The cover of the annual Munich Security Report titled “Under Destruction” features an “elephant in the room.” This elephant is an allusion to the idiom “elephant in the room”—an obvious problem or threat that everyone prefers to whisper about or ignore entirely. For Ukraine, this image seems outdated: the “elephant” was visible back in 2007 when Putin effectively declared war on the European order from the Munich podium.
In 2026, the question stands differently: who truly is this “elephant”—Russia, which does not abandon its imperial goals and continues aggression against Ukraine, or the United States, which after Donald Trump’s return to the White House consistently strikes at Atlantic unity.
In a conversation with LB.ua on the sidelines of the Munich conference, Anne Applebaum, author of books on Eastern Europe, Soviet Union crimes, and the Cold War, Pulitzer Prize winner, shares her thoughts on security symbolism, Donald Trump’s “Greenland” whims, the risks of personalized “peace guarantees” for Ukraine, and explains her expectations from the US congressional elections.
“The current American administration no longer sees itself as the democratic leader of the world”
One of the symbols of this conference is the “elephant in the room.” Doesn’t it seem to you that this metaphor is already outdated? After all, back in 2007, when Putin spoke here, this “elephant” was quite visible. Who today truly is the “elephant in the room”—Russia or the United States?
As I understand it, the elephant metaphor is meant to point to something bad or destructive—the destruction of trust in democracy and transatlantic ties. But I’m not sure that this metaphor still works. In fact, there are two key problems facing this conference and the transatlantic alliance, thus—two “elephants.”
The first is the ongoing militarization of Russia and the threat it poses not only to Ukraine and Europe but to global security as a whole.
The second is internal degradation in the United States. It has both an internal and external dimension: weakening of American democracy within the country and a systematic attack on the US alliance system abroad. It has become apparent that the current American administration no longer sees itself as the democratic leader of the world. This is no longer a role it wants to fulfill. And for Europeans, and especially for Ukrainians, this means a tectonic shift in reality.
This can be viewed from two different perspectives. If you go below the level of politics and talk to generals or admirals in NATO, they will all say the same thing: their planning still assumes the presence of allies. Communications, intelligence sharing, and operational coordination remain deeply integrated. Allies work within the American intelligence system on many levels — and this cooperation continues. This deep alliance, built over decades, also remains in the military-industrial sphere, in economic relations, on financial markets. In many structural and practical senses, the alliance is still real and very powerful.
At the same time, it is true that the political leadership at the top of the Trump administration — including the president, vice president, secretary of defense, and others — has made it clear: they no longer consider the Alliance key to American foreign policy. They consciously distance themselves from it. So, we have a double reality: deep institutional continuity on one side — and political detachment at the highest level on the other.
How should Donald Trump’s intentions regarding Greenland be interpreted? Is it a real ambition, a symbolic gesture, or a political performance? How serious is it — and does it pose a threat to Europe?
Donald Trump has been told many times — by many different people — that there is no security, economic, or strategic goal that the United States could pursue in Greenland that couldn’t be achieved through cooperation with Denmark or within NATO.
His desire to own Greenland — and, by the way, I don’t think he has given up on it — seems like a personal whim rather than a well-considered strategy. He simply thinks that the United States would look bigger on the map. This impulse speaks more about his worldview than any real geopolitical necessity.
Can the Greenland initiative be considered part of the preparation for the American elections this fall?
No. It’s just a personal whim. I understand that it’s difficult for many people to grasp that the current President of the USA does not think strategically and is not overly concerned with the long-term consequences of his policy. His main interest is himself and his personal needs. His personal need is to be a winner, to do what he wants without restrictions. He wants Greenland. There is no logical or strategic explanation for this. I know it’s hard to believe or come to terms with, but unfortunately, this is reality.
“It’s not worth becoming part of the American domestic political process”
Should we expect the Ukrainian issue to be politicized during the election campaign in the USA?
No. And in fact, for Ukraine, this is even good. It’s not worth becoming part of the American domestic political process. It’s not worth turning into an element of political dispute or an electoral tool. Moreover, congressional elections are almost never built around foreign policy. These are not national elections in the sense of a single agenda in Washington. They are decided by local issues — in Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Florida, and other states. Therefore, the main electoral debates will focus on internal and local topics, not on Ukraine or foreign policy in general.
Do you see any new trends or changes after these elections — or, perhaps, will everything remain without significant shifts?
I cannot give a definitive answer — it all depends on how the situation unfolds. It is very dynamic. Everything can change if the composition of Congress changes. A different Congress would mean a different political environment. But now the most important issue is not even political courses or decisions. The most important thing is whether the elections themselves will be fair.
Is it possible that Russia will interfere?
Of course. They interfere constantly.
“The idea that Ukraine should rely on Donald Trump’s personal word — especially considering that he has repeatedly lied and broken promises — would be extremely unwise”
How do you assess the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia initiated by the USA? Where is Europe in this process? And should it be at the negotiating table?
