Trump risks "better, stronger Russia" with Ukraine deal
09:51 Share

ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

Hello. Welcome to We Signed an NDA. Our podcast where we talk about the people who sign NDAs. Hollywood is the North Pole and the celebrities are Santa. This is a show all about the elves. So please don't sue us, Santa. My name is Amanda Lippard. If my voice sounds at all familiar, it's probably from the Vile Files podcast. And my name is Anne Maddox. You may have seen me on Vanderpump Rules getting fired on National

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. Today with me, Alex Dibble and Toby Gillis. Donald Trump's threat to Russia. You'll be in deep trouble if you don't make a deal. On day two of his presidency is, in some quarters at least, being seen as a tacit promise to arm Ukraine to the teeth if Vladimir Putin doesn't come to the table.

That may or may not be the case, but concerns are now being raised about the long-term future if a deal is to be made. While it would end the war for now, one top British general has warned that a period of peace would allow Russia to build back better and stronger for another attack in a few years' time. Larissa Brown, The Times' defence editor, is our guest today. Larissa, what are the specific concerns of Lieutenant General Mike Elvis?

Well, he was talking at the International Armoured Vehicle Conference in Farnborough yesterday, which I was attending. And he basically was making the point that if this deal does go ahead, then it's going to give Russia time to rebuild and reconstitute its forces again.

He was also suggesting that also, you know, we will have to think about obviously doing the same thing and therefore indicating that we've all got to be in this arms race and prepare for the next conflict. So actually any peace deal with Russia will amount to us just all facing another war in a few years time when everyone's managed to build up their forces.

Larissa, did you get the sense that he means Russia would come back for more of Ukraine or is it a wider attack on the West that the general is anticipating? Well, look, he didn't go into it. But I mean, anyone that you sort of speak to in these military circles fear that Eastern Europe could be a target next.

And obviously, if he's able to rebuild his forces and he's got the manpower available, then he could try and take Ukraine, take all of the territory and then move on into NATO territory. And that's obviously everybody's big concern here. Even if he does go into Ukraine and we've got potential training troops there or other

or something similar, then that could also trigger a wider war that would involve countries such as the UK, and potentially US. So I think he was trying to suggest really, that there's a lot at stake here. And also indicating that Putin can't be trusted to agree to a fair deal, because

if he does agree to anything, it's only going to be what serves his national interest. And he has made very clear that he is intent on taking Ukraine and there's nothing to suggest that he's going to give up anytime soon. Without knowing the makeup of any deal, is this a realistic fear? I mean, couldn't the US effectively be a signatory and a guarantor in any deal?

in a way that would ensure Russia does not come back and is then cowed from doing so by America's might.

They could, in theory, obviously put NATO troops inside Ukraine and say, well, you know, Russia, if you come back for more, then actually we've got all our NATO forces prepared to defend Ukraine. You know, you saw in 2022 in the build-up when Russia were building up all those forces on Ukraine's border at the point that NATO believed that they were actually going to go in

Everyone left, including British training troops.

So Putin could probably guess that that might happen again. Would it actually provide Ukraine with that many assurances or would they just run away if Putin tried to come back? I think some people would be quite sceptical also about trying to prevent Russia from building up its military arsenal inside Russia, because how are they going to be able to monitor necessarily what China and North Korea and Iran might be sending them?

And so I think there's a lot of doubts about what deal can be made. But obviously, one would hope that the Ukrainians would have some sort of assurances, because otherwise, why would they agree to it? Larissa, if this rebuild were allowed to occur, another senior military man, the commander of NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, has said he believes Russia would be a whole lot better next time around. That's a quote.

