'Trump is enthralled by Putin' & farewell Elon Musk
47:24 Share

The Telegraph.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to. It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America.

and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

Trump is enthralled by Putin and as a result becomes enthralled to him. He's just captivated by the guy. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end. The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip. We'll own it. Know that China is doing very poorly right now. I just saw some reports coming out and I don't want that to happen to China. You're gambling with World War III. I was saved by God to make America great again.

I'm Venetia Rainey and this is Battlelines, Trump Edition. It's Friday, 30th of May, 2025. On today's episode, we'll be getting the inside scoop from Russia expert and former Trump advisor Fiona Hill on how Vladimir Putin negotiates and why the Ukraine war won't be ending anytime soon. We'll also take a trip to Poland to hear how it's rearmed at a record rate and look at Trump's involvement in this weekend's crucial presidential election runoff.

But first, after just a few months, we have to say bye-bye to Elon Musk. From endorsing Trump last summer and giving away millions of dollars to encourage people to vote, to heading up Doge and wielding a chainsaw on stage, it's been one hell of a ride for the Tesla and SpaceX billionaire.

Musk's role was always supposed to be temporary, and there have been rumours that he was leaving for a while. But he's been increasingly vocal in his criticism of Trump's policies over the last month or so. And his resignation comes a day after he told CBS News that Trump's big and beautiful budget bill would undermine the Department for Government Efficiency, or DOJ. It appears to be the end of their headline-grabbing political friendship. Let's hear some highlights. We have a new star. A star is born. He lands.

Elon Musk! I'm not just MAGA, I'm dark gothic MAGA. Every day from now until the election, we're giving out a million dollar prize and all you have to do is sign a petition in support of the constitution. There are elections that come and go. This one really mattered. And I just want to say thank you. My heart goes out to you. And we're going to be signing a very important deal today. It's Doge.

This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy. Chainsaw! Do we love him? I love him. At this point, I spent a lot of time with the president and not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or wrong. I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it can be both.

Now, is Trump losing his patience with Putin? Over the last week, Trump has accused the Russian leader of going absolutely crazy and playing with fire by launching ever more intense attacks on Ukraine. Trump famously said he could end the conflict in 24 hours. He hasn't, of course. And on Thursday, in a press conference in the Oval Office, Trump appeared to give Putin two weeks to come to the negotiating table.

We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently. But it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks. We have Mr. Witkoff is here. He's doing a phenomenal job. He's a

dealing with them very strongly right now. They seem to want to do something, but until the document is signed, I can't tell you. Nobody can. I can say this. I can say this, that I'm very disappointed at what happened a couple of nights now where people were killed.

There are very few people in the world who've been in the same room as both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. There are even fewer people who understand both leaders, speak their languages and know their history and culture. Fiona Hill is one of those people.

Born in Durham, here in the UK, she studied Russian at St Andrews University and Harvard before joining the US State Department and eventually becoming an intelligence advisor on Russia and Europe to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Under Trump's first term, Fiona was his deputy assistant and the senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019. She went on to testify against Trump in the 2019 impeachment inquiries.

Fiona is also the author of the bestselling memoir, There Is Nothing For You Here, which I highly recommend reading. She's recently been co-leading Britain's Strategic Defence Review, which is due out any day and will be covering in the coming weeks. Fiona spoke to my colleague Cameron Henderson about how Putin negotiates, what Trump doesn't get about Russia, and why he can't end the Ukraine war, despite genuinely wanting to.

Here's their conversation. I wonder, how would you rank Trump's performance based on what we know from his call with Putin last week, or this week on Monday? Let's give him a pass for effort. Now I'm going to sound like a teacher meeting with a parent teacher with such a section of you where you don't want to be too rude to the parents. But basically, President Trump genuinely wants to find an end to the war, right? But he just doesn't know how to go about it. He believes genuinely that Putin wants a deal. Of course, Putin

wants a deal absolutely 100% Putin wants a deal he wants his deal what Trump wants is a ceasefire that he can tick off on a box secures a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia now I move on because he wants to reset the US-Russian relationship and

He wants to do all kinds of deals with Putin on an economic level, but he also wants to make a big nuclear deal, getting back to this whole concern to the 1980s. He's still obsessed with the risks of nuclear exchange from that whole Cold War period. He wants to sit down, have a new strategic arms reduction treaty. He always talks about this all the time. And of course, all kinds of deals that would interest him and the people around him are not really going to be relevant for the U.S.,

economy. But for Russia, this would be an important signal that Russia is no longer a prized state and anybody can do business with Russia, but it's not the US. And maybe it's not Europe, but nobody else is going to get sanctioned with secondary sanctions for doing business for Russia. I mean, with Russia, that's a big deal for the Russians. All of this looks like a great incentive for the Russians to basically play along with Trump. But the only problem is that Putin doesn't want to ceasefire.