As of now, these negotiations are a failure. They have not yielded any results. What worries me most is that Russia has never stated it is ready to abandon its initial goals of war. And these goals were quite clear: the occupation of five Ukrainian regions and the integration of Ukraine into the “greater Russian empire.” As far as I can see, they have not abandoned these intentions and have not stated they are ready to do so. Until this happens, I do not understand how a true peace is possible — at least one that will be lasting.
It still seems to me that the only way to end this war is to convince Russia that it cannot win. Unfortunately, the negotiations — and especially parallel, informal business discussions of possible deals for American businessmen — create the opposite impression in Russia: that victory is still possible.
Can even the best peace agreement prevent a new aggression against Ukraine or an escalation of the conflict in the future?
I don’t know. I am concerned that the current talks on security guarantees are largely based on promises from the United States. And it’s unclear how these promises can be reliable in the long term. What if the president changes? Or the political situation? How can Ukraine rely on a promise — or even an agreement — if the guarantor is able to change course so radically?
There have been proposals from the US that Donald Trump might even personally guarantee peace.
But he won’t be president forever — and won’t live forever. Something will change. That’s just reality.
Do you think Trump has the ambition to stay in power as long as possible?
I don’t know. My opinion is simpler: nobody is eternal. Neither him, nor me, nor you. So the idea that Ukraine should rely on Donald Trump’s personal word — especially considering that he has repeatedly lied and broken promises — would be extremely unwise.
Ukraine relies on the US because it seems there are no alternatives.
I disagree that there are no alternatives. Today, 90 percent — or possibly even 99 percent — of the funding and supply of arms for Ukraine comes from Europe, not the United States. The US no longer finances Ukraine. Have you seen these graphs? The change is striking. Currently, the United States does not provide Ukraine with funds or arms and, essentially, hasn’t done so in significant volumes almost since the beginning of last year. Today the main partner of Ukraine and the main source of support is Europe, not America.
Unfortunately, Europe does not appear to be an active political participant in the negotiation process.
This is partly because the Russians do not allow it. They simply refuse to negotiate with the Europeans.
Don’t you think that Europe, in a sense, is also frightened by the current geopolitical situation? That’s why there’s passive participation in the negotiation process.
Europe is not participating in the negotiations for two reasons. Firstly, as I have already said, the Russians do not want to see Europeans at the negotiating table. Secondly, at this moment, Donald Trump does not want it either. So Europe has been effectively excluded from the process by both sides — both the American and the Russian. If I were responsible for the Ukrainian side, I would insist as firmly as possible on Europe’s participation in the negotiations, as today Europe is Ukraine’s most important partner, more important than the United States. But I am not the one making decisions.
Given the historical continuity of Russian aggression, especially against Ukraine, how many years, in your opinion, could Ukraine have — even in the best scenario of a peace agreement — until the next escalation?
I don’t know. I’m sorry — I really can’t answer that. No one [knows]. The only sensible way to think about the future is to look at what is happening inside Russia, as it is Russia that makes the decision on whether to escalate or not. But I do not have access to what is really happening inside the Russian system.
Do you believe that Russia can become a different country?
Russia has been a different country in the past, so yes — it’s possible. I also believe that this war has caused colossal damage to Russia. The number of dead is extraordinary. Tens of thousands of people die every month. The economy is distorted and undermined. Many people — especially outside major cities — have been plunged into poverty. And all this is happening for a war that I believe most Russians actually do not want to wage. There is no public debate in Russia, so it is impossible to accurately gauge public opinion. But it is not at all obvious that ordinary Russians are truly interested in controlling new Ukrainian territories or further imperial expansion.
“The Epstein files fit into a broader picture: increasing tolerance for kleptocracy in the United States”
The so-called Epstein files were shocking. Do you see parallels between these revelations and those kleptocratic cycles you write about in one of your latest books, ‘Autocracy Inc.’ — involving politicians and corrupt networks?
Yes, definitely. But the Epstein files in themselves are not even the strongest or most important evidence. Of course, they fit into the broader picture: increasing tolerance for kleptocracy in the United States. The Epstein materials demonstrate the connections between wealthy and influential people — and, frankly, part of this is no surprise.
More striking is the extent to which the current president (Donald Trump, — LB.ua) is personally enriching himself while in office. This has never happened before in the US. It might be more familiar to you through the experience of Ukraine or other post-Soviet countries, but in the United States, we have never had a president who openly profited through his private companies while in power and used presidential powers to do so.
For example, The Wall Street Journal published a piece a few days ago about Trump’s cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial. The article discussed a secret payment from an Emirati sheikh who sought to export cutting-edge computer chips from the US. Previously, the export of these chips was blocked for national security reasons. However, the Trump administration reversed this decision — and it seems there is a direct link between the payment and the policy change. This is corruption in its purest form.
British media are suggesting possible links between the “Epstein files” and Russia, possibly even Russian intelligence services. What is your assessment?
I haven’t studied these materials in detail, so I want to be cautious in my assessments. At the same time, it is clear that if they mention Russia, then certain connections between Epstein and Russia existed. I know the Polish government has expressed an intention to analyze these materials — perhaps others will do so too. But I would not expect a serious investigation from the US — simply because that is not what Donald Trump wants.
