Note: Shortened transcript of original slovak podcast as from Feb 20. 2026.

Fog of War

Situation in Ukraine

Moderator: What is the overall situation in Ukraine?

General Macko: For the first time in a long time, after 2.5 years, we saw that not only were Russians biting off pieces of Ukrainian territory, but we also saw that Ukraine executed local counterattacks and even regained more than 200 square kilometers of territory.

This is not yet some strategic turnaround, but we see that Ukrainians still have the capability for local counterattacks on land, where they are outnumbered against the Russians.

Strategic campaign continues

Regarding the strategic campaign, it naturally continued. The Russians again generated large packages of massive attacks. They do this cyclically – they did it before the Geneva talks.

🔹Russians rely on quantity

🔹Ukraine demonstrates deep strikes and is capable of hitting very deep into Russian territory

Overall strategic picture: we are in a war of attrition. The talks didn’t move significantly anywhere, despite it being important that they took place.

Zelensky said at the Munich conference that de facto there is no power plant in Ukraine that has not been hit and somehow damaged by Russian forces.

News from the front line

When we look at the front line overall, there are no fundamental changes:

🔹Near Sumy, Russians advanced in one village, but it’s not a breakthrough

🔹No substantial change in Kharkiv region

🔹Relatively quiet around Kupyansk as well

🔹The biggest battles are traditionally in the arc from Lyman through Kostiantynivka, Myrnohrad-Pokrovsk (Donbas)

🔹More pronounced activity in eastern Zaporizhzhia region, where Ukrainians gained the mentioned 200 km²

Deep strikes from both sides

Air warfare continues. Russians had two massive strikes – before the Munich Conference and just before the peace talks in Geneva. They do this cyclically – we saw it before Abu Dhabi, before Alaska.

This is apparently an attempt by Russians as part of large-scale psychological and hybrid warfare against the West, where they try to demonstrate their capabilities.

Key Russian production numbers:

🔹They produce around 130-150 missiles monthly

🔹Thousands of drones monthly

🔹At least 130 drones daily (modernized Gerans)

New Russian capability

Importantly, Russians can now also use Gerans in combination with other reconnaissance drones to hit relatively mobile targets. This was something they couldn’t do at the start of the war – that’s why they bombed railways, because they couldn’t hit trains.

State of war after four years

It’s incredible, but next week it will be 4 years since this war began and the fifth year is starting.

When we look overall, we are absolutely clearly in a state of war of attrition – this is war until total exhaustion.

Personnel problems on both sides

🔹Russians have around 700,000 soldiers in Ukraine

🔹Casualties are high on both sides

🔹Ukraine depends on external sources

Explanation of fallen exchanges: When Russians advance and Ukrainians withdraw, they sometimes don’t have time to take their fallen with them. When Russians move forward, they can collect their fallen, while Ukrainians don’t have this opportunity.

Territorial gains over two years

Over two years, since Russians gained initiative, they gained only 1.5% of Ukrainian territory:

🔹They had 29% in summer 2022

🔹It dropped to 17% in autumn 2022

🔹Over years 2023-2025, they reached nearly 20%

🔹They still control 9% less than at the start of the war

For comparison: In the same time, the Soviet army would have marched through and conquered half of Europe.

Technological innovations

Ukrainians led in technologization:

🔹Focus on drones (aerial, ground, naval)

🔹Have drone forces as independent units

🔹Drone units integrated in combat formations

Russians respond:

🔹Centralized it through the Rubikon system

🔹Modernized electronic warfare

🔹All possible jammers to protect their own forces

Middle East – Gaza and Israel

Moderator: What’s new in Gaza and Israel?

General Macko: Nothing substantial over the past week. Besides Trump’s non-functioning plan, low-intensity, continuous Israeli campaign continues:

🔹Destroying infrastructure

🔹Poor humanitarian situation

🔹Hamas has sporadic activity

No fundamental changes in southern Lebanon or the West Bank.

Important change: The United States announced they want to completely withdraw from Syria in the coming weeks and months. This relates to the new government getting the situation under control.

Strategic Background

Geneva Negotiations

Moderator: How do you evaluate the trilateral talks between the US, Ukraine, and Russia?

General Macko: They fulfilled my expectations – I had no great expectations. Russian communication before the talks already indicated it would be even worse than in Abu Dhabi.

Why did the negotiations fail?