Yeah. So, I mean, it's another thing. So basically what Chuck is doing is almost answering the wrong exam question. I mean, I can't really think of any other analogy. So as we went down this line here, maybe these analogies were always ever very good, but it's kind of you're asking me to rank him and grace him. And it really does feel like, you know, the very embarrassing thing.

parent-teacher meeting, like I said, because to give Trump credit, he talks about this all the time. It's senseless. It's a bloodbath. Absolutely 1,000% right. The Ukrainians would absolutely agree totally senseless. There was no reason to be inverted apart from Vladimir Putin's fever dreams about restoring the lands of the Russian Empire. And the bloodbath is all on Putin.

The Russians are not defending anything. The Ukrainians are defending themselves. So, of course, anything that they're incurring in times of cost is because of their survival. It's existential for them and for Putin. He has been squandering human life, both in Ukraine but in Russia, on a colossal scale. This is the largest, as we know, military operation on European territory since World War II. The Russians are approaching the 1 million casualty mark, not because of people killed,

But in terms of people grievously wounded and injured enough to be taken off the battlefield at the same time, Putin has every intention of going on here. So he's willing to play that price. The question for Putin is, is Ukraine going to capitulate? And is he going to basically be accepting Ukraine's surrender? Yeah.

And, you know, I said Trump wants a ceasefire. The Ukrainians want a just peace that leaves them secure. And even if they have to give up territory de facto for, you know, the near and foreseeable term, they want 100% guarantees of their security, not these kind of mealy-mouthed guarantees that they got in the Budapest memorandum back in 1994 that, you know, we assure you that we will make sure you're okay if you're ever attacked as a result of giving up your nuclear weapons. And, of course, they've learned from that

exercise that we can't be trusted unless we've got ironclad security guarantees. And Putin, of course, wants a neutralized Ukraine, a neutered Ukraine, not one that is able to withstand the military pressure. Everybody sees this, apart from Trump.

And so, as I said, it's almost like he's answering the wrong question, the exam question, how to get a ceasefire. There's been so many discussions about ceasefires that never held. This is what Zelensky tried to tell him in the Oval Office hundreds of times that ceasefires are violated elsewhere. But that's what Trump wants. And

Now he's losing interest because it looks like that's not coming. And we saw the same thing with Gaza and Israel. He's kind of walked on, including from Israel, frankly, and from being quite as engaged with Netanyahu. In those meetings we've had, not just the...

the direct Trump and Putin meeting, but also those talks that we've seen, Witkoff engaging with the Russians. Can you give us any insight into Putin's negotiating team and the sort of tactics they're using? Well, yeah, this is the same negotiating team they've always been there and have always been using. Putin's been in place for 25 years.

he's kept a pretty tight team around him and you know he rolled out to Istanbul where you see the same general set of people he rolled out to the last Istanbul talks people like Ushakov Lavrov I mean they've all been in place for an extraordinarily long time they can basically talk as kind of the old expression goes the hind leg of a donkey I mean they could

Just, you know, turn you around in circles. They've got an answer for everything. They know all the legal ins and outs. They know the root causes, you know, in inverted commas, which they keep putting down to Trump and his team of the conflict from their perspective, the root causes that Ukraine wants to be extended. It has been independent for the last 30 plus years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And they don't believe that any country in Eastern Europe has the right to do anything kind of on its own if it was formerly within the Soviet bloc or within the Russian bloc.

And especially in countries like Ukraine or Belarus or Moldova or Kazakhstan that were so intricately twined in history with their perception of the core of Russian land since the 17th and 18th centuries. And again, I mean, these girls are really skilled diplomats. They speak absolutely excellent English. Putin also speaks English. I've been reading the near fights on the U.S. side for dinner.

And the thing is, and that's what's tragic because there's not, you know, just a small kind of group around Trump who could be helpful there. There are still people in the US government, not everybody has leapt or been kicked out, you know, who could help them. I mean, I'm sure that they're using an interpreter, you know, for some of the things, so they have to. But they're not getting the context

interpreted for them. I mean, Witkoff is going out and basically, you know, dealing with this like a real estate deal because, again, Trump thinks it's just about real estate. It's kind of a, it's all about territory and who devolves what and who gets what, be it, you know, minerals, you know, raw oils. It's all about trade and trade space. Actually, if you even think about Russian history, which, you know,

Probably he's never, I mean, certainly in my experience, I wasn't really particularly interested. He's only interested in his story, his history, him and how he interacts with people. And he says openly, it's all about him and his charismatic personality. And everyone around him says, absolutely, it's all about him and his charismatic personality. But, you know, the Russians were themselves, the Muscovites, the bag men for the Mongols. I mean, they were the people who went around and got tribute and strong-armed everybody into giving things up.

