Security Radar of General Pavel Macko – 150th Edition #China#Gaza#Iran#Israel#New START#Peace negotiations#Russia#Syria#Ukraine#USA
Ukrainians continue to freeze in darkness while three-party peace negotiations continue. The last nuclear arms control agreement has expired and the United States wants a nuclear deal with Iran. Fico’s government is becoming increasingly pathetic but also more aggressive.
Note: This is a transcript of the original broadcast at .týžden in Slovak language
Moderator: Welcome to listening, and I can hardly believe it, to the 150th edition of the Security Radar of my friend General Pavel Macko. Welcome, Pavel.
Pavel Macko: Thank you very much, pleasant listening.
FOG OF WAR
Putin’s „Ceasefire“ on Ukrainian Infrastructure
Moderator: How did Putin’s ceasefire on attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure turn out?
Pavel Macko: It turned out like all the ceasefires that Putin declared – simply big talk. He actually used the time when he didn’t attack for those few days – he didn’t even keep to those 7 days. He used the fact that he accumulated missiles and drones and made an even more intensive attack, which was even harder for the Ukrainians to stop.
This means that his effect was far higher than if he had attacked every day. And that’s actually the result of Putin’s „ceasefire“.
But it’s essential that none of us normal people, who know this, expected Putin to make any fundamental turn. But the falseness, even complete monstrosity of these peace activists was confirmed, who are actually making a defense of such aggression and claim they are trying to achieve peace. In reality, they are trying to achieve Russian victory.
Overall Picture of the Week
When I look at this overall, the overall picture of the week on several levels is as follows:
▪️First: Russia is intensifying pressure on multiple front sections, but any advances are not large
▪️Ukraine is achieving local counter-attacks, especially near Kupiansk and Kostiantynivka
▪️This winter campaign is extraordinarily exhausting – after several years, actually for the first time during these 4 years of war, when it’s truly the toughest winter
▪️The impacts are enormous and meanwhile the Russians have also gained some additional resources
▪️Ukrainian air defense after 4 years is exhausted
▪️Russian losses are however record-breaking – in January they again lost 30 thousand soldiers
▪️On the other hand, they are massively replenishing equipment and continuing that long-term war economy
Diplomatically: Russia is again stalling for time, not retreating from its demands and actually negotiating only to prevent greater pressure, greater sanctions and a tougher stance from those countries and Ukraine that want to achieve that ceasefire and ensure that this war finally ends.
Situation on the Front Lines
Moderator: So let’s go to the front line and I suggest we go to Kharkiv and Kupiansk.
Pavel Macko: Good. When we look at Kharkiv and Kupiansk, there were partial counter-attacks by Ukrainian forces. Near Kupiansk, they managed to regain some positions again.
When we look, I have notes here that Russia has been pushing for a long time from the north and east. They also had such a bridgehead on the other side of the Oskil river and the Ukrainians managed to push back in these areas.
Other Front Sectors
Lyman, Siversk, Sloviansk: There we know that fighting is already taking place in Siversk. Russian units continued attacks toward Novoselivka, Vykhivka, Serednie, Drobysheve and Dybrova, but there was no fundamental advance there.
Near Kostiantynivka, Druzhivka: Ukraine conversely achieved significant successes.
Near Yablunivka: The Russians advanced slightly east of the city.
Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad: There the Russians were slightly successful. Reconnaissance-sabotage units penetrated directly into Myrnohrad and increased pressure along one of the main transport routes. Ukraine however repelled dozens of attacks around Rodynske.
Zaporizhzhia Oblast: The biggest battles around Hulyaipole have been continuing for a long time. West of Dobropillia. But it’s extreme there – the Russians attack 32 times daily on just this one small front section.
In Kherson: There the classic shelling continues. The Russians still claim in those negotiations that they want Kherson back, but de facto they want to completely destroy it just like the destroyed Vovchansk and all those cities on the contact line.
Middle East – Gaza and Israel
Moderator: Let’s go to the Middle East. Are there any changes in Gaza and Israel?
Pavel Macko: That overall picture is… The ceasefire formally continues, we were supposed to move to the second phase. But it’s actually eroding:
▪️Israeli activities continue
▪️Hamas reacts similarly or provokes clashes
▪️International mechanisms are not yet functioning
▪️Humanitarian crisis (the situation is difficult)
Indeed, now the crossing at Rafah has also been opened, but it’s insufficient, the UN components are not functioning there either.