Russians changed the negotiator – they put Medinsky in charge again. He’s a cold, very uncompromising hawk. Statements from February 9th and 10th showed that:

🔹They want major geopolitical concession from the West

🔹They want protectorate over Ukraine

🔹Regardless of territorial agreements, they want to control all of Ukraine

🔹It should be disarmed and without guarantees

Negotiation participants

For the US: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner (Trump’s personal envoys)

For Ukraine:

🔹Rustam Umerov

🔹Kyryl Budanov

🔹Andriy Hnatov (Chief of General Staff)

🔹David Arachmia

For Russia:

🔹Medinsky

🔹Mikhail Galuzin

🔹Igor Kostyukov (GRU chief – Russian military intelligence service)

Negotiation results

No progress – key issues couldn’t be resolved:

🔹Territorial arrangement

🔹Security guarantees

🔹Ukraine’s future status

First day: 6 hours of negotiations
Second day: Only 2 hours

Zelensky was dissatisfied that sensitive issues weren’t discussed. Ukraine’s position: territorial integrity is non-negotiable.

Trump’s deadlines

Trump set a deadline that has no connection to battlefields, but only to American supplementary congressional elections, where Republicans are doing very poorly.

Zaluzhny’s Presidential Ambitions

Moderator: Zaluzhny indirectly hinted in an interview that he could run for Ukrainian president. How do you see this?

General Macko: It’s an interesting matter. He didn’t formally express it, but the tone of the interview suggested it. He gave an interview to Associated Press.

Controversial claims

Zaluzhny claims that in 2023, just before the Zaporizhzhia offensive, half his forces and ammunition were taken away – a decision by the president and General Syrsky.

Commanders‘ reactions didn’t please Zaluzhny:

🔹They criticize him for bringing this up now

🔹They claim he’s not entirely right

🔹They see the situation differently than he communicates

Historical context of the 2023 offensive

After rapid counteroffensives in autumn 2022, expectations arose for a major Ukrainian counteroffensive. Zaluzhny focused on Zaporizhzhia region, but meanwhile Russians built strong Surovikin line.

Problem: If the direction of attack is expected, it’s no longer the main direction or doesn’t have such a chance to succeed.

The situation in 2023 was different:

🔹The West gave almost no support

🔹Support started coming only in March-April

🔹Troops weren’t trained on Bradley, Leopards

🔹There were information leaks about brigade movements

Criticism of Zaluzhny

Soldiers criticize: He’s trying to retroactively absolve himself of responsibility and shift it to others. Now is wartime – it’s not the most fortunate timing.

Zaluzhny no longer has the popularity he had when he was at home. Instead of talking about what he would do differently, he talks about who’s to blame for what.

Munich Security Conference

Moderator: You write in detail about the Munich Security Conference in our weekly. How do you evaluate it?

General Macko: It was one of the most tense conferences. The greatest expectations were about how the American delegation would react.

Shocking report on the state of the world

The report had an image of an elephant and the headline „Under Destruction“ (instead of the usual „Under Construction“). 120-page report spoke of demolition of international order.

Main demolisher: The United States, which after 1945 de facto built it, protected it all along and guaranteed it.

Conference atmosphere development

Last three years:

🔹2024: Erosion, losing benefits from international arrangement

🔹2025: Already decay

🔹2026: Conscious destruction

Key presentations

Rubio: Had a soaring speech, but then it was totally erased by the visit to Slovakia and especially Hungary, where he showed they don’t care about unity with Europe.

Merz: Said the international order is gone, rejected nuclear armament of Germany.

Macron: Classically – Europe must be self-confident, sovereign and must build its own capabilities.

Chinese paradox

Interesting paradox: The Chinese, who according to Trump benefited from the international system, now act as the biggest protectors of that system.

China tries to benefit as much as possible from the internal contradiction between the West and gain attention not only from third world countries, but also Europe.

Slovak non-participation

The fact that Slovakia wasn’t there is a catastrophe. Either they weren’t there because:

1) We don’t have people capable of such communication (like Blanár)

2) They can only manage departments, not discuss at this level

It’s a great shame for Slovakia – our voice is not heard.

Comparison with Finland

Our president had a program: halusky, Italian cuisine at the Olympic house – that was all. The Finnish president had a 19-point program. Finland is similarly sized, has similar capabilities, but is more advanced.

The difference in presidential output is the difference in country output and citizen success.

Slovak armament

Moderator: In connection with the American Secretary of State’s visit, the Ministry of Defense announced it wants to buy another 4 F-16 fighters and HIMARS rocket launchers. Is this good?