That's how they survived and prospered when the Mongols came in. And then, you know, they kind of moved on to keep on doing that. And so for Putin, it's also a deal. It's not real estate, similar, but it's really about the price and the cost for any territory that they want to conquer. And, you know, Trump's still thinking in terms of Gaza Rivieras or, you know, kind of lovely, you know, deals. Whitcourt's probably thinking about condos in Moscow, you know, in kind of the same way. And they think that it's, you know, really tough being in Queens,

or, you know, kind of in New York. Yeah, it's tough, but it's not as tough as it is trying to do something in Russia, you know, where people have propensities to fall out of, you know, kind of strangely poorly sealed and easily opened windows in high buildings that you wouldn't be allowed with code in New York to have.

You know, there's a lot going on in the Russian context that they're not factoring in. And now Trump's starting to say that now. He's saying it has to be direct between Russia and Ukraine because only they know the details of this negotiation. And it's like, yeah, but when you're going to mediate, I mean, getting back to our ranking here, you usually figure out

what the parties both want. And with Trump, it's all about what leverage does he have? Because really, this negotiation is all about him and him getting something that he wants. It's not about Russia and Ukraine. It's him inserting himself into this particular conflict

I mean, the United States obviously has had a role in this and it had become a proxy war against the United States on the part of certainly Russia. But, you know, China, North Korea and Iran have come into this as well. Trump is now negating all that, saying nothing to do with us, not our war. And what he wants more than anything else is...

is, you know, basically to remain host to Putin, politically and personally and, you know, all the rest of it. So that's what we see. And the fact that the Europeans are so shocked by his deference to Putin actually shows that they haven't also done their homework and really understand the nature of this hyper-personalized relationship between Trump and Putin. There's nothing shocking there. It's kind of basically...

Trump is enthralled by Putin and as a result becomes enthralled to him. He's just captivated by the guy. Do you basically see any possibility other than the US walking away at this point? There are all kinds of other possibilities, but it means that people have to work really hard. I mean, I'm pointing that out.

because this is the most likely scenario. Absent Trump being persuaded, which is what all of the European dental officers are really trying very hard. I mean, the UK has been playing a leading role in this. You'd still want the United States to be providing Ukraine with

with the means to help defend itself. I mean, Ukraine has done an awful lot in the last three plus years to do that. And the UK and many other European countries have been instrumental in that. But I mean, at this point, I think the Ukraine movement

I'm going to bring in another metaphor here because I think it actually also illustrates the point that I'm trying to make. I mean, Ukraine needs to basically just put up a really robust defense of itself and we have to help it do that to deny Putin the ability to move any further. So we need the US to still be

enabling and selling weapons to Europe and to Ukraine for this, and helping share some of the intelligence to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against drone attacks and the other missile attacks that they're experiencing. You mentioned previously that Putin has weaknesses.

And I wonder what they are and how the US, how Trump should try to exploit them, if you were being sensible. I don't think Trump is going to exploit them, but the Russian economy isn't doing great. And everyone that you talk to in the economic field or investors and others have the view that Trump is just basically helping Putin in ways that he just didn't absolutely have to. I mean, the Russian economy is pretty resilient for all variety of reasons.

But, you know, our prices are going down and the budget is something about, you know, $60 a barrel. It's, you know, very much now a militarized war economy, you know, which makes it very difficult to pivot to something else. They're still getting technology and, you know, kind of it's a pretty porous sections of the regime because they get stuff in from China and Turkey and Armenia and India, you know, for sure, and all kinds of other countries that are sort of

you know, kind of doing something about this. But look, if the US pulled a force and Europe was left there, Europe would be able to stick to the Chinese, the Indians and Iranians and everything. But you can't

You want to be, you want to fight with us now, not with the United States. You've kind of declared war on Europe. Is that what you meant? Right. It certainly isn't what they meant. And that would be some real significant leverage. China has no desire to have a rupture with Europe. In fact, China was hoping to exploit the rupture between the United States and Europe without realizing that Ukraine is actually a pretty critical issue for most European countries. Right.

I think there's all kinds of different ways of thinking about this. And I mean, obviously, if the United States wanted to, and Trump often talks about this, energy and going after the shadow fleet and all kinds of ways of hitting Russia's vulnerabilities on energy, which is mostly an oil sector now, making sure that Europe never gets and totally wins itself away from Russian gas, which is

And, you know, so much for keeping it in Norway. And, I mean, the U.S. with LNG are the number one providers for Europe now. And just making that very clear that, you know, that's not going to be, you know, an option for the Russians. And then trying to work on the countries that continue to supply Russia. But, again, Europe could do this. But it would be better to do it in coordination with the United States because, obviously, in the banking and financial sector, that's where the U.S. has the most weight. Mm-hmm.