Problems with Humanitarian Organizations
Israel called on Doctors Without Borders to leave the Gaza Strip because they again suspect them of collaborating with Palestinians – not the citizens they should serve, but collaborating with Hamas.
Moderator: I read such a report in the Israeli press – there was their own reporter who showed one Palestinian doctor who during the war appeared as a doctor, showed victims, everything. And in the end it turned out he was a Hamas officer. Good, let’s continue.
Pavel Macko: Exactly, there are also honest ones there, but by providing legitimacy or legend for that cover, it naturally irritates the other side.
Administrative Arrangement of Gaza
When we look further, the administrative arrangement of Gaza is unclear. The United States – we talked about Al-Shat here, who is supposed to be there, that former Palestinian Authority minister, could be the administrator, temporary head of that administration, some bureaucratic government. However, it’s not yet in the situation where it would really function.
Reconstruction is at a dead end, because as long as there’s no stable and secure environment, the donors don’t have confidence, don’t give money there and there are no mechanisms that would implement it.
Security Situation
As I indicated, there was a series of clashes and attacks. Hamas and its security components conducted operations against groups they designate as Israeli-supported gangs.
In other words, other Palestinians, who don’t identify with Hamas, who maybe have a different view on how things should function in Gaza, are already also targets, so Hamas is already attacking its own.
The Israelis consolidated somehow, adjusted that yellow line. Of course, this immediately caused Arab outcry that they want to reduce even more or reduce Gaza’s territory.
Creation of New Administration
Moderator: How is the creation of new administration in Gaza progressing? Because without that we won’t move forward.
Pavel Macko: Definitely. This is what I already indicated in that overview. The border crossing at Rafah opened. There’s a limited number of patients who can cross from one side to the other.
The US is pushing for that multi-phase plan– meaning a full transition to phase 2, including an international security mission and gradual reconstruction.
But since there’s no agreement on disarming Hamas, they haven’t moved anywhere, therefore territorial administration hasn’t moved either, because one is subordinated to or conditional on the other.
Therefore those players like the United Arab Emirates prepared a project of some Emirati complex in southern Gaza, where they want to actually house thousands of displaced Palestinians.
But the project is politically controversial, because again Palestinians reject relocation to zones controlled by Israel, because that’s in the part that’s behind that yellow line on the other side.
So nothing has been achieved there yet and these new institutions can’t establish themselves.
Fundamental Problem
Moderator: When I look at this as a layperson – because I am a layperson – it seems to me that without Hamas being dispersed, things won’t move forward there.
Pavel Macko: We’ve been saying this since the beginning, since October 7, 2023. Why don’t they disperse it? Because we’ve seen that it causes large collateral losses. Therefore everyone turned against Israel.
On the other hand, we see that President Trump already asked for a Nobel Peace Prize for this, but he didn’t get it. Good anyway, because that would be unfair. And now we see that even he can’t push this through.
This means that this conflict will continue as we’ve been saying for a long time. It can be stabilized only when there’s willingness from the Arab side, first directly from the ranks of Palestinians, whom Hamas has been indoctrinating for a quarter century, because it completely controlled there.
And precisely these clashes – this is exactly about the fact that as soon as there’s a slightly different opinion, people from Hamas immediately liquidate them there, murder and shoot their own.
Second: Arabs never gave up – and I mean Hamas and these radical components – they never gave up the goal of complete liquidation of Israel.
And as long as they don’t give this up and as long as international security forces don’t come there, who will run into the same thing Israel runs into – that they will have to do the so-called dirty work, that they will also have to militarily strike those unfortunates who won’t want to cooperate in that ceasefire – this will continue.
Situation in Syria
Moderator: What’s happening around Syria? We said that the biggest tension…
Pavel Macko: First, there are conflicts of interest between Lebanon and Syria, because there’s a part of those fled officers hiding in Lebanon.
There’s Hezbollah, which is no longer a political favorite in Syria after the replacement of Bashar al-Assad, because they fought against this al-Shar. So that’s one part.
It calmed down there, but recent weeks saw strong conflict between the new governmental power and SDF forces including Kurdish units.
Ceasefire and Integration
From January 20 a de facto ceasefire has been in place there. It looks like the situation is stabilizing.
