Moscow choked with smoke after massive Ukraine drone attack

Almost 200 Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow, the biggest such attack since the war began.Several drones managed to evade the city's much -vaunted and many -layered air defenses to reach the oil refinery in Kaputinia.It was the second time it's been hit this week, sending the roof of a storage tank soaring into the sky, with huge clouds of black smoke filling the horizon.One drone, which appeared to be hit by an air defense missile, then crashed into a shopping center, setting off a large fire.All four of Moscow's airports were closed during the night, grounding hundreds of flights.Officials claim that 17 people have been injured, including two children.

Many residents complained of polluted oil rain and said there had been no access to shelters, which the authorities denied.President Zelensky said it had been a response to Russia's attack on one of Ukraine's most important cultural sites, the Kiev -Pechersk Lavra, warning, if Kiev burns, then your Moscow will burn, too, adding, it's time to end this war.Addressing NATO defense ministers earlier today in Brussels, Ukraine's leader alluded to the strikes, which he described as long -range sanctions.He placed the blame squarely on President Putin.

At the same time, our mid -range strikes are seriously disrupting Russian military logistics.But Putin is not stopping this war.

Mr Putin himself spent the day hundreds of miles from Moscow in Kazan, hosting a regional leaders meeting.While he made no mention of the attacks, his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, threatened more massive strikes against Ukraine.I've been speaking to the former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.I asked him if Vladimir Putin was starting to lose his grip on this war.

I don't know if he's losing the war, but he's under strong pressure thanks toa very innovative Ukrainian army.And now they have demonstrated how important it is to hit targets behind the Russian lines.

And they're doing this by themselves.I mean, they're not doing this with Western help.They're doing this with their own technology and their own drones.And everyone else is rather envious of what they've done.

Yeah, more and more weapons and ammunition is produced by the Ukrainians themselves.And it's much faster to do it.It's less expensive to do it in Ukraine.And they don't have any restrictions on the use of those weapons.So there are many, many advantages of this development in Ukraine.

The argument in the past has always been that Ukraine cannot be a member of NATO because it would be too contentious in the middle of a hot war.Couldn't the argument be we can't afford not to have Ukraine in NATO because they've developed so much fighting prowess and have done it at cost?

That's exactly my view.That's your view?That's my view that Ukraine should become a member of NATO.It would be the most efficient and least expensive way of guaranteeing Ukraine's security in the future.But unfortunately, there is no unanimity.There's no consensus in NATO right now to allow the Ukrainians in, which I strongly regret.

We heard the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning that after these attacks overnight, Russia will hit back even harder.What do you think they could do that they haven't done already?

Yeah, I don't think they can do much more than they have done already.The fact is that I consider it a quite desperate step by theRussians that they have accelerated the drone attacks and missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and civilian population centers in Ukraine.It's a sign that they are under strong pressure.

Do you think they could resort to different types of ammunition?They've used these hypersonic missiles.Apparently, they're running out of them now.What else could they try to throw at Ukraine?in terms of ammunition that they haven't thrown at them so far?

Honestly speaking, I don't think they can do much more.And I think time has come to call Putin's bluff.But the fact is, as long as Putin believes he can win on the battlefield, he has no incentive whatsoever to engage in a peace process.So the way to get a peace process in motion is to change his calculus by putting even more pressure on Putin.

The Ukrainians say that one of the reasons why European countries gave them enough not to sink but not enough to actually prevail was that they were afraid that further down the line, if Putin feels desperate, he might go for a nuclear option.That has not happened yet.And as far as I've noticed, he hasn't used loose talk on nukes in recent months, even years.Is that still a danger, though, that a desperate Putin might take desperate measures?

No.I don't take that threat serious.The Russian military knows very well that there would be no strategic advantage by using nuclear weapons.On the contrary, our countermeasure, even conventional, would be so heavy that it would be devastating for the Russian military.And on top of that, it would be a threatdisadvantage because the Chinese, the Indians and others would turn their back to Russia.

Okay.So Vladimir Putin, one could argue, has actually made NATO stronger because he's concentrated mines on more defence spending.Finland and Sweden have joined a club that they weren't members of, and so on.Has Donald Trump undermined the NATO alliance more than Putin has helped it to become stronger?

Obviously, it has weakened the alliance when the leader of the biggest ally creates doubt about his commitment to NATO's security guarantee in the famous Article 5.But actually, I think Trump has also contributed to European unity because his statements, his decisions to reduce American presence in Europe has been a clear message to us in Europe.We have to be able to stand on our own feet.

So when Pete Hexeth, the Secretary of War, as he likes to be called, declared today on the tarmac in Brussels that Europeans had been free, no more freeloading, he said, no more excuses.Is that an insult or is he being accurate?He's accurate.

And I think We've been freeloading.We have been freeloading.For too many years, we have based the European societies on the combination of cheap energy from Russia, cheap goods from China, cheap security from the United States.That model is outdated.It doesn't work any longer.We have to be able to stand on our own feet.

So I wonder what you say about Trump's desirethreats about Greenland.You're Danish.Greenland is part of Denmark.He has been very outspoken in the past, although not so much recently.He's been distracted by other things.

