Frontline special - General Philip Breedlove
29:46 Share

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. We all have bad days and sometimes bad weeks and maybe even bad years. But the good news is we don't have to figure out life all alone. I'm comedian Chris Duffy, host of Ted's How to Be a Better Human podcast.

And our show is about the little ways that you can improve your life, actual practical tips that you can put into place that will make your day-to-day better. Whether it is setting boundaries at work or rethinking how you clean your house, each episode has conversations with experts who share tips on how to navigate life's ups and downs. Find how to be a better human wherever you're listening to this. Acast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. I'm Alex Dibble and I executive produce the podcast. The World in 10 is partnered with Frontline, the interview series from Times Radio, available on YouTube, with expert analysis of the world's conflicts. At the weekend, we bring you Frontline interviews in full. Here's one from this week. I hope you find it interesting.

Hello and welcome to Frontline for Times Radio. I'm James Hansen and today we're talking about the latest on the war in Ukraine and we're delighted to be joined by General Finip Breedlove, a highly decorated four-star general who served for 39 years. He was Commander of US European Command as well as Supreme Allied Commander Europe

of NATO Allied Command Operations, General Breedlove. It's always a pleasure. Welcome back to Frontline. It's good to be back. Now, first of all, we can't ignore the fact that we're recording this less than a week until Donald Trump's second inauguration as president. I suppose the million-dollar question at the moment is how the Trump administration will

will approach the war in Ukraine. A lot of people have seized on his previous comments that he can deliver some kind of peace agreement. He once famously said, in a day, I think most people agree that's not realistic. But do you think...

It is realistic that the Trump administration will be able to produce some kind of ceasefire agreement in its first few months. Well, I think we all hope so, as long as that ceasefire agreement is favorable to both parties.

If the ceasefire agreement amounts to a capitulation to Russian demands, then no one wants that. But if we can get to something that is equitable and sets Ukraine on a path into the future that is sustainable, yes, we all want that. And I just have to interject as well, you know, that...

In the business of international security affairs, we listen to some of the old dead guys and what they say, the Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Jomini. And they essentially say in their three different languages in different ways that the enemy gets a vote. And so no matter what we on the Western side of the equation intend or what the U.S. president intends,

Mr. Putin gets a vote, and so far he's been pretty adamant. We were told that he and President Trump talked some weeks ago, and President Trump told him not to accelerate or expand this war. Within the week after that conversation, Russia introduced North Korean troops into Kursk,

And Russia launched three of the largest missile and rocket attacks of the entire war, three nights in a row there. And so Mr. Putin has made it pretty clear that, that, uh, he, uh,

is in charge of Russia and no one else. And I think that he is going to be tough to deal with as this moves forward. I suppose that is one of the big questions. What will Putin demand? And is his current position just a negotiating tactic or will he be prepared to compromise? Because

Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev gave an interview to the Russian media only yesterday in which he said the Kremlin remains committed to achieving the original goals of its full-scale invasion, specifically dissolution of the current government of Ukraine, demilitarization of Ukraine and a permanent ban

ban on Ukraine ever joining NATO. Now, it seems to me that is a non-starter if you're Vladimir Zelensky. Do you think that is just a negotiating tactic or do you think Putin actually genuinely would be prepared to compromise on one of or all of those? Well, I think Mr. Putin must have read Mr. Trump's book.

If you read or have paid attention to The Art of the Deal in Chapter 6, Mr. Trump talks all the time about set an incredibly high bar at the beginning of any negotiation so that you can negotiate back from it and be seen as a good and faithful negotiator.

And that's a paraphrase that probably wouldn't wash for scholars, but for the casual reader, that's essentially what Mr. Trump says. Clearly, Mr. Putin is setting the bar at an impossible place now. He is setting the bar saying the only thing I will accept is complete capitulation, meeting all of my demands, and then we'll talk. And so that should not wash with the West.

I would also say, say that one of the arguments I've heard out there is that, well, maybe we should give Mr. Putin everything in order to get a cessation and hostilities. What most military commentators will tell you is Russia needs a cessation and hostilities worse than anybody. Their army is beaten up. Think about this. A portion of Russia has been, uh,

taken over by Ukraine and Russia can't dislodge them. They have to ask North Korea to come help them to clear Ukrainians out of sovereign Russian lands. That's how bad it is for Mr. Putin right now. Well, that's a really good point. And I wanted to put to you, General, that the argument that some people make

that actually now is not the time to hold peace talks, because let's say towards the end of 2025, the conditions for peace talks would be maybe much more favourable to Ukraine. Now, clearly, everyone wants this war to end as quickly as possible. You know, far too many lives have been lost on all sides.