Kurds are really in the weakest position in the last 10 years. They had to leave the western bank of the Euphrates river, had to move to the eastern side, but ended the fighting. They also ended in other areas.
What was originally promised when Bashar al-Assad fell is happening – that integration will occur. Only that integration is not now that the entire SDF would integrate at once, it’s integrating by individual regions, by individual cities and communities.
What is negative on one hand for those Kurds, because therefore they don’t create some compact whole.
From the governmental power’s perspective it’s advantageous in that no parallel command is created – because we see this in Bosnia and Herzegovina, how it looks: there’s that federation, but actually Republika Srpska does whatever it wants anyway.
This political-administrative arrangement of Syria still awaits its solution and the military one is such that the government is trying to integrate those armed components into a unified army.
Lebanon
In Lebanon the situation is still tense and there are some pockets of resistance, Israel had to react again.
And mainly it shows also there that similarly as in Syria, the political situation is very unstable. They had an interim government basically since that explosion – if listeners remember, since that huge explosion in the port in Beirut – there was such a provisional governmental regime.
And this continues. The only thing that changed is that Hezbollah’s role and position is weaker.
STRATEGIC BACKGROUND
Three-Party Negotiations on Ukraine
Moderator: Main attention focused on three-party negotiations on Ukraine. So can you somehow briefly evaluate them? But it seems to me that nothing is moving anywhere.
Pavel Macko: Basically you’re right. We’re already done with this conclusion. But I’ll still explain it a bit.
We had two rounds. The first round was January 23 and 24. We already partially discussed it. Then came the second round.
First Round of Negotiations
I’ll first recap that first round, because it’s important for understanding where we’ve moved.
In that first round there was actually direct contact between Ukrainians and Russians through – with the presence of the US as mediator after almost 4 years.
And it was the first round. No one had great expectations that peace would suddenly emerge there. It was at such a higher working level.
Ukrainian delegation:
▪️Rustam Umerov
▪️former defense minister, today head of security council
▪️Kirill Budanov
▪️former head of HUR and now head of presidential office
▪️Chief of General Staff
Here I need to explain – Syrsky is the main commander of Ukrainian forces. That means he is the commander. And what we have as chief of staff, they have as chief of general staff. And that general was also there.
Russian side had Dmitriev there – economic-political negotiator and had the head of Russian GRU there.
Results of First Round
That means, that format– first, what happened was that a framework and format for negotiations was established. Professional working groups were established in which details will be discussed.
Main topics were addressed:
▪️Territorial issues
▪️they didn’t agree on anything, there’s a key dispute
▪️Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
▪️also a problem
▪️Security guarantees for Ukraine
These are actually two such dealbreakers or showstoppers, as it’s said in English. These are the brakes, obstacles so far insurmountable. That means security guarantees and territory.
Because Russia still claims that Ukraine should give up territory that Russians haven’t been able to somehow encompass even after 4 years of war.
Atmosphere of Negotiations
Moderator: What’s the dynamic of those negotiations, what’s the atmosphere? That’s also important there.
Pavel Macko: Both sides claimed it was productive and substantive, meaning they had content. When I already hear the word „productive“…
Ukraine said that yes, these were substantial negotiations, that concrete steps and practical solutions were addressed, which set aside those two most important issues I mentioned.
The US also designated them as productive and appreciated what I also appreciated, that those technical military teams negotiated together, because the ceasefire also needs to be agreed upon military-technically, so that the first shot from one drunk soldier doesn’t restart the war. Because that can also happen.
Russians proved that they don’t have willingness for peace, but meanwhile intensively attacked and said that military operations will continue until Kyiv accepts their demands.
In other words, Russians probably both for domestic audience and for their audience in the third world, are playing such a game – this is called hardball in English, such a tough game.
Basically they want, even if they’ll have to concede from those demands of theirs, they want to sell it as their clear victory. Of course, everyone sees that’s not true.
And if Russians don’t catch the right moment that they won’t gain more, the exact opposite can happen, that they can also collapse. Ukraine can of course also collapse – it’s closer to it than Russia, but it’s a very complex situation.
Summary of First Round
So it was something new after 4 years. They didn’t insult each other after these negotiations, so it’s already important that the negotiation was substantive. I would summarize it that way.