What do you think he means by that? Well, he was basically saying that obviously in 2022, Russia didn't manage to fulfil its war aims and everyone saw what it was doing and its military tactics. And they were pretty shocked at how...

how terrible they were really. I think before that, everyone had been quite frightened of the prospect of the Russian armed forces heading into Ukraine, but actually they were surprised by how the troops weren't working together at

the senior leadership, command and control units, and generally how they conducted warfare. Whereas a point he was making was that now they've obviously had several years fighting against Ukraine and its Western weaponry, and they've adapted to

And over time, they're going to be able to adapt and modernize even more. And so actually, if it comes to a point in a few years time when we end up face to face with with Moscow, well, actually, they're going to be perhaps ahead of ahead of what we originally thought because of all the time they've had to practice, practice fighting on the front lines.

Do you think Donald Trump is aware of the risks of doing a deal? I mean, he's told Russia they will be in serious trouble if they don't agree to one. But there will be some saying the short term gain of ending the war in Ukraine would be would be ego boosting for Trump and that that is actually his main goal here.

They were pretty interesting comments. And we've been told as a newspaper that he wants to win this Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Ukraine specifically.

And so he's obviously been speaking to people in the last few weeks that have made him realise that he's not going to get a deal done in 24 hours, that actually within the first 100 days, that's probably more likely. And then he's using all this sort of bombastic rhetoric to try and tell Putin, look, you know, you're going to have to come to the table whether you like it or not.

And if you don't, then we're going to give Ukraine everything we possibly can to help them to win. Now, that could actually work out in Ukraine's favour, potentially, if Putin didn't agree to a deal and he gave way more money to the Ukrainians and more weaponry that the Ukrainians have been asking for and actually gave them enough to win, because that's been the concern at the moment from the Ukrainian side, is that Europeans and the US have been helping them, but they've not been giving them

enough equipment, enough money for them actually to be able to push Russia out. And also that would probably be quite a view that would be favoured in Europe, because when I speak to British military chiefs and European military officers, the point that they make is that Ukraine has got to be doing well on the battlefield. They've got to go in with a good hand if they're going to go into negotiations.

And countries like the UK are really keen to make sure that they are winning on the battlefield and therefore force Putin into making some sort of deal or concessions that favour the UK more than him.

Finally, Larissa, in the background to all this is the demands from Trump, but also as of today from the new EU defence chief, Kaya Callas, for more defence spending by NATO members. Nice easy one for a defence editor here, I guess. To properly make the West safe, is it actually possible to know the levels of cash needed?

I mean, it's pretty hard to say exactly what everyone should be spending. I mean, we're obviously, you know, we've been told by the government that they're going to be increasing our defence spending to 2.5% from 2.3%. And it's unclear when that's going to happen. It might not even be happen by 2030. In fact, it probably won't. And yet you hear from Donald Trump that we should all be spending 3%.

And also we've heard that actually the US president would prefer us to all be spending 5%. Now, again, where we're going to find that money, I just can't imagine because we hear stories every single day about the billions of pounds that the government needs to fix certain things such as hospitals and schools.

And so I don't think there's the appetite for it here at the moment. And of course, this would all change if actually we entered into a hot conflict. If we were at war with Russia, then the mindset of people would change here. And you see in countries like Eastern Europe over there, the public are much more behind defence spending because they can see the realities of what they could face in the future.

So I think generally, you know, everyone in Europe agrees that more needs to be spent. But I think a lot of governments don't think that they have the budget for any monumental increase to their defence spending. Larissa Brown, the Times' defence editor, thank you very much for joining us. And thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of the Times. We'll see you tomorrow. ACAS powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

Hi, I'm Pace Case. And I'm Bachelor Clues. We host Game of Roses, the world's best reality TV podcast. We're covering every show in reality TV at the highest level possible. We analyze The Bachelor, Love is Blind, Perfect Match, Vanderpump, and anything else you find yourself watching with wine and popcorn.

We break down errors, highlight plays, MVPs, and all the competitive elements that make reality TV a sport. And we interview superstar players like Bachelorette Caitlin Bristow and Big Brother champion Taylor Hale. If you want to know so much about reality TV, you can turn any casual conversation into a PhD-level dissertation. You definitely want to check out Game of Roses. ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. ACAST.com.