"Putin's goal is full control of Ukraine — the idea of a simple border dispute is just a Western illusion, says Danish expert."

 

Anders Puck Nielsen, during his visit to Kyiv, warns that Europe is embroiled in a battle over where the new "Iron Curtain" will be drawn. As a seasoned Danish naval officer and military analyst with significant influence on YouTube, he brings a clear message: Ukraine's position in Europe's security framework is non-negotiable. “Europe needs Ukraine on its side of that line,” he asserts.

In an exclusive interview with Euromaidan Press, Nielsen challenges the oversimplified view of Russia’s war as merely about territorial disputes. For him, this conflict represents a deeper struggle that will shape Europe’s security for years to come.

Why Trump Misunderstands Ukraine's War

“Trump views this as a territorial dispute, and that’s where he’s wrong,” Nielsen says, leaning forward. He explains that Trump’s belief in a quick deal or compromise fails to recognize that Ukraine cannot remain independent under Russian control. This misunderstanding, Nielsen argues, pervades American thinking about the war. The idea that Ukraine could cede some eastern territories for peace misinterprets Russia’s real objectives.

“Russia wants to make Ukraine another Belarus,” Nielsen states. “If Russia only gains the territories it currently occupies, but the rest of Ukraine remains sovereign, democratic, and pro-Western, then they’ve lost the war.” This fundamental flaw in the analysis of the war frustrates Nielsen, as he views the notion of territorial compromise as simplistic. For him, the situation in eastern Ukraine is Russia's attempt to pressure both Ukraine and the West.

The Illusion of an Easy Peace

On the possibility of a Trump-brokered ceasefire, Nielsen is blunt: “It’s unlikely to hold. The only real desire for peace right now comes from the U.S., but the combatants—Russia and Ukraine—don’t seem to believe an end is near.” He argues that wars end when one side faces imminent collapse, something neither Ukraine nor Russia is yet experiencing. The current diplomacy, Nielsen suggests, is more about influencing American policy than achieving actual peace. “Russia wants Trump to blame Ukraine and cut aid, while Ukraine seeks to blame Russia,” he explains.

The Strategic Value of Kursk

Nielsen sees strategic value in Ukrainian operations in Russian-held Kursk. Though it diverted Russian resources and reduced pressure on other fronts, he acknowledges the operation's diminishing importance under Trump’s presidency. While Ukrainian forces withdrew from Sudzha, they maintained positions in Kursk Oblast, complicating Russia’s diplomatic strategy.

America’s Retreat and Europe’s Awakening

Since Trump’s inauguration, Nielsen observes a profound shift in European security perspectives. “The United States is no longer a reliable partner for Ukraine or Europe,” he states plainly. This realization, however, could have a silver lining. It signals that European nations, including Ukraine, will need to independently counterbalance Russia. He notes encouraging signs from Poland, Germany, and France, which are increasing their defense commitments in response.

Nuclear Security Concerns

As the conversation turns to peace prospects, Nielsen raises the sobering issue of nuclear deterrence. “Ukraine needs a nuclear umbrella, but who will provide it if the U.S. refuses?” he questions. With the non-proliferation regime under threat, he warns that the withdrawal of American nuclear guarantees undermines the security of democratic nations.

A Ukrainian Victory

Despite the challenges, Nielsen remains optimistic about Ukraine’s chances, albeit with a shifted timeline. “Before Trump, I believed 2025 might mark the turning point,” he says, citing Russia’s unsustainable war economy. He believes 2024 represented the peak of Russian strength, and as their economy weakens, Russia will struggle to maintain its momentum.

For Ukraine to win, Nielsen believes the frontlines must start to shift in its favor. “At some point, Putin will have to reckon with a reversal of gains,” he notes. A Ukrainian defeat, however, would have catastrophic consequences for Europe. It would result in Ukraine becoming a pro-Russian puppet state, with devastating implications for the balance of power in Europe. “A united Russia and Ukraine would overwhelm the rest of Europe militarily,” Nielsen warns, pointing to the Ukrainian military’s combat effectiveness, which outstrips many Western European forces.

A New European Defense Strategy

Nielsen advocates for a shift in focus toward a European-centered security framework. “Ukraine should receive whatever support it can from the U.S., but it must not rely on Americans for future security,” he suggests. He also calls for greater European investment in Ukraine’s defense industry, which he views as the most promising path to strengthening Europe’s military capabilities.

This new strategy requires a significant change in mindset: “The U.S. is transitioning from a reliable ally to a market source that may or may not offer help,” he concludes, urging a more self-reliant approach to European defense.