“If someone starts yelling about century-old massacres, often the best response is no response”
You are originally from Poland. Ukraine and Poland periodically have very good relations, but from time to time the Ukraine issue — especially in a humanitarian context, as is happening now — becomes politicized in Poland. How should Ukraine build relations with its Polish partners?
Russia plays a significant role here. You previously asked about Russian propaganda — and there is a lot of it in Poland. It is particularly active on the far-right flank, as well as among some farming communities and other social groups.
The most important thing Ukrainians can do in response is not to get angry and not to fuel these narratives. In both countries — Poland and Ukraine — there will always be people who want to spar over events from 50, 80, or 100 years ago. Now is not the time for such arguments. They are unproductive and distract from what really matters.
The key political reality is that Poland and Ukraine are close partners. They are standing together against Russia. Poland has provided considerable aid — including military equipment and, recently, aircraft. Many Ukrainians live in Poland and, overall, they are well integrated. I encounter them constantly. I won’t cite exact numbers, but the vast majority of Poles welcome their presence and have no problems with it.
Therefore, it is critically important for both sides not to react to attempts to provoke hostility — whether on the grounds of history, labor issues, or economic tensions at the border. Such problems exist, but they are secondary. Ukraine can help by lowering the intensity of the tension. If someone starts yelling about century-old massacres, often the best response is no response. Now is not the time to resolve historical disputes. The main thing is to maintain unity and focus.
“Hungary effectively functions as a proxy state for Russia”
And what about Hungary — another challenging neighbor?
In Hungary, elections will soon take place, and after them, it will become clearer what will happen next. Currently, Hungary essentially functions as a proxy state for Russia. The country has serious economic problems. For a long time, it relied on EU funds, but a significant portion of this funding has stopped — particularly due to Budapest’s violations of EU rules, which led to subsidies being blocked. As a result, Hungary is seeking alternative sources of support — primarily from Russia, and also from China, although Russia plays a key role here.
In this sense, Hungary is Russia’s voice within the EU. At the same time, the situation may change. Elections are ahead and currently, the opposition leader (Péter Magyar, leader of the “Tisza” party, — LB.ua) is significantly ahead of the current government in polls. The main question is whether Viktor Orbán will allow for fair elections. And this remains to be seen.
Do you see this primarily as a problem of Viktor Orbán’s personality?
Partly — but it’s not just about personality. Orbán is obsessed with retaining power. He has built an extremely corrupt system. Today, Hungary is the most corrupt country in Europe, certainly within the EU, and at the same time one of the poorest. Once, Hungary was wealthier, and its decline is largely a result of Orbán’s policies. In this, he is similar to Putin: he is much less interested in the welfare of citizens than in maintaining his own power. And for this, he needs external money — and he has decided that this money should come from Russia.
After more than 20 years of such a style of governance — is Péter Magyar capable of bringing real change?
I personally do not know Péter Magyar and have not met him. However, I am familiar with some people from his team. I believe he would have a completely different attitude towards the EU, towards Russia, and towards Ukraine. In this sense, he would indeed represent change. Whether he is capable of solving all of Hungary’s problems — that is another question, and I don’t know the answer.
Given the long-term impact of Orbán’s rhetoric on Hungarian public opinion — where Ukraine is often portrayed as an enemy — how should Ukraine build relations with Hungary?
This is difficult, as a significant portion of Hungarian media is under Orbán’s control. At the same time, as much as possible, the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian civil society should try to speak directly to Hungarians. A positive information campaign in Hungarian — about what Ukraine is, who Ukrainians really are, and what is actually happening — could be very useful. Perhaps this is already being done — I don’t know. I don’t follow Hungarian media daily. But in principle, such an approach could help.
Usually, Ukraine reacts rather than acts proactively.
A proactive, positive campaign would be better. Currently, everything in Hungary is politicized due to the upcoming elections. So, I would wait and see how events unfold further.
“I am not sure if all Ukrainians fully realize: joining the EU is not a single political decision. It’s a long and complicated process.”
Do you consider it realistic for Ukraine to join the EU within the declared timelines, which vary but all declare very close terms? I consider the very fact of Ukraine joining the EU to be realistic — yes. But as for specific deadlines, things are much more complicated. The process of joining the EU is not the same as NATO membership. A significant part of it involves deep legal and institutional alignment with EU norms. It’s an extremely burdensome and technical process.
I remember very well the process of Poland’s accession. Most provisions are no longer up for negotiation — they have been agreed upon by 27 countries, and new members must adapt to them. This takes time. I am not sure if all Ukrainians fully realize: joining the EU is not a single political decision. It’s a long and complicated process of harmonization, followed by ratification. There is also a political dimension. If Hungary blocks Ukraine’s accession — and if Orban remains in power — some political solution will have to be found. What that will be — I do not know. At this moment, I honestly don’t know what will happen in such a scenario.
Cover image: Anne Applebaum. Photo: Munich Security Conference