But given the state of the Russian economy, given the Russian casualty rates, given, as you say, Ukraine occupied parts of Kursk Oblast and are making new offensive operations in the last week or so, maybe now is not the time to be having any peace negotiations. And Ukraine would be better served by having them towards the end of the year. Well, I understand all that reasoning. I get it. And there is some good thinking there, but also Ukraine.

is hurting for manpower. Maybe not as badly as Russia right now, but Ukraine is hurting for manpower. They're standing alone. Russia has multiple nations standing

Chechens, North Koreans, all of these people fighting for them. And they're still hurting for manpower. And so both sides are in a tough spot. So I don't want to disagree with what you suggested. But I'm just saying that there's two sides to this coin. And the same dynamic is hurting everybody.

And in fact, some of the international community are screaming for Ukraine to change who and at what age they bring people into their military in order to increase the size of the drawing base.

for their military. And for reasons we all understand, Mr. Zelensky is opposed to that. So yeah, this coin has got both two sides to it and they both are facing some of those problems. But I would tell you that we should not, we should not look at a cessation of hostilities as winning something from the Russians. The Russians desperately need

for this war to stop. Their military has been beaten up. They're worn out. They're thin at the leadership positions. They are still losing at a rate that is unthinkable to us in the West.

on this front line. And now the North Koreans are joining us in those horrendous, joining Russia in those horrendous losses. So there are dynamics here that have to be recognized. And I'm going to say it now for the third time, because I hope somebody actually understands what I'm saying. Capitulation to Russia to get a cessation and hostilities would be a enormous mistake.

Russia has to have concessions in any peace talks in the future. And in your view, General, what concessions that are realistic would you like to see from Russia? Well, Russia doesn't get to dictate the NATO aspirations of Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Ukraine will make its own decisions about aspirations for NATO.

This has been a pattern with Russia. They scream about NATO encroaching on Russia. May I just tell you, having sat in three years of the meetings about increasing the number from 28, NATO is not out there clawing to bring nations into NATO. In fact, most of the time nations get a big hand

And years, if not decades, go by before they can get in. The Baltic nations fought hard to get into NATO, and many opposed it for a long time. And the latest accessions, with the exception of Finland and Sweden, which were nearly immediate, the latest accessions of former Russian leaders

controlled nations, they were all screaming to get into NATO. And so this is a dynamic that the future will hold. But the point I want to make is,

There are lots of things that I do not believe the West should consider. And one of them is allowing Russia to control the sovereign decisions of Ukraine. So do you think, therefore, that something like a guarantee that Ukraine will

can either join NATO in the next few years or is on a path to membership of NATO, something around that is going to be a prerequisite of any agreement. May I just sort of rephrase what you said? Acknowledging a promise we've already made to Ukraine.

Hasn't the West already told Ukraine it will become a member of NATO? It has. It has. And I suppose you need to see some more concrete detail as to what is the timeframe for that happening. But you can understand from a Ukrainian perspective why they would be very rightly sceptical of that, because we've been here before. Everyone remembers the Budapest memorandum and we've seen security guarantees that have been made to Ukraine that the West has failed to

to meet. So Ukraine will need some detail on this. You just stole my next talking point. I mean, we have exactly been here before and I'm not being accusatory here. The US and UK do have a special relationship. The US and UK both

both have fallen down in their promises in the Budapest memorandum. I would say my nation more than the UK, but the fact of the matter is there were four signatories. The US and the UK were two of them. And we have always,

Let's be generous. We have underperformed in our assurances made in the Budapest memorandum. Something I have thought a lot about in recent weeks is whether part of Donald Trump's scepticism about military aid for Ukraine is linked to his general view that for too long, Europe has been freeloading off American largesse when it comes to defence spending. And he is right to say that.

that many NATO members have not been meeting their defence spending commitments. He gave a speech last week in which he said it should be 5% of GDP. I think that's unrealistic for most countries. But he's certainly right, they need to increase the amount they're spending on defence because Europe is most at risk from Russian expansionism. So if NATO members in Europe were prepared to make

bolder commitments around their own defense spending, do you think that might change the way Trump views American support for Ukraine? I think the easy answer is yes. And I think it is the answer. I think that President Trump now actually is happy about the fact that he stirred the pot so hard in his first administration that

NATO has come around in a large degree. We have made huge progress and that progress has accelerated as it became clear that President Trump could be the president again towards meeting the current set of goals. And so I think that, you know, Chapter 6, set the bar high, negotiate from the bar,

I think that Mr. Trump wants to see NATO do more. And it would be good if everybody used the same set of words. This is not about countries paying NATO. They don't pay NATO. It's Article III investing in their own military is what we're talking about. And so, yes, I think that a firmness

further renaissance about the need and the reasoning for European investment is very clear. And the good news is Mr. Putin is helping that every day with this illegal, immoral, insane war that he cranked up on his own volition. I think that that is helping NATO to see that

What's going on? How delicate a position do you think Vladimir Putin is in ahead of any potential peace talks? Because on the one hand, if he doesn't make enough concessions, we've heard from, for example, General Kellogg that the US may be prepared to ramp up military aid for Ukraine. And as you described, General, Russia, with its casualty rate and its supply issues, can't necessarily afford for this war to drag on much longer. So there's a risk there.