Key conclusions:
▪️Created a framework but didn’t bring results
▪️Territories and security guarantees (this is simply the stumbling block)
▪️Russia uses parallel attacks as a pressure tool
▪️Therefore reducing trust from Ukraine and its supporters that those negotiations are sincere
▪️USA, to not lose face, is trying to keep these negotiations alive
It’s noteworthy that the State Department, foreign ministry, is not represented there, meaning those who are there are not classic diplomats.
Second Round of Negotiations
Moderator: How do you evaluate that second round?
Pavel Macko: That second round progressed, because quite logically, from what I explained in that first round, it was more about procedural issues, formats, who with whom, when, in which groups.
Now it was more about real negotiations, within individual groups they negotiated in more detail.
From what we have – of course, detailed record of these negotiations is not publicly available – so:
▪️That long-term dispute continues
▪️Security guarantees are still without concrete progress
▪️USA acts as mediator
▪️both sides remain relatively firm
Russian Provocations
Russians escalated energy attacks, and this even during the announced ceasefire, which of course Kyiv designated as violation of agreement. It was visible when they bombed a classic conventional power plant and then also a heating plant near Kyiv.
Russians thought that by this they would scare the rest, that if you don’t yield to us and won’t negotiate with us, or accept conditions, we’ll attack. They don’t want to negotiate, they just want Ukrainians to accept conditions – so somehow we’ll continue and you’ll be even worse off.
Of course, they’re abusing this time when there are extreme frosts there.
Positive Progress
But they moved forward in what Zelensky also expected and wanted. They moved forward in the expected prisoner exchange– 314 or 324, I’m not sure now what that number was. The first 150 were already exchanged.
It’s good that also on that Russian side, besides those nationalists, extremists and such clowns like Medvedev, who shouted that all those prisoners of war should be killed – for example from Mariupol, those who were now almost 4 years in captivity – so they returned from that captivity.
Because war also has its rules, we have Geneva Conventions for that and this is something that Russians should also observe.
Further Development
The rest is that they’ll continue, they’ll probably meet next in the United States.
But that Russian strong pressure rather causes greater support for Ukraine from its supporters.
NATO Reactions
Moderator: I noticed that when the NATO Secretary General was in Ukraine a few days ago, he got to taste how a massive Russian attack tastes. Can this somehow change NATO’s approach?
Pavel Macko:It’s already changing, because if I listened carefully to Rutte’s statements, for example his predecessor talked about Ukraine’s integration into NATO and so on, but that language was diplomatic.
Now Rutte had relatively harsh language toward these Russians, said unambiguously that this is proof that Moscow doesn’t want peace. And it’s not some pretext.
Russians thought that hard attacks would help– and otherwise they miscalculated strategically in this, just as they miscalculated on February 24, 2022, because they quickly jumped away from that negotiation. They were persuaded by Macron, by Joe Biden. Scholz called Putin several times, Macron called even a few hours before that invasion. Putin saying that invasion wouldn’t happen, but he wanted to play that tough game, attacked, knocked out his front teeth and still can’t get out of it.
And now it’s the same, that Rutte gave very sharp statements. I put it in a table because we prepared that scenario together.
He said – this is a quote: „This peace will be lasting not because papers are signed, but because it will be backed by hard power.“
Change in NATO Position
This means, if Russians now refused that no foreign soldiers would be there, no support for Ukraine, because Russia wanted a weakened Ukraine that would be a puppet in Russia’s hands, this is changing.
And when they decide in the future to take control of Ukraine, they can do it politically through their extensive agent network and install a new Yanukovych there, or they can do it again militarily, that they would complete what they haven’t managed so far.
After they gather strength – like now with those recent attacks – let’s imagine that we give Russians a year or two pause to re-arm, re-equip and then strike Ukraine again.
This is now changing, NATO’s position as a whole is also changing, where it says it will continue this support and interprets this Russian attack as an attempt at terror and pressure. And therefore arguments for those robust security guarantees are strengthened.
End of New START Treaty
Moderator: The last treaty on control of strategic nuclear weapons, New START, ended. So explain what that agreement was and why it ended?
Pavel Macko: I would probably also like us to make this today’s main topic, to get a broader perspective for our listeners.
What the New START Treaty Was
So first that New START– this was the last functioning agreement, signed by Barack Obama and the Russian president, which actually limited strategic nuclear weapons.
