukraine was told that it is on a way to joining NATO. That is irreversible. Whoever is saying something else is just 1 voice, but this requires consensus. possibly it will happen, possibly not, but Ukraine has the desire, a long-term desire, to become a associate of NATO. They will go through the average admission way procedure that we are doing for everybody. First, you should want to become the associate of this club, then you do the reforms, transformation. And they are doing that, but they are not at the end of it. Then it will be the Alliance examining everything and deciding. Nobody can say to Ukraine or any another country that [they won’t always become NATO members]. Neither Mr. Putin nor anybody else.
Another origin on whether a country is admitted is whether it is adding to NATO security, right? Would Ukraine add to NATO security?
Of course.
And yet, Ukraine’s NATO membership is being made into a negotiation matter. So from that perspective, how realistic does it look in the close or medium-term future?
[In negotiations], the first thing they gotta think about is simply a long, lasting, just peace. The question of yes or no regarding NATO membership, I think it’s a second line discussion. If we are professionals and manage to get a long-lasting, just peace for Ukraine, that’s the first step. This is simply a point where everybody is trying to get to.
Being an admiral, I would be remiss not to ask you about naval matters. Particularly, Black Sea security, how is it looking?
There will be quite a few stuff to do in the future there. The coastal associate states have already set up a counter-mining task force, there will be quite a few things to clean. Then there is monitoring. These are global matters and they will stay as one, nothing little than it all was before the war. I think we will see a stronger Black Sea presence, with at least 3 NATO associate states present.
Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone is an Italian naval officer, who has been serving as Chair of the NATO Military Committee since 17 January 2025.
Vazha Tavberidze is simply a Georgian writer and staff author with RFE/RL’s Georgian Service. His writing has been published in various Georgian and global media outlets, including The Times, the Spectator, the Daily Beast and New east Europe.
Please support New east Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.