But equally, if he is seen to give in to too many demands from Ukraine and the West, is there not a political risk for him at home? He will be seen to have failed on his objectives, which he's been very clear about. So how delicate a position do you think he's in?

Well, the answer to about three of those questions is yes. And the final answer is he is in a delicate position because he has to come out of this showing something for the investments that he's made. And remember that the Russian people still don't know the casualty rates of Ukraine. Mothers are still being told their sons are coming home and they are not.

And so if you remember the moms in Moscow sort of approach during the last first part of this 10 year plus long war. If you remember that, he faced a lot of tough time and he's tried to engineer this war to first take men from the Far Eastern territories.

Parts of Russia, east of the Urals, and then in the rural, not urban areas of the western part of Russia, he's desperately trying to avoid those centers where when they start realizing the horrific losses of this war.

His problem will get harder. He needs a victory before that begins to hit because people are not going to accept what has actually happened and what Russia is covering up inside its own narrative inside its country. Do you think if this is still a hot war in six months time, it is inevitable that Putin will have to look again at mobilization? Uh,

A famous American philosopher called Yogi Berra said the problem about predictions are you have to know the future. I'm not going to go there. I think that his, let's just leave it at this. His problems are going to get worse and worse and worse.

And he's going to have to do something to raise more manpower. Currently, it looks like he's going to sort of, quote unquote, buy or pay for North Koreans to come over and fight his fight. And, you know, the leader in the north of Korea is he he likes to be able to to buy or sell and make money.

And so we'll see how that works out. But how long can Putin get away with just using North Korean troops to bolster his own forces? Because presumably that is a finite supply. How long can that last? Well, I think they've got a lot of forces.

And I think the big deal is how does Putin pay for it? There's a lot of speculation now. Is it cash? Is it barter for other things? Is it Russia providing missile technology to North Korea, which not only can pay for things, but exacerbates the West's problem in the Far East and all our allies there are

the problems of a capable missile force in North Korea, that's not something that will be helpful to all of us. In terms of framing an argument to President Trump about why continued support for Ukraine matters, do you think his advisers, those who are

very supportive of Ukraine, should focus on how it would embolden China were Putin to be seen to get a win out of the war in Ukraine. Because a lot of people say actually Donald Trump's primary foreign policy objective is to contain China. Do you think that's the language that would be more persuasive to him? I think there's a different language, but let me address that one first. I'm asked often,

When we start talking about policies around the world, you know, do we have a policy for Taiwan? Do we have a policy vis-a-vis North Korea and the armistice on the peninsula? Do we have a policy towards China? Do we have a policy towards Iran?

And I answer it all the same way. Most of these things, you can Google them and you can read the policy. One country, two systems, you know, blah, blah. We have all these policies that are out there.

But I tell people, what did your mother tell you when you were a young man or a young woman? Your mother would tell you, I'm sure, what mine told me. And that is, people are not going to care what you say. They're going to care what you do and watch what you do. So we have all these written and audible commitments around the world that are out there. You can Google it.

But all of those people, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, they are watching what the West and watching specifically what the United States is doing. Our China policy, our North Korea policy, our Iran policy are all

All being written every day in Ukraine. What the West's commitments are worth and what the United States' commitments are worth are being written every day in Ukraine.

So I think Mom's advice plays out even at the geostrategic level in a demonstrative way. And you said that there's a different language maybe that you might use to convince Trump of the need. I think it's clear that President Trump is very keen to get

We're economies better aligned in the world, certainly the United States economy. We are dependent on some people out there that because we are dependent on them, past administrations have been beholding to them and deterred by them.

And so we need to have more autonomy and we need to have more strength in the American economy. And I don't say that at the cost to, say, for instance, the UK or others. I think that the West needs to be more cognizant of how they deal with each other.

because they all have to deal with these other less cooperative economies. And I think that if we were to help

leaders in the next administration to understand what's important about the economical impact of a fallen Ukraine, a Ukraine that comes once again under the control of Russia and is raped and pillaged and poorly managed and et cetera, et cetera, like the current Ukraine.

uh, um, economy of Russia. Um, this is, this would be bad for Western, uh, trade and economy, and it would be bad for U S trade and economy. I think as, uh, the Trump team better understands that this is more than a squabble about who's paying what for what in, in Europe.

I think that that's a way to approach the Trump administration because he is keen to get economics in a better position in this world.

And I think he understands what Marty Dempsey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs once said when he was asked, what is the greatest enemy to our U.S. military force? Marty Dempsey said very smartly, he said the U.S. deficit is the number one enemy to the U.S. military force. And so I think that that.