But I’ll say what the development was here.
Historical Development of Nuclear Agreements
During the Cold War, in the late 60s, these powers got into a situation where they achieved huge numbers of nuclear weapons, because that paranoia and mutual suspicion, where we found ourselves in arms races, ended in:
▪️Russians eventually had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads (today they have 5,400)
▪️United States at that peak had more than 32,000 nuclear warheads
A large part of this was also tactical. We had large-caliber artillery shells and such short-range missiles there.
This means that even for regular battlefield combat it was calculated that these nuclear weapons would be used in clashes between these states, while hydrogen bombs were rather mounted on those long-range means, whether intercontinental missiles.
First Negotiations
Those negotiations ran already 1968-1969, but somehow they didn’t manage to conclude. Of course, Nixon’s pressure and move also with China eventually convinced the Soviets.
I’ll just enumerate them. There was a whole series of agreements:
SALT– this was that first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, 1969-1979.
Very quickly then came SALT 1, where strategic carriers were also limited, meaning the number of missiles and those other means.
A second treaty SALT 2 was also negotiated in 1979, but it wasn’t ratified. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan then and they didn’t ratify it, but both sides more or less adhered to it.
ABM and INF Treaties
In 1972 the ABM treaty was also concluded – this was limitation of anti-missile defense, where the number was set at maximum 200, later adjusted to 100 anti-missile systems.
The problem is that when one side starts building too strong anti-missile defense, it forces the other to increase the number of those offensive means.
I forgot one important one – this was the INF treaty – it was called about banning medium and short-range missiles between Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987.
This was absolutely crucial for Europe. In Europe we were in the range of 3 to 8 minutes response time, meaning the risk of accidental nuclear conflict was enormous.
By completely eliminating these missiles, that space was cleared, and therefore only space for those intercontinental missiles was left. There’s at least half an hour for reaction there.
This means that even in case of some stupid escalation, the red phone could still be used, and those missiles could be sent to self-destruct and stop a potential attack. This couldn’t be done with these medium-range missiles.
START Treaties
Then after the end of the Cold War came the START agreement in 1991. From huge numbers, those numbers were reduced even more significantly and we actually got to today’s numbers.
There was START II, which also banned those multiple warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles, on those heavy ones. Because you can cheat there. You say you’ll have only 100 intercontinental missiles, but put ten of these warheads in each.
Russians have Avangard prepared this way. In the final flight stage it’s as if you again had ten missiles. Suddenly you have thousands instead of hundreds. So this treaty was important because of that.
New START
Then this agreement, when it ended, actually that new START was negotiated, where limits on warheads and carriers were set. And it was extended a few years ago for 5 years, but this extension expired, a new agreement wasn’t concluded.
New START parameters:
▪️1,500 deployed strategic warheads
▪️meaning those they can have in operational regime
▪️700 deployed carriers
▪️800 total carriers
▪️this includes strategic bombers
Control Mechanisms
So there were mainly detailed inspection mechanisms. Both sides announced where they have those forces, where the US has problems with those Russian mobile ones, but they always had to notify major movements.
And both sides could visit those places. Of course they didn’t go into the guts of these systems, but they could verify whether those measures are being observed, whether they secretly haven’t built additional forces, whether they secretly don’t have some additional missiles there. All this has now ended.
Why the Treaty Ended
When I say it formally, Russia suspended participation in 2023 and subsequently the United States also reacted, but formally the treaty was valid, no one violated it.
This happened mainly because when the war in Ukraine started, Russians supposedly for technical reasons started blocking these verifications, these on-site inspections.
The reason– on one hand I understand them, it was paranoid, because they were at war with Ukraine and feared that during those inspections Americans would learn something they could then pass to Ukrainians.
On the other hand Americans said– there’s no point going into such an agreement that can’t be verified, as we also said before with the Budapest Memorandum and so on…
So this was absolutely crucial. They considered the US as a hostile side. This was part of that Russian rhetoric, that Putin constantly says, because when he’s not succeeding, he says that first he wanted to denazify and demilitarize everything. And when he’s not succeeding, he says he’s actually fighting the entire West. And this is that propaganda that goes around.
Chinese Factor
Another thing was that there were also those negotiations and considerations that China announced a large nuclear program, even to triple the number of its warheads by the decade, it already has 600 warheads now.