Absolutely. And now, you know, what Trump is doing is making it look like, you know, the Russian economy is going to be open for business again very quickly if anybody wants to do, you know, kind of trading and financial, you know, sector trading. And you see the markets, you know, react to that. But there's a lot of prospects of major manufacturing industry going back into Russia. Yeah. And also, you know, it's very hard to imagine how the –

economy would be demilitarized and you know you're already seeing signs of you know building back up along all the other borders with NATO companies Trump's obviously floating this prospect of you know all sorts of deals with with Russia if it um complies with it with his uh with his plans um

We've heard some sort of sources talking about this idea of a carrot and hammer approach being adopted by the U.S. I wonder if that is something you're familiar with for a start. And if so, why are we seeing so much of the carrot, which is offering concessions, as opposed to the hammer, which would be, you know, sanctions on energy, for example? I was saying before, there's all kinds of things that can be done to increase the squeeze, but it's unlikely that Trump's going to do that. Yeah. Now, Hong Kong has done it already.

but it's all down to Trump. And, you know, kind of one of my colleagues, Angela Stent, who's done a lot of work on, you know, obviously the long part, you know, attempts to kind of forge some kind of different relationship across all the various presidencies and with Russia. You know, she's got this book called Limits of Partnership, which traces the whole kind of trajectory of

you know, relationships since the Soviet, under the Soviet Union all the way through. You know, there's a quip that, you know, kind of, you know, if you offer the Russians a carrot, they just eat it or they take it and hit you over the head with it. You know, so it's kind of like this whole idea of creating a bunch of incentives for the Russians. They're just, they're just, just take it. I mean, that's totally irrelevant. Trump is completely, again, misreading, not understanding at all,

you know, understanding Putin and the way that he thinks. They ontarise the circle around Putin, have enriched themselves so much by availing themselves of all the goodies that the state can provide. What is it that Trump can give them that they don't already have? And he can't say, you know, the regime or, you know, ensure that, you know, Putin won't get into trouble if he, you know, kind of demilitarises, you know, we've already had the progorsion effect. He could do nothing for Putin.

Yeah. Apart from give him a massive victory and hand over Ukraine to them. Yeah. So, I mean, there's always things that everybody wants to do to deal with the U.S. and with...

And Putin does want to do various deals with the US, but not over Ukraine, unless Ukraine is going to be surrendered it. Like, you know, Yalta and, you know, kind of the end of World War II. You've mentioned a few stories in the past about your various dinners where Putin was attending. I think you've spoken about being able to tell he wasn't wearing contact lenses and a time when he strategically placed you next to him in order to keep the focus on him directly.

I wonder, is there any sort of recollection you have of your meetings with him where you got an insight into his character that feels very pertinent to the current moment or what we're seeing at the moment happening in negotiations over Ukraine? Look, he does his homework. It's as simple as that. You know, if you were ranking Putin, he's very well prepared. I mean, first of all, he's been at this for 25 years and he knows the context in and out.

you're dealing with, you know, kind of a sort of self-willed individual. He wasn't, you know, kind of propelled forward by his father's money or, you know, kind of his family making and paving the way for him or entourage is paving the way for him until he got to the Kremlin. I mean, he's somebody who is forged in the KGB, self-created, and somebody who's really done his homework, building the context in which he operates and, you know, on the person that he's interacting with.

Now, again, he has a limited worldview. Well, you need to understand that worldview. And it's a pretty hard one. Trump and him have a similar worldview in terms of spheres of influence, Mike makes right. There are only being a few powerful countries and powerful individuals. Mm-hmm.

And, you know, as a result of that, Putin doesn't really understand the dynamics in other countries. I don't think he understands Europe very well. He thinks he does, you know, because of his time in East Germany, but that's East German. And, you know, he doesn't really just, you know, because he's extraordinarily cynical in the same way that Trump is. But the other thing is that he's incredibly ruthless and cruel. Yeah.

You know, Trump isn't thus. I mean, Trump's ruthless, but he's not, you know, cruel in that he is cruel in different ways, but he's not willing to preside over the mass slaughter of thousands and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of energy of human beings. That's just not Trump. And that's Putin.

He has a chagrin disregard for human life. Apart from his own, I would imagine, but anyway. Is there an anecdote, perhaps, from any engagements you had with Putin? Something that you recall from seeing him directly? Well, it's more of the way that he talks about things. So in all of those settings of meetings, like the Valdai group, when he just talks about things in very callous, dismissive terms. Mm-hmm.

The other thing is also that he does believe in basically honing in on the top person, kind of manipulating them and maneuvering them and saying the things that they want to hear and testing what he can really do to push their buttons. I've mentioned a number of times before that he's always kind of looking for a way to kind of go with Trump into saying something that he can use later. I mean, he thinks he has Trump mentality.

where he wants him. But at the other same time, I think there's a great deal of, uh, trepidation there still because Trump is unpredictable. I can't give Putin what he wants. So he has to be managed. You can give him a lot of things that he wants, but you can't give him what he wants, which is, you know, kind of a resounding victory over Ukraine and, you know, kind of putting Russia in an unassailable position in, uh, Europe and globally. And, you know, him as well. You obviously worked with Trump very closely, uh,

on Russia policy during that first term. In terms of carrying out, wielding his foreign policy, how has it changed since then? I mean, the thing is, you don't, nobody works really that closely with Trump, apart from his absolute inner circle, the Steve Millers and other people who are like his courtiers and, you know, everybody else is just trying to basically get some advice towards him.