HIMARS – yes

General Macko: I’ll start with HIMARS – as the war in Ukraine shows, there’s a renaissance of artillery, but it’s better to have precise artillery and deeper strikes.

Ours are requesting HIMARS with extended range:

🔹150 kilometers or

🔹PRECISION STRIKE MUNITION up to 500 kilometers (PrSM, original ATACMS)

Missiles are fired from the same system, only the container changes.

We have similar equipment: We had older HIMARS missiles for our rocket launcher, which was combined – it could fire Soviet standard 122mm and NATO MLRS standard from containers.

Advantages:

🔹Rocket launchers we have are on old Tatra 813 chassis

🔹We could manufacture this in cooperation and participate in production for other countries, if put on new chassis

🔹Could cooperate on manufacturing rocket pods or containers

F-16 – not a priority

We have 14 fighters on order (12 combat + 2 training, but really combat two-seaters).

Arguments for additional purchases:

🔹You need 2 minimum in sharp readiness

🔹Another 2 in reserve

🔹Needed for training

🔹Part always in inoperable condition

My opinion: I would be against those fighters. Not because it’s illogical, but it’s not a well-set priority.

After 20 years we’re still behind with one brigade – they’ve wanted a mechanized brigade from us since 2004, so we’d have at least one that can defend us.

Let’s finally complete that brigade and then dream about castles in the air.

Energy security – dispute with Croatians

Moderator: How do you see the dispute with Croatians over the Adria pipeline?

General Macko: I look at it from security perspectives:

Paradox of Slovak approach

On one hand:

🔹We contracted 60 billion euros for defense in 3-4 months (framework agreements)

🔹We consolidate, but arm competitively

On the other hand:

🔹We are totally vulnerable in energy security

🔹We committed to still take Russian oil

What Fico forgot to mention

When attacking Ukraine together with Orbán, he forgot to mention:

🔹Russians bombed Ukraine

🔹Russians bombed a reservoir, thereby also affecting the pipeline

🔹If Ukrainians were repairing, why wouldn’t they solve freezing people in Kyiv first?

Problem of dependence on one source

Instead of source diversification we’re still dependent on one source, where:

🔹Russians use it as a weapon

🔹They use their weapons on the pipeline too

🔹We endanger Slovakia’s stability and security

Croatian position

Croatians speak clearly:

🔹Adria’s capacity is sufficiently large

🔹You can import any oil, but not Russian

🔹EU didn’t give exemption for Russian oil through pipelines

🔹„We won’t burn our fingers“

Real reason for dispute

Fico tries to save the Hungarian model:

🔹They used dumping prices due to Russian embargo

🔹They bought substantially cheaper

🔹But gasoline and diesel are more expensive than in countries with „expensive“ non-Russian oil

🔹Hungarian company takes huge margins

Slovak citizens get nothing from this.

Security risks

Endangered is the entire operation of:

🔹Economy

🔹Health systems

🔹Security systems

🔹Transport systems

The question is appropriate: Should prosecutors look at this? What are the property relationships here?

Security Council

Security council is called regarding ex-minister Tomanová, but not called regarding energy security after 15 years of inability to diversify oil supplies.

360°

American-Iranian negotiations

Moderator: How do you evaluate American-Iranian negotiations in Geneva?

General Macko: Great progress was not achieved. They were open, both sides said so.

Primary problem

Iran says: There’s no force in the world to deprive it completely of nuclear program. It needs uranium enrichment for its own nuclear power plants – otherwise it would be strategically dependent like Slovakia on Russian oil.

USA insists on: They want absolute certainty – 100% guarantee that they won’t have any nuclear program at all.

Escalation instead of agreement

It was clear this would be the stumbling block. That’s why we see escalation:

🔹Poland calling citizens to immediately leave Iran

🔹Trump said he’ll decide „within hours“

🔹He has a secret security meeting

🔹Estimates speak of possible attack over the weekend

Trump’s maximum pressure strategy

Trump needs to make the threat of immediate attack credible:

🔹Recalling citizens

🔹Warnings

🔹Media leaks

🔹Creating psychotic atmosphere

Compared to last week: I don’t think Trump will attack, but the probability of strike has significantly increased.

Cuba

Moderator: It seems the communist regime in Cuba will end. How?

General Macko: So far it looks like similar scenario as in Venezuela. Marco Rubio (his family comes from Cuba) hinted at this during Maduro’s arrest.