China has such an ambition that by 2035 to have parity with the United States in some components and in its region or catch up with Russia and the United States.
And after 2040 China wants to already be an equal partner also in strategic nuclear weapons to the United States.
Chinese Triad
This means that China started building the so-called triad. The triad is that you have:
1 ) Those ground intercontinental ballistic missiles
2) You have them then on submarines
▪️these are well protected because they’re hard to detect, meaning it’s a second strike weapon or last judgment, that when everything fails, even if that country was destroyed, it has the ability either semi-automatically or even automatically to respond to that strike and destroy the other side
3) And there are then aviation means – strategic aviation.
Russians invested more in those aviation means in those cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, which they now use only with conventional warheads directly on Ukraine.
Why New START Finally Fell?
I said that it fell actually because:
▪️United States wanted a broader agreement
▪️Russia wanted a different agreement, because it conditioned it, wanted to balance and offset other things on it
▪️China didn’t want any agreement yet, said it’s not yet that player that should be regulated
Russian and Chinese Armament
Moderator: I notice that Russia demonstrated new weapons and of course we’ve seen it also with the Chinese. And those Russian conventional ones aren’t very trustworthy. But should we fear those Russian nuclear weapons? And what about the USA? Are they falling behind or not?
Pavel Macko: Several aspects. It’s true that Russia modernized and quite massively. I wouldn’t underestimate their nuclear arsenal.
Russian Nuclear Forces
First, insiders know that there are really elite troops there. These aren’t those bums called ground troops that they showed at the beginning of the war. It’s more professional there.
But we’ve seen accidents there too, but that was mostly during tests. This means we can’t say in what technical state those missiles that are in operational service are.
But we know that Russians demonstrated in 2018 a series of those displays – Avangard, Zircon, which can also have nuclear warheads.
Hypersonic Systems
Sub-warhead is a small missile inside that big missile. There are several of them. These are so-called hypersonic gliders, which can still maneuver.
They have their own engine, can change flight path and fly at that hypersonic speed, which by the way all ballistic missiles fly.
But the difference is that the glider can still maneuver and fundamentally change direction and can go hundreds of kilometers elsewhere than where the original missile would fall.
Russian Modernization
So Russians modernized. They have:
▪️New Yars and Sarmat missiles
▪️New submarine-launched ballistic missiles (which are launched Bulava)
▪️New submarines of Borei class
▪️New cruise missiles Kh-102 (Kh-101, which they used, this is some derivative)
▪️They have those Avangardes, Poseidon, Burevestnik
Principally Russians modernized, because the Soviet Union left them old junk. And they were aware that conventionally – and then they also introduced professional army – conventionally Russia didn’t have a chance not only against NATO, but also potentially against other rivals. And therefore invested asymmetrically in nuclear arsenal.
Chinese Expansion
What about China? China is expanding. But of course from that low base. China was that below-average student, below-average player, even lower than United Kingdom and France.
France has 290 and United Kingdom some roughly 250-245 of these warheads.
China started building its potential. Just as it builds its conventional army – visible that it has 5th generation fighters, stealth fighters already better than Russians, that it invests in other means.
It started investing in this too, but started from that low number:
▪️Had in 2010: 200 warheads
▪️Today has: 600
▪️Heading toward at least a thousand by the end of this decade
Chinese Triad
But it’s also building a triad. As it starts expanding in that Pacific and sees that the United States has dominance there, it’s building nuclear triad. That means new nuclear submarines and also hypersonic systems.
We’ve seen several of them now on parade and this is precisely because of that rivalry in Indo-Pacific and also fear of American anti-missile defense, which is strengthening. Now we’ve heard about Golden Dome.
American Nuclear Forces
Moderator: And are the USA falling behind or not?
This is interesting, because a lot in professional journals and so on was criticism when Russians introduced these hypersonic systems, then Chinese also conventional and potentially also nuclear systems, which are for example designed to destroy those aircraft carrier battle groups.
When you have a hypersonic missile, the opponent can’t stop it anymore, you put a nuclear payload there, so you can actually erase that American advantage – aircraft carriers, Americans are rulers of the seas with them. What the British Empire used to be.
They have 9 battle carrier groups– those are aircraft carrier battle groups, several fleets, they have large Pacific, Atlantic fleet.