If Greenland was occupied by the United States, or they've forced you to sell it to them or whatever, would that kill off NATO as an alliance?Would that be the end of the Western alliance?

Yeah, that would be the end of the alliance.Of course, you cannot have a collective defence alliance if one of the allies, the biggest ally, attacks another ally with the aim to grasp land by force.It's unheard.It doesn't make sense.So that would be the end of NATO.

And do you think that he still has designs on Greenland?

I don't think he has forgotten Greenland.Now he's preoccupied elsewhere, Venezuela, Iran, maybe next time Cuba.But he will revert to the issue of Greenland.But for the time being, we are on a more classical diplomatic path of finding a solution to the legitimate concern that is the security of the Arctic.I'm very much in favor of a stronger permanent NATO military presence in the Arctic.And I think that can be solved through a diplomatic process.

But if the diplomatic process doesn't work and Trump has military designs on Greenland, there's really not much you can do about it, is there?Or anyone else who's a member of NATO in Europe.

But I don't think it will materialise.Firstly, the American people is against it.It counts in an election year.Congress is against it.Whenever I visit the U .S.

, Congress is a strong bipartisan support for Green and for Trump.And finally, and maybe in this context, most importantly, the military will, I think the military leader would refuse to abide by illegal orders to attack a loyal ally, Denmark.

If Russia were to invade or make incursions into a Baltic Republic, members of NATO tomorrow, are you confident that America would come to that Baltic Republic's defence?

If push comes to shove, yes.What does that mean?That means there would be a strong pressure on Trump, not least from US Congress, to act in that situation.But the mere question that you ask, the mere fact that you ask this question is enough for me to conclude just in case we in Europe should be able to handle such a situation ourselves.

So Pete Hexeth again, getting back to him, linked the review of American troops based in Europe to the fact that Europeans didn't do enough to help Donald Trump in his war against Iran that started on the 28th of February.

I think two strategic mistakes were made here first.Trump made the strategic mistake not to inform his allies before he launched the war, and then he expects the allies to help him out of the mess.But I also think the Europeans made a strategic mistake by declaring, this is not our war.We should have used this opportunity in a transactional way, in just the same way as Trump did.have done.We've got to get smarter at this.

Yes, yes.And tell Trump, OK, we didn't declare this war.You're creating a mess.But we will help you out of the mess, provided that you will take off the table the punitive tariffs against Europe, that you will stay engaged in Europe, that you will continue to support Ukraine.That would be a transactional manner of handling such a situation.Have we missed that opportunity?

Yes, I think so.But it is encouraging to see the statement from the G7 meeting in Evian, where Trump has agreed to continue support for Ukraine.I think President Trump has realised there is a link between Russia and Ukraine and Iran.And he's talking with Iran.He has seen how Putin has continued his support for Iran.So we missed the opportunity in the first round, but I think things might turn out to the better.

And is there any other way of seeing the Iran war that has now been put on ice with this memorandum of understanding that was signed yesterday.Is there any other way of seeing this than as a bit of a disaster for Donald Trump and for America?

Obviously, Donald Trump launched a war without having a clear plan how to get out of it.It's easy to declare war.It's much more difficult to get out of it.I think the only way to handle Iran is a negotiated solution.In the past, Trump refused.to accept that, but I think he will realise this is the only way forward.

Final question.You're in Britain.Our Defence Secretary John Healey resigned last week, as did the Armed Services Minister, over insufficient defence funding.So the government talked a big game on defence, on increasing its commitment.The numbers weren't there to match that.Your country has spent more than in terms of percentages of GDP on defence, Germany, France, many others.

Poland, of course, is a prime example.Is Britain still a viable and useful pillar in the defence of Europe in NATO?

I'm not going to interfere with British politics, but obviously, seen from abroad, it is a matter of concern if there is a defence spending gap.in one of the most important allies within NATO.It sends a dangerous signal.We have had other allies raising doubts about their commitment to the NATO decision to invest at least 5 % of GDP in defence.But if an important ally, if the UK, follow the same path, then it is a matter of concern.

So you are worried because the numbers aren't there and they may not be there for some time?

I am.I understand very well, as former prime minister of Denmark, that you have to focus on your budget, and you're not safe if you're broke.But on the other hand, any minister of finance in any country will also have to realize that if we fail to deter Putin,then the cost will be paid in lives.It's not on the bottom line.

And do you think, like some people do in defense circles in this country and elsewhere, that we could be in an open war with Russia as soon as 2030?

Yes.In particular, if he gets any success in Ukraine, he will be encouraged to continue.So this war has to be won in Ukraine right now?Exactly.It's an existential threat to the security of Europe.And this is also a reason why we have to look upon Ukraine not only as a country that needs our help, but also as a country and asset that can contribute to our security.

Which is an argument that they have been making since the 22nd of February 2022.

Yes, that's right.But now we have to live up to our obligation to help the Ukrainians push so strongly against the Russians that we change Putin's calculus and force him into peace negotiations.Anders Fogh Rasmussen, thank you very much indeed.Thank you for having me.