Do you feel he's more insulated perhaps now than he was before? Or do you think it's very much the same that even though he had more prominent advisors around him who were sort of, you know, at least experienced in those roles, he would still just dismiss their advice? Yeah, the way that he's changed is obviously he just thinks and, you know, is pretty confident he doesn't need any advice from all the other people. So there's all the people at the State Department, you know, I mean, I'm sure they're advising Rubio, you know, who looks like he's done his homework often, you know, when he shows up for meetings and things, you know, it's tried, you know, and whatever.

Rubio shows up, you know, many of my European counterparts and, you know, U.S. and others said they have really good conversations with them, you know, at the kind of working level and around people like Keith Kellogg and others as well, because there's still some people there. But that's not what, you know, or who Trump is listening to. And I think that he's just convinced now he can, you know, do whatever he wants personally.

you know before he was you know a little bit sort of you know deferential here and there to you know various people but now he's pretty convinced that he just doesn't have to pay attention to anything and look if you were him and you know you thought in the way that he did i mean it would be logical because he has i mean he's been an unbelievably resilient politician he has um you know kind of come back to the presidency and you know kind of a rather historic way of being

So he had once before where someone was out and was then back in again. And everybody tells him that he's the greatest gift to humanity and to the United States, the most unique person in American history. And I mean, all these things that the sycophants and courtiers and everybody else around him says, even people who don't like him have to admit that

He's an extraordinary character in US and world history. And when people keep telling you that, you think you're infallible. He has no doubt about himself right now. And perhaps what's changed is he's become deepened in his thinking about himself and his abilities. Yeah. And it sounds very hubristic, if I might add. It is hubristic. And his powers of persuasion are really very... It's all about maximal...

you know, kind of application of force, you know, but it's really financial. You know, I mean, you notice he doesn't nuclear cyber-afford Trump. He doesn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So all these people who say, you know, well, he could start a nuclear war, well, he wouldn't do it intentionally. I mean, he talks about them, you know, in a sort of shock and awe about the power of them. I mean, he believes that the US needs them for defense, but...

He's not going around there, you know, threatening, you know, as Putin does, wild invasions. And interestingly, this is actually one thing that, you know, I don't mention that often, you know, perhaps I should a bit more. You know, there have been occasions where Trump has been a bit taken aback by some of the things that Putin has done, not just in terms of the bloodshed and just the mass slaughter of people, which seems so pointless to Trump because, you know, it doesn't quite...

obviously ministers, you know, who would do that kind of thing. But it's also that he, when Khrushchev first announced that the Russians had developed hypersonic missiles, which of course most people knew they had, but they did this big splashy, you know, reveal, you know, basically of the missiles. And it was during one of the national addresses that Putin was making to the, you know, kind of basically the Senate or the, you know, the

you know, the kind of Russian parliament or, you know, kind of a palace or something like that. I can't remember the exact assembly. It was one of the big Russian assemblies, manual address.

And he has a huge scream behind him as he's speaking. And he's talking about these missiles. And they look like they're kind of, you know, coming in. He does a sort of simulation of a missile strike. It looks striking like Florida. And Trump, you know, picks this up. It could have been Kamchatka. It could have been some other peninsula. But it doesn't look like it. It looks a lot like Florida. And Trump afterwards actually said, and I was there, and, you know, witnesses said, this is kind of, what? Why did he do that? Real countries don't have to do that.

So even their Trump thought, this is kind of what the soldiers of the North Koreans do, which is go look for my big weapons and all I can do with them. If you're a real superpower and you're a real tough guy, in trouble sphere, you don't have to do that. So though he threatens all kinds of things all the time, but the whole thing with the UK missiles, he didn't get it. Yeah.

And what does that tell us about how he approaches Putin? That kind of, you know, but what it tells us, one thing is that, you know, he realised from over that Putin might not be all that, that there might be something going on with Putin. But it also tells him an awful lot about the reason that he is deferential towards Putin is because he really is worried about kind of the risk of nuclear, a nuclear exchange. That was Fiona Hill speaking to my colleague Cameron Henderson, and we'll link to his full interview in the show notes. It's a great story, so do go have a read.

Coming up after the break, we take a trip to Poland to find out why Trump is backing one of the candidates and what that means for their chances.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to. It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America.

and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.

Welcome back.

One of the things that Donald Trump has been remarkably consistent about, like it or not, is that Europe should be spending more on its own defence. He's repeatedly pushed for European NATO members to up their contributions. He wants 5% instead of the current 2% of GDP.

And earlier this week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutter told the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that he will be pushing for exactly that. We need more resources, forces and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat and to implement our collective defence plans in full. Most allies, if not all, are due to reach the initial aim of spending 2% of GDP on defence this year.