Criticism of American Lag
When China developed this, many evil tongues say that the US fell asleep, don’t have hypersonic systems, didn’t pay much attention to it. But I’ll mention several aspects.
It’s really true that Minuteman III are missiles from the 70s, but technologically they were much more advanced than those Russian missiles that were in forces. But the US didn’t modernize them.
They have only one warhead, can’t even add others, while Russians meanwhile made an upgrade where they don’t have multiple warheads mounted, but can and know how to do it relatively quickly.
So in this segment the US seemed to lag behind.
New American Programs
Currently running is a program for Sentinel upgrade or replacement of Minuteman III. Otherwise Sentinel is also that invisible reconnaissance drone RQ-171, but these should be Sentinel missiles, which should be ready by 2030. That’s still 5 years, but it’s an extremely expensive project, so the question is whether it will be successful or not.
But the US has strategic aviation, where unlike Russian aircraft they have absolutely top-notch stealth bombers. B-2 were already excellent and now B-21 Raider are absolute world top.
China and Russia don’t have even a chance yet to catch up to them in this in the next decade.
American Strength in Submarines
Main US strength lies and there they modernized, or had highly advanced technologies – and those are missiles launched from submarines.
In this they are absolute top. Still their Trident 2 D5LE missiles are unmatched, so they don’t even need to modernize them.
Golden Dome
Currently, I won’t discuss this today, we’ll discuss it another time. Golden Dome is not only protection from space against missile attacks – those are just sensors, but Golden Dome is supposed to also ensure maintaining connection, that all those submarines and fleets in stealth mode, even after nuclear explosions, should function and should be able to communicate with each other.
Should We Fear Nuclear Arms Race?
Moderator: So tell me this one thing – should we fear that nuclear arms race or not?
Pavel Macko:There are several scenarios. It started when there were 30-40 thousand warheads on both sides. We’re far from that happening, it would cost enormous expenses and I believe it won’t go to this limit.
The truth is that absence of all agreements can cause distrust on both sides and we see that even Trump indicated they might resume nuclear tests. These by the way are also agreed to be banned, but that comprehensive ban treaty wasn’t ratified.
This means it’s not legally binding. Only so far it was quietly observed.
Possible Scenarios
So there are several scenarios:
1) Quiet voluntary continuity and waiting for a suitable time when they sit down for negotiations. This would probably capture what Trump said.
When Trump said that when New START expires, it expires, that we’re simply not under such pressure that we must accept any pressure from Russia and we want to have China in it too. So that’s the first scenario.
2) New arms race– that’s the worst, that new arms race comes, meaning Trump will invest money and launch it.
3) Trilateral negotiations– that all three nuclear players and basically also militarily biggest powers USA, Russia and China sit down and try to agree.
4) Fragmentation, regionalization of that nuclear deterrence – meaning Europe including France, United Kingdom and others. That it fragments and we already have 9 nuclear countries and more can be added.
5) Crisis escalation– absolutely worst scenario, unlikely but very dangerous, is crisis escalation, that simply at some moment these conventional conflicts get out of control and one side will demonstrate use of nuclear forces.
I think that currently we are in scenario A– meaning quiet voluntary continuity and attempt at negotiation.
Slovakia in Security Context
Moderator: And where do we find ourselves in this, Slovakia?
Pavel Macko: I’m looking for a decent word. We are disoriented, trampled in the ground. We buried ourselves there like moles, only we didn’t choose good terrain, because we buried ourselves in some swamp and it’s leaking into our mole hole from all sides.
Slovakia is being left out of all these security discussions. As I indicated those scenarios, we actually don’t know where security will move and how it will transform.
Problems of Fico’s Government
Into this comes hysteria of this Smer government, which does knee-jerk politics in four world directions and breaks its allied relations to the core.
We saw Epstein, that actually our top representatives get caught in traps… Even if it’s not confirmed that our prime minister met with Bannon or not, by the way Fico was at that same CPAC forum last year, where Bannon was hailing and after him Robert Fico… not right after him, but later Robert Fico spoke, while even such a leader of extremists from French National Front left after this hailing. Even for him it was too much. Our prime minister stayed there. And that’s a problem.