American strategy

They’re pushing it to the maximum – applying maximum pressure:

🔹They know Russians won’t be able to help them

🔹They blocked oil deliveries from Venezuela too

🔹Mexico also said they won’t supply oil

Cuba’s state

Cuba was left bare:

🔹Problems since the 90s

🔹Garbage accumulating

🔹Energy outages becoming dramatic

US goal

So they don’t have to invade, they try to achieve that the regime collapses itself. Maximum „tap on the leaning structure“.

Problem: It doesn’t guarantee stable conditions, just a more favorable regime for Americans.

Trump’s Peace Council

Moderator: Is Trump’s peace council an attempt to create a new UN or just entertainment?

General Macko: Everything points to it. He had big ambitions – not just for Gaza, but for the whole world. Eventually he reduced it.

Problems with conception

Reason for reduction:

🔹Invitation was sent to 60 countries

🔹Few of them responded to real membership

🔹Not one paid 1 billion for permanent membership

🔹Russians are still evaluating the possibility

The whole thing is built on „lifetime president Donald Trump“ – one person out of 8 billion people decided to lead such a council.

First session in Washington

At least 40 countries participated (majority observers):

Members: UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Kosovo, Albania, Argentina, Paraguay.

It’s not a balanced organ representing the world.

Gaza program

Financial commitments:

🔹9 countries pledged 7 billion USD for reconstruction

🔹Americans 10 billion (didn’t say from where)

🔹Minimum 70 billion needed

Military mission:

🔹20,000 soldiers + 12,000 police

🔹Soldiers provided by: Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Albania

🔹Commander: Major General Jeffers (former special forces member)

🔹Won’t have UN mandate – only this council’s

Implementation problems

Gaza is unstable, Hamas not disarmed – basic prerequisites for mission functioning are missing.

Western allies are skeptical – they perceive it as an attempt to replace UN and create order dominated by Trump.

Controversial invitations: Netanyahu, Putin (Putin conditioned participation on unfreezing Russian assets).

Closing Quote

„Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character – give him power!“

Abraham Lincoln, US President who died in 1865 by an assassin’s hand.

The post General Pavel Macko’s Security Radar – 152nd Edition appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

Ukraine playing all-in? Total nonsense!

If the headline is framed this way, it’s complete nonsense! Ukraine has been going all-in since the first day of aggression, when citizens – despite the hesitation of the army and political leadership of the state – decided spontaneously to defend themselves.

Unlike the Russians, Ukrainians have nowhere to retreat. The dilemma of whether to capitulate now or after further fighting and losses of lives and additional territories is only an apparent dilemma. In reality, it’s all the same.

As long as there is no external mechanism that would prevent Russians from continuing the war or renewing aggression later, they will continue in aggressive expansion.

Immediate capitulation = invitation for further aggression

Immediate capitulation today, without real guarantees in the form of tens of thousands of guarantor soldiers on Ukrainian territory, is just an invitation for further Russian aggression after a brief rest and resource replenishment.

Russia has enormous resources, but also an enormous problem returning to normal life. The easiest thing for the current Russian leadership is to continue aggression, especially if they see it bearing fruit in the form of gains.

Ukraine has a chance if it persists

If Ukraine continues with tenacious defense and maintains external support, it has at least a chance that in a war of attrition, Russians will run out of breath and will to continue the senseless aggression and foolish dream of restoring and expanding the Russian empire sooner.

In this type of conflict, the one who endures longer wins, not the one who is bigger on paper.

Ukrainians are buying time for themselves and us

Ukrainians, through their tenacious resistance, are buying time for themselves and us. Despite two years of tactical initiative, Russians in the last two years have:

🔹Advanced by a few kilometers

🔹Captured less than 2% more territory

🔹Achieved no operational breakthrough

🔹Seized no major city

The facts speak clearly

I remind you of these important data:

🔹In summer 2022: Russians controlled 29% of Ukrainian territory

🔹Today: they still don’t have even 20%

🔹They’ve been fighting for Pokrovsk for almost two years and still don’t have it 100% under control

🔹Russians lost Kupiansk in autumn 2022 and have been trying to recapture it since April 2024! Unsuccessfully.

Russians are the ones really playing all-in

The situation is extremely difficult for Ukrainians and they are running out of strength and will. But if someone here is playing all-in, it’s the Russians.

Why is this so?