And many have already announced plans to go much further. We know that the 2% pledge agreed way back in 2014 just doesn't cut it anymore. So in 2025, we are finalising a plan to dramatically increase defence spending across the Alliance. That will involve a huge shift in defence spending and sacrifices to other forms of spending.

The only country anywhere near that 5% target is Poland, which is currently in the middle of a highly divisive presidential election. Our Berlin correspondent James Rothwell is there at the moment reporting on all of that. Welcome to Battlelines, James. Where in Poland are you right now? I am in Warsaw, Venetia. And what have you been up to this morning? Well, I've been out reporting on the Polish presidential elections. I've been speaking to voters this week to try and get a sense of whether they're going to be choosing Poland

the centrist civic platform candidate, Rafal Tchaikovsky, or whether they're going to opt for the more Trumpy, right-wing, Eurosceptic candidate of Karol Nowrocki. And it's going to be a very close election race and it's all very exciting. We'll get into all of that in a second. But first, I've got to know, did you have anything delicious for breakfast?

Actually, I did have a breakfast this morning, but I did not have a traditional Polish breakfast. I've obviously been having pierogi and I've been having sort of the sort of delightful...

I think this is a traditional Polish breakfast. It seems to be on the menu everywhere. It's sort of scrambled eggs with some nice sort of sourdough bread, but it's all very hipstery over here, actually. I mean, and I make that point because I'm also working on a sort of state of the nation piece about Poland, which is kind of what some would say is a kind of economic miracle. EU membership has turned Warsaw into this massively bustling, successful, wealthy, cosmopolitan place. So if you want to get a breakfast in Poland,

In Warsaw at the moment, you can, of course, have your traditional Polish breakfast if you like. But, you know, this is very much a city of trendy hipster cafes and so on. And I succumbed to the call, the siren call of the hipster cafe this morning. And that's why I had French toast and not something more Polishly patriotic.

French toast, a perfect European breakfast to launch us into this conversation. So earlier this week, Mark Rutter, the NATO Secretary General announced that he's going to push for a 5% of GDP defence spending target to be adopted at the NATO summit in June. Poland is the only country that's even close to meeting that.

How have they got there? Poland considers security and defence spending to be an absolutely crucial part of its destiny in Europe, basically. We're talking about a country which shares a long border with Ukraine. We're talking about a country which...

threw off the shackles of communism, is extremely hostile towards Putinist-style governance. And I've been in Poland this week reporting on the Polish presidential elections, and it's clear to me that there is pretty universal support, I would say, not just for military support of Ukraine, but also making sure that

Poland is capable of defending itself. And that, I would say, is probably the key difference that sets Poland apart from a country like, say, Germany. It's geographically very close to the heat of the conflict with Ukraine. It took in, of course, an enormous amount of Ukrainian refugees. It recognises and has

basically first-hand experience, it would say, of the threat that Putin poses to Europe. And so the desire to spend more on defence, and I think we're looking at about 4.5% of GDP on defence spending at the moment in Poland, very high compared to other NATO allies. It's coming from within Poland, I would say, rather than, as you might say, with other countries like Germany, sort of bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which, as you know, for many

many years in Trump administration, one was very keen on NATO countries spending more on defence. And what sort of things is that extra spending and defence buying? We know things take a long time for the money to actually come through. What does that actually look like in Poland on the ground? It's being spent on military hardware. So fighter jets, tanks,

It's sourcing a lot of its military equipment from the United States and from South Korea. It's basically building an army that would be capable of defending itself in the event of a potential invasion. If you think geographically about Poland,

We're talking about a country that's not just on the border with Ukraine, but it's right next to Germany, which is an absolutely crucial transit zone, as they say, for other Western NATO military equipment to be rapidly supplied to the frontline. In theory, Poland itself could become a frontline country if there were to be, hypothetically, an attack by Putin from Ukraine into Poland, for example. So again, I'm drawing a lot of comparisons with Germany, but hopefully it will become clear later.

why I'm doing that. It's very different from Germany. If you look at the way that Germany is trying to ramp up defense spending, a lot of its 5% defense target, I think about 1.5% of it is on infrastructure projects. It's trying to fix the crumbling roads and the railways and all the rest of it.

Poland, based on the sort of equipment that I've been doing some research on, is much more invested in trying to build up military capabilities. So as I said earlier, it's tanks, it's fighter jets, it's building up its army. Is any of that going to be produced indigilously? Are they trying to ramp up their military industrial complex as well?