Lies About MiG-29
The last cherry on top is that the prime minister shouted at the previous government that they are traitors, that they disarmed Slovakia. Now the prosecutor, who was pro-Smer, and I dare say this, let them be angry at me or not, if needed, I would give dozens of arguments…
Moderator: Pro-Smer is not a good expression, she just helped Smer.
Pavel Macko: Yes, to be correct.
Even she found that the law regarding donation of MiGs and S-300 was not violated and prosecutor Remeta explained it in detail, how it really was. Fico lied yesterday at the press conference when he again said that S-300 was modernized.
And yet I know he has many generals, even loyal to him, who could have advised him and said it’s nonsense. But apparently he doesn’t ask anyone, because Fico doesn’t ask anyone about anything today.
From Fico’s foreign trips we have no outputs and conclusions. Not even the confidential ones. Simply there are no records from those negotiations, which is complete nonsense. This never was in Slovakia.
Tunneling of Slovak Army
Actually I’ll now remind you of one thing. And that’s something I probably also announce that I’ll likely file a criminal complaint, because if this government went to prosecute the previous one for that donation, then the prosecutor now confirmed what that government claimed, what I claim, that here enormous damage was arising during MiG maintenance.
When through the company of Fico’s friend Výboh subscription contract was made, where Russians committed that for that money they will maintain the number… I know that number, but I can’t say it because Minister Gajdoš refused to give it to me officially on my request, so I could publish it, how many of those 12 fighters we originally had should be permanently combat-ready, but it was roughly two thirds.
And we sometimes achieved only one tenth. And the prosecutor also said that at the end we had one fighter that was combat-capable and flight-capable, but we paid money for that full contract.
This means that not the previous government, but Fico’s governments tunneled Slovak armed forces and endangered the security of the Slovak Republic.
360°
Iran and Negotiations with USA
Moderator: Let’s look at developments around Iran. Will a new agreement be negotiated and the situation calmed, or will America have to strike there?
Pavel Macko: The question is whether America dares to strike there, because that’s actually why it didn’t strike during those protests.
They could actually provide an argument to that extreme Iranian government that it would unleash a kind of side conflict, that it would actually start some conflict in the Persian Gulf and therefore escalate the situation.
This would of course allow that government to make extreme measures at home, to suppress any opposition and could endanger American interests in that space, also American forces that are there.
American Military Preparation
Therefore Americans moved those aircraft carriers there, they have mighty force there now that could really strike.
I don’t think and Americans never indicate that they would want some ground invasion or landing, as we saw also in Venezuela, but they can very drastically strike those key targets in Iran.
But they also don’t want to do it, because it can be just a spark for a bigger conflict. Therefore there’s that offer for negotiation.
Today they should meet also with help of intermediary countries that try to give some negotiation format.
So that tension is very high, but it must be said that these negotiations today (February 6, 2026) are a real attempt at de-escalation.
Content of Negotiations
But chances for some fundamental breakthrough are small, we already have a long podcast, so I’ll just briefly say what those negotiations should be about.
First that dynamic or tension is illustrated by the fact that United States called on its citizens to immediately leave Iran.
Khamenei again said that if the US attacks, that conflict will change into regional war. That’s what I indicated.
Demands of Sides
When I return to those negotiations:
USA demands:
▪️Complete removal of enriched uranium stocks – Iran is willing to negotiate about this
▪️They want to also limit the ballistic program
▪️meaning those carriers
▪️And end support for regional militias like Hezbollah, Houthis and so on
Iran still insists that it’s prepared to negotiate only about that nuclear program, but ballistic missiles and those revolutionary guards and those various clones of revolutionary guards they bred throughout that region – those proxy groups – it doesn’t want to discuss this.
Qatar, Turkey and Egypt try to somehow act as intermediaries, but we’ll see.
Development Assessment
Simply, it will be first contact, that risk is high.
My assessment is that the US will balance between what I said, that risk of large escalation, but at some moment at least some limited strike may come.
I can even imagine they would strike directly at Khamenei.
Final Quote About Negotiation
Moderator: You spoke here today twice, or several times about negotiations and I know you prepared such a negotiation quote. So tell us and say who created that quote.
Pavel Macko: So: „If you approach negotiation with the assumption that the other person thinks the same way as you, you’re wrong. It’s not about empathy, but about projection.“
And it was said by Chris Voss– he’s a popular author of several books, former chief FBI negotiator.
NASPAŤ