An administration, a Trump administration that understands how these economies are linked to the strength of a nation and how we have to get after that. I think that's a way to start a good conversation with the upcoming administration. And of course, there is so much discussion at the moment about potential peace talks.

It's easy to forget the fact that this is still very much a live war and we may be several months away from any peace talks happening. So in that meantime, what more would you like to see Ukraine's Western allies doing to support Ukraine? I'm a broken record. You could probably look at your last show and you'll remember these words. We need to give Ukraine the ability to increase the cost on Russia in this war.

And the first thing I would recommend is a change of Western policy whereby Ukraine can use Western weapons to strike into Russia. Russia now enjoys this huge place of safety all around Ukraine because we in the West are

To a large degree, there are fractures in the policy now, but to a large degree, we do not allow Ukraine to fire into Russia. We allow Russia to fire into Ukraine hundreds of times every week, sometimes 70, 80 times a night. We allow Russia to fire in and fire in and fire in from all points along the globe using kit from Iran, China, everybody else.

There's no restrictions on Russia. Have at it. Pound Ukraine. But we don't allow Ukraine to return fire. And that policy has to change. And why do you think it is, General, that Western leaders still have not

done that. I hear the hesitation they have about escalation, but Putin's threats of escalation have been proved to be a bluff, have they not? I mean, we now have a situation where Ukraine has literally invaded part of Russia and we have not had some ridiculous retaliation from Putin. So surely that's been shown to be a complete bluff. Well, I couldn't agree with your line of thought more. I would just interject to say that

that we in the West to this point have been completely deterred by Russia. I'm not sure if you've ever heard the term reflexive control. It's something that you should do a little research on and then let's have a whole new conversation.

But Russia's propaganda, Russia's war of words is the most successful weapon and campaign that Russia has had with the West because we are deterred. In large, Western leaders do not have the moral courage nor the intellectual capability to consider a defeated Russia. They just won't go there.

Because they are worried about what you just talked about. And so they are deterred. The reflexive control campaign of Russia is working magnificent for them in its ability to limit Western response. Where they are allowed to do anything, the horrendous things we've seen in Bucha, the horrendous things we've seen in Mariupol, all of these things.

Just horrid things that Russia does in this war. We just move on from it and like, wait a minute, we're not, you know, we can't go there because we're afraid of this war escalating. And so we have to get past that.

We have to get past the frozen response based on Russian reflexive control. And I mentioned what's been happening in Kursk, not just since August, but even in the last week or so, Ukraine ramping up offensive operations there. Do you think they're right to do that? And do you see that as part of them laying the groundwork ahead of potential peace talks? It was a huge decision. Some people would call it a gamble. I don't call it that.

that the offensive in Donbass was continuing apace, and rather than throwing more force at that, Ukraine mounted an attack into Kursk. I happen to believe that it was a masterstroke. It will absolutely change the dynamic of any peace talks coming up.

And I think that's why Mr. Putin is throwing everything, including the trash can and the kitchen sink at Kursk to try to rectify that before any peace talks. So that's just my opinion. I, you know, I'm just another person with an opinion. I think that this, this gambit, this approach will affect future negotiations.

And I think that who you believe, I don't know who you believe. But people I am reading now that are not the people who are tied to political positions, but just analysts of the war, they are saying that the Russian offensive in Donbass is nearly ground to a halt. Lots of reporting along those lines. And so if that's the case and that comes to a halt,

and Ukraine is still sitting in Kursk, then it appears that this was a masterful decision by Ukraine. And just finally, General, are you an optimist for what 2025 will mean for Ukraine? No, I'm a realist. And I think that there's a lot of hard times to come yet before this all plays out. And I fear the most that people at the negotiating table

set conditions that will leave a crippled Ukraine in their path. I said it before, a cessation of hostilities is not a win for the West. Russia desperately needs a cessation in hostilities. And we need to go into these negotiations wide-eyed about what Russia must give up

If we ask Ukraine to give up land, Russia has to give up land. These negotiations need to be done from a position of Western and Ukraine strength so that the results at the table reflect both sides contributing to the future peace, not Russia.

capitulation by one side. General Breedlove, we always appreciate your insights and your expertise. Thank you so much for joining us once again on Frontline. Thank you. ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. We all have bad days and sometimes bad weeks and maybe even bad years. But the good news is we don't have to figure out life all alone. I'm comedian Chris Duffy, host of Ted's How to Be a Better Human podcast.

And our show is about the little ways that you can improve your life, actual practical tips that you can put into place that will make your day-to-day better. Whether it is setting boundaries at work or rethinking how you clean your house, each episode has conversations with experts who share tips on how to navigate life's ups and downs. Find How to Be a Better Human wherever you're listening to this. ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. ACAST.com.