'Moscow is the problem'

DW: What was your take on German Defense Minister von der Leyen's speech?

Ivo Daalder: I think it's a continuation of a theme that started last year, where the idea was that Germany should be a leader in the security debate. We heard it from President Gauck, Minister von der Leyen and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. And we have seen the fulfillment of that. If you look at what's happened with the big issues, in particular with the big issues like Ukraine, it's clear that Germany is leading - and in an important way.

I'm not exactly sure what "leading from the middle" means - is it not leading from the front? Or not leading from the back? At any rate, my sense is that good leadership is getting good people to come together on a common policy by showing the way. I think that Germany has been doing that for some time on the issue of Ukraine.

You are content with Germany's leadership on Ukraine?

Chancellor Merkel has been an absolute key in solidifying European opinion on the seriousness of the situation. I think she has made very clear that she sees and knows where the problem is - which is in Moscow - and that this is not actually about Ukraine but rather about the direction of Russian policy under President Putin. She has been able to keep the European allies united on strong sanctions. In that sense, she has demonstrated real leadership.

What do you make of what's been called the "Merkel Plan" that sent the chancellor and French President Hollande to Moscow to bring about a peace agreement with Putin?

I think we all want a political solution to this conflict. We have to find a way to stop the escalating violence - quite horrendous in the past weeks - that has resulted from Russia shipping large numbers of tanks and other very heavy equipment over the border and sending troops and commanders to be part of that offensive. I encourage any political dialogue by France and Germany, by anyone who wants to participate in it.

I think we also have to be very clear about what we want to achieve. Yes, we are trying to achieve an end of violence. But what we are really trying to achieve is an end to the violation of policies that we have seen over the past year. We need Ukraine's territorial integrity to be recognized; we need Ukraine to be fully sovereign and independent; we need the border between Russia and Ukraine to be sealed, so that nothing comes across unless the Ukrainian government knows and approves of it. We need to end any financial and military aid to the separatist forces; and we need to start focusing on the border of Ukraine instead of some ceasefire line.

How optimistic are you that this plan is going to come to fruition?

To be frank, I'm not very optimistic. I think the military balance of forces is in favor of Russia and the separatists, and as long as the separatists - in particular, but Russia as well - believe that they can achieve their aims militarily, then they will have no incentive to negotiate.

You were one of the authors of the report that triggered the debate of arming Ukraine with lethal weapons - doesn't this clash with the Merkel-Hollande plan?

I don't think so. I've heard that the German chancellor and the French president think that. My view is that wars like these are ended by one side defeating the other, or through negotiations. Right now, one side is defeating the other. Russia has no reason to negotiate. At this point, every attempt to have a negotiation has failed, because the separatists and Russia believe they can achieve what they want militarily.

Our view is that by providing Ukraine with the capacity to better defend itself - what we are proposing are very limited defensive military means - then perhaps we are foreclosing the option to achieve what they want to achieve militarily, therefore creating the context for negotiations.

The idea that force and diplomacy are kind of opposites, that it's either the one or the other, is unrealistic. Force and diplomacy are very much supportive of each other. As Kofi Annan once said: "Diplomacy without force is possible - but it's a lot easier when diplomacy is backed by force." And I think that's what we are seeing here.

Critics of your report say that it could lead to an all-out war in Ukraine, or perhaps even in Europe. What do you say to that?

It would take a lot of leaps to get there. As the Norwegian defense minister just said, we are seeing Russian aggression in the middle of Europe for the first time since the Cold War - perhaps since 1945 - the forceful change of borders in 2013 through the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine is under attack. What we have proposed, is that Ukraine be allowed to defend itself. Not that NATO comes to its side. Not that the US intervenes militarily with troops and arms and its own capabilities, but to provide a limited form of defensive help to a country under attack. That is not about escalation. That is about restoring the fundamental rules that this international system in Europe relies upon and that has been violated by Putin.

Are we seeing a rift between Europe and the US on Ukraine policy?

I think we are advanced democracies. We have healthy debate about the future of policy, and I think we see this in the United States, and we are seeing this in Germany and in European countries. I think we all agree on the fundamental goal of a just and lasting peace that recognizes the political and territorial independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. A Ukraine that is capable of deciding whether it wants to move West or East, North or South, or just stay where it is when it comes to its alignment and orientation. We all agree on that. We all agree that Russia is the problem. We all agree that Putin is the problem. We all agree that economic sanctions play a major part in how to deal with that. We all agree that diplomacy is a fundamental part to get us to the right outcome. And there is no disagreement that the current mission is a bad one.

We are having a debate about the extent to which we should provide military aid. The US has done so in terms of non-lethal aid. Other countries have done so in terms of lethal aid. I am absolutely convinced that at the end of this process we will come out stronger, more united, more together with how to deal with this problem.

The situation in Ukraine is vexing for all of us. And the fact that we're all having a discussion, including here at the Munich Security Conference, seems healthy to me. It allows us to decide what the wise policy is. Rather than always saying "no" to everything, having some serious debate and deciding how we can go along, is probably the wisest course of action.