So a lot of the big projects like fighter jets and things, those are coming from America and South Korea. The other angle to this is that Germany has released its debt limits on major defense spending projects, which means that G20s

German defense industry countries like Rheinmetall will have a lot to offer Poland as well and inevitably there will be an element of trying to home grow Polish defense measures as well if you like but I think it's probably fair to say that you know Poland considers itself to be deeply embedded in NATO and in an integral part of NATO it considers that alliance to be very strong so I

I haven't actually detected this week in Poland that many concerns about, for example, the risks of not buying Polish when it comes to defense. This is a country that is, even though there's obviously a lot of tensions between the Trump administration and European NATO countries at the moment, it's still, I think, really quite a pro-American country. Even

Even though there may be a debate about things like the kill switch, which I think has been covered on this podcast before, the idea that American produced military hardware might have a capability of like remotely shutting it down. If you look at the spending of Poland, it doesn't seem overly worried about.

about that. But of course, like any country, there is an element of, as I said, homegrown defence tech that they want to foster and nurture as well. And talking of homegrown defence, Poland earlier this year in March announced that it was going to ask all military age men to undergo training. Was that controversial? It was a little bit controversial. But again, Poland is a country that feels it's

virtually on the front line of this conflict with Ukraine. I think we could contrast this, for example, once again with Germany, a country where conscription has been discussed. The German government, Boris Pistorius, the defence minister, has actually hinted that conscription may have to come back, replacing this new scheme that they're trying to bring in, which is a sort of halfway house between conscription and voluntary service. In Poland, I think there was an understanding, there was a recognition that they need to have conscription

uh this sort of powerful army and there is a lot of consensus behind the idea that russia poses a potentially existential threat to europe so i haven't picked up on sort of massive amounts of controversy about that the only thing i would say is that you know and this applies to all countries frankly but um you know there's there is perhaps a difference between saying that you'd be happy to serve in the army and carry a gun and actually having to report the service at the barracks um so that might be an element of this as well

Let's move on to the election. That's what you're in Poland to report on. We had the first round of elections back on 18th of May, and there were two front runners, and we're going to have the runoff this weekend. Can you talk us through who those two people are and what they stand for? Yes. So the Polish presidential election is basically a clash between two candidates who are offering really quite different views on Poland's destiny. If you take

support for Ukraine out of the equation. On support for Ukraine, everybody thinks that the Ukrainians need to be supported, that there should be military support. The tension, the debate, the questions tend to circle more about identity and also the extent to which Poland backs up its own national interests at the same time as defending Ukraine.

Ditto on Europe. The two candidates who are now the because we're in a runoff now. So it's just down to two candidates in this election ahead of Sunday are a sort of Trump esque conservative candidate. He's backed by law and justice, which used to run the government here. He's called Carol Novotsky. And he is quite Eurosceptic, but he's not in favor of polexit. He's not in favor of polexit.

a move that the Polish Eurosceptics would kind of consider throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So Eurosceptic, but doesn't want to leave the EU. And then on the other side, we've got Rafał Tchaikovsky, who is backed by the centrist Civic Platform and Donald Tusk, the

Polish Prime Minister. Now he's got a much more kind of Europhilic view of this. He's someone who very much believes that there can be common European solutions to European problems. He's pro-Brussels. He's obviously a supporter of Donald Tusk because that's part of his civic platform movement. But he's not a candidate, I think it's fair to say, who makes political capital out of bashing Brussels in the same way that Noworodzki does. And so there's been a lot of discussion about Euroscepticism

in this election, about concerns about over-centralisation of Brussels. Some of it mirrors or has resonance of the Brexit debate in the UK some years ago. But ultimately, all of this is underpinned by a belief that being in the European Union is really important for Poland economically and diplomatically. That tension between the two candidates is how you deal with Europe.

So, for example, the criticism of the civic platform centrist candidates from the other side is that they're too weak. I spoke to voters who said that Donald Tusk is basically told what to do by other leaders in Brussels. And then conversely, on the other side of the arguments, Novrotsky is considered to be so Eurosceptic and perhaps a bit too close to Trump ideologically in some areas that

that he would sort of undermine European unity, that he would make it more difficult for Europe to cooperate on big picture issues, whether that might be the economy or a sort of common defence policy. So that is definitely a big factor in this election.

But there's another one which I think is really mobilizing young voters, and that's social issues. The Civic Platform government led by Donald Tusk is in favor of reform on civil partnerships for gay people, and it's a favor of liberalization of abortion as well. And that's something that obviously resonates with quite a lot of young people in Poland. If you go to the other side of the equation, if you look at the conservative candidate, Nowrocki,

He is a social conservative, is not in favor of those sorts of reforms at all. And the key point is that if he were to be elected as the right-wing president of Poland, he would have power to veto a lot of that key legislation on social issues. So even though this is a presidential election, not a parliamentary election, an election that's electing a sort of ceremonial leader of Poland,

The ability to veto key legislation does mean that the presidential candidates in Poland stand to have quite a bit more power, more so than, and I'm going to use this example once again, more so than Germany, where it really is a kind of almost purely ceremonial role. And so that's why it's gotten quite interesting. You mentioned Poland.

Navarotsky's links with Trump. We had Kristi Noem, the secretary for Homeland Security, openly endorsing Navarotsky earlier this week and said that his opponent was a train wreck. We do not have time to dance around the dangers that threaten our society. Let's hear a clip of that. I just had the opportunity to meet with Carol. And listen, he needs to be the next president of Poland. Do you understand me? It matters who's in charge.