Because if Ukrainians don’t surrender now:

🔹They may (but don’t have to) collapse later

🔹The result will be the same for them

🔹They will cease to exist as a free nation

🔹They will be just a Russian protectorate

But if Russia collapses, it can lose a lot – existence in its current form. Inside and especially around Russia, there are enough of those waiting for prey.

The post Who’s Playing All-In Here? appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.

And we are joined by retired Lieutenant General Pavel Macko. Welcome. Good evening.

Good evening, I wish you.

So let’s discuss both meetings in Geneva together. First, let’s go to those two-day trilateral negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine. Do you expect any fundamental breakthrough from them, which simply hasn’t happened in those previous negotiations so far? Will it happen now in Geneva?

Trilateral negotiations USA-Ukraine-Russia

Quite honestly, I don’t expect any fundamental breakthrough. Nevertheless, those negotiations are important. But it must be said that we had two rounds of negotiations in Abu Dhabi, where they made progress, where it was also good that those negotiations got some format and some structure, where there are actually several working groups for different areas. It’s good that in both delegations there are people who have a military background, whether it was – I don’t mean Kyrylo Budanov there as the former head of that intelligence GUR, but I mean including the chief of staff from Ukraine and the head of GRU from the Russian Federation. There was an economic component and generally a political component in these negotiations. However, what’s essential is that the key issues that prevent any conclusion of agreements are: first, Russia doesn’t accept any security guarantees from the West and any Western influence or Western assistance to Ukraine after a possible conclusion of peace agreements. Second, Russia has large territorial demands, and third, Russia also has demands for changing the political regime in Ukraine and even demands for further fundamental geopolitical concessions from the West, in Europe and generally in relation to Russia. This is further underlined by those current statements of Russian representation, when already on January 14th at a public assembly, regime representatives and Putin indicated that they have more than those territorial demands, than formal recognition of those four illegally annexed regions, but that they would actually be interested in additional regions as well. Subsequently, Lavrov clarified that they would be interested in Kharkiv region, Dnipropetrovsk region, Odesa region and thus also Mykolaiv and Kherson, and this is something that is completely outside the framework. And moreover, Russians are increasing additional demands. The latest statements from February 9th and 10th and from February 14th even go further, where Russia clearly basically signals that it’s interested in such a solution that would mean de facto absolute capitulation of Ukraine. That pattern can perhaps be found in history only in connection with the approach of Nazi Germany, when actually today’s Russian rhetoric speaks about wanting a pro-Russian and friendly Ukraine, de facto some Russian protectorate, where Russians would decide what will be in that truncated remainder of Ukraine. And these are likewise problems and likewise insurmountable contradictions in that vision of future possible arrangements. These, in my opinion, will lead to the fact that although they will negotiate about some minor details and those peripheral matters of peace agreements, it will get stuck precisely on these hard demands. And the change in the very head of the delegation by Medinsky coming again indicates this hawkish position of Russia, which will probably predetermine the results of these negotiations as well.

Russian play

So what does this mean, that Russia is playing for time, that it’s delaying?

Unambiguously, Russia still feels in the position that it still has trump cards in its hands. It’s raising its stakes and actually any concession or attempt at an accommodating step, whether from Ukraine or the United States as a sponsor of these negotiations and simultaneously a supporter of Ukraine, it interprets as disunity and weakness and thereby raises its stakes and systematically attacks Ukraine. It tries to use maximum economic, military and psychological pressure. After all, winter is still peaking in Ukraine and massive energy attacks on energy facilities have an effect. Zelensky confirmed over the weekend during the Munich Security Conference that practically every single power plant in Ukraine is affected in some way and damaged. Russians continue in this and will continue on the front as well. Even though we see there that Ukrainians have some partial tactical successes on the border of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions, Russians still have the feeling that by this postponement of a possible solution to that conflict they can gain more and that militarily, even if very slowly and at the cost of high casualties they are advancing, so currently Russians will still push to gain as much as possible from a possible agreement. Moreover, rejecting security guarantees gives the possibility to repeat such aggression in the near future and try to bring it to the end. That means, all this is the result of Russian ambitions that perhaps exceed their real possibilities and capabilities, but so far they see that it allows maintaining a certain disunity in support of Ukraine. We see that Europe doesn’t have sufficient capacity – it’s hesitant – and the United States also changes actually those its approaches to supporting Ukraine and to pressure on Russia all the time. Russia senses some chance in this, that by such stretching and partial concessions and then again raising stakes, it can actually stretch time and undermine that unity or that position of Ukraine and its allies and supporters.

End of war in June 2026?