I have watched over the years as socialists and people that are just like this mayor out of Warsaw, that is an absolute train wreck of a leader, have destroyed our countries because they have led by fear. They have used fear to control people and they've used fear to promote an agenda.

that is not what liberty is about. And earlier this month, Trump met with Nawrowski in the Oval Office and reportedly told the Polish candidate, "You will win."

James, what do Polish people make of Trump and his intervention? The relationship between Poland and Trump is quite interesting. Back when law and justice governed Poland a couple of years ago, around the sort of Brexit negotiations period, the relationship between the Trump administration and Poland was just unbelievably cosy. And there was a view that Trump really reflected

for the Polish Eurosceptics in particular, their idea of what Europe is supposed to be, a Europe of sovereign nations, a Europe that, yes, cooperated economically but wasn't being kind of sucked into federalism or ever closer union or that kind of creeping centralization that gets Eurosceptics in general very agitated. That is not to say that the Polish Eurosceptics like Nowrocki just want to sort of

allow a kind of Trumpist economic view to take over Europe. I mean, inevitably, they want to back up their own sort of national economic interests and to some extent Europe's economic interests as well. So it's not a kind of sort of 100 percent a loving. But in terms of questions of identity and the kind of country that Poland should be and the kind of the kind of values that Europe should stand for, I think there's a lot of common ground there.

And you mentioned this sort of this moment of endorsement, basically, for the conservatives in this presidential election. And I think this is just part of a really fascinating trend in European elections at the moment. I mean, what we're actually seeing at the moment, if you look to examples like Portugal and Romania and Germany,

particularly Germany, which had a very big federal election in February. Being a Trump-esque or Trumpy candidate doesn't necessarily win you elections. The AFD, far right alternative for Germany party, was

the recipient of full-throated support from the Trump administration. We're talking about a party, you know, which had the backing of Elon Musk, the tech billionaire. He was turning up at political rallies on Zoom and saying, vote for AFD to save Germany. And it didn't work. You know, yes, the AFD did very, very strongly in that election. They came second place, but the Trump administration wanted them to win. And you can see similar examples in Romania and Portugal where

where sort of right wing populist, slightly Trumpy candidates haven't managed to cling on to victory. So the really interesting question is whether that endorsement for Novrotsky will help him or hurt him in this in this presidential election race. And it's just very, very difficult at the moment to see which way it's going to go. The polls are suggesting that it's going to be incredibly close. I think it's gonna be very tense on Sunday.

night. I do not think based on the precedence of the first round that we're going to see, we might see a clear winner, but I think it's unlikely we'll see a clear winner in the exit poll. So the results could change overnight, could get a different result when you wake up on Monday morning from what's being reported on Sunday evening based on the exit poll. And so it's going to be very, very close. And so it's a big question, like I said earlier, of what kind of

Even though the government's not changing, even though Donald Tusk remains as prime minister, it is posing a question about which direction Poland is looking in. Does it want to continue on the Tusk path of being very, very Europhile, very pro-Brussels, very pro-European cooperation?

Or does it want to adopt a slightly more kind of rambunctious Eurosceptic approach to being in the European Union where it's picking fights with Brussels? And that's, I think, going to be a really interesting kind of fork in the road moment on Sunday evening. Great. Thank you so much for joining us on Battlelines. James Rothwell, our Berlin correspondent in Poland. That's all for today's episode of Battlelines. We'll be back again on Monday. Until then, goodbye.

Battlelines is an original podcast from The Telegraph created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Venetia Rainey and Roland Oliphant. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Battlelines on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, leave a review as it really helps others find the show.

To stay on top of all of our news, subscribe to The Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatches newsletter or listen to our sister podcast, Ukraine The Latest. You can get in touch directly by emailing battlelines at telegraph.co.uk or contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show notes. The producer is Peter Shevlin. The executive producer is Louisa Wells.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to.

It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.

This is Ronnie Mervis. We are thrilled to announce the grand opening of our remodeled Tyson store. Just wait until you experience the exciting new Mervis look. To celebrate, I'm inviting you to any of our Mervis diamond stores for a glass of champagne and to view the extraordinary diamonds, designer engagement rings, wedding bands, and fashion jewelry.

This is an opportunity to acquire world-famous Mervis diamonds before the tariffs increase and to get fabulous jewelry at historic gold prices. We are honoring the old prices for a short while and even offering Mervis gifts of up to 40% off on aged inventory. That's up to 40%. You'll never see this again. Don't hesitate. This is your chance to get the jewelry you've always craved at prices which will not be repeated. The Mervis grand opening sale is on now for a limited time at all stores. If you snooze, you lose. ♪

Financing is available. Mervis means more diamonds, much better quality and the most value. Mervis Diamond Importers. Go to MervisDiamond.com or call 800-HER-LOVE.