Washington wants to end the war by June according to Volodymyr Zelensky. We’ve heard similar deadlines in various statements, as you’ve already indicated, but without results. Can the American administration succeed this time and also, above all, how? Because Zelensky talked about Americans wanting to exert pressure on both Ukrainian and Russian sides. So what could this be about? What kind of pressure has the White House not yet resorted to?

Here we need to start perhaps from the end, that this deadline is given by the internal politics of the United States, because they have midterm elections or those partial elections to the American Congress. And so far it looks like the support for the Republican Party is quite small and that therefore the Donald Trump administration could lose the majority not only in the Senate, but even in the lower chamber, that means in the House of Representatives. Thereby that possibility of such sovereign rule of the current administration would be significantly limited. Congress could start blocking many steps of President Trump. That means, if he talks about this deadline, it’s not at all some effort to end the conflict at any cost in favor of Ukrainians or Russians. Simply, Donald Trump wants to present some result. As for those possibilities of pressure and tools, well, we’ve already seen the entire spectrum. First, after the American administration took office, he tried it on Ukraine in that famous discussion in the Oval Office, which was even before the actual negotiation and de facto ended the negotiation. Trump pressured Ukraine and said it has no cards, he wanted to achieve a quick result, it didn’t work. Then we saw a series of various concessions, pressures, ultimatums. We saw that in Alaska Trump thought he had achieved some agreement with Russia, but de facto he only gave Putin legitimacy and gave him a podium and red carpet. He abused that. Then came harsh or demands for harsh oil sanctions. Finally, a law is passed in the American Congress. We see that the United States started seizing tankers of that shadow fleet. That means, this is probably the path by which if the United States wanted, they could pressure Russia. But honestly, I think that if such a settlement comes or at least a cessation of fighting by June, it won’t be exclusively the result of American pressure, but rather it will be a combination of several factors, where also that American pressure, but also continuing sanctions and worsening conditions for the Russian economy and for oil export could lead to such a situation that Russia would get to a point where it would already see that it has no possibility to gain more and with a certain degree of frustration would agree to some negotiations. It’s less than 50 percent probability that such a thing will happen. Of course, some sudden break, reversal, something like a collapse on one side or the other can also come, because we really don’t know in depth even that Russia, which still pretends to have the upper hand and wants to gain more, how it really is. Those strongman speeches and this raising of stakes can also be a negotiating tactic that’s supposed to cover up that Russia is not doing as well as it tries to present outwardly.

Iran nuclear program

Let’s go to those second negotiations in Geneva. The second round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the USA will also begin. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in this regard announced to Donald Trump that a potential nuclear agreement must include stopping the uranium enrichment process by Iran and also dismantling the entire Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Is this something that Tehran will agree to, in your opinion?

Hard to say, but probably not. We see that the previous nuclear agreement, from which the United States withdrew, had some gaps even in the vision of Donald Trump and his administration. Currently it’s such that Donald Trump is pushing that vision of absolute prohibition of any uranium enrichment. This is something that will be rejected, because Iran will object that it’s prepared to give up the military program, but that it cannot give up that civilian program, which is vitally important for its energy system. Iran faces many problems. It has oil, which is under embargo and practically only China buys it, but on the other hand it has huge problems with water resources, it has large economic problems. We saw a massive wave of unrest that was originally caused rather by economic problems and subsequently came even that political frustration. Iran is currently conducting military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz and indicates that in case of escalation it could put up armed resistance or try to expand or provoke conflict in the wider Persian Gulf region. This would of course complicate global trade in oil products and liquefied gas. So these negotiations will involve complex bargaining. Currently, however, it doesn’t look like the negotiation should reach some quick agreement. It will probably get stuck precisely on the fact that Iran won’t be willing to agree to such ultimatum demands that would completely deprive it of any control over its nuclear program, including that energy nuclear program. The United States will increase that pressure, because Trump also cannot actually accept just some partial agreement. Moreover, in the US Congress in connection with the previous agreement, a law is also passed. And thereby such a nuclear agreement would have to be submitted by Trump to Congress for approval and there are also various opinions and rather opinions on a hard policy toward Iran prevail, regarding control of its nuclear facilities.

Retired Lieutenant General Pavel Macko was speaking. Thank you very much for your time and for your commentary and I wish you a peaceful night if possible.

Thank you for the invitation and likewise a pleasant evening.

The post Two important negotiations in Geneva appeared first on Pavel Macko - Bezpečnosť, Technológie, Stratégie.