248. Will Putin be able to flatter Trump?
49:19 Share

Welcome to Nadiada. Next on Metro's Nadiada Island podcast. I almost fainted when the four new bombshells arrived. Four free Samsung Galaxy A16 5G phones at Metro. No way. And finding out the fourth line is free. Things got heated. That's wild. Join Metro and get four free Samsung 5G phones. Only at Metro. Plus tax. Bring four numbers and an ID and sign up for any Metro Flex plan. Not available currently at T-Mobile or Vimeo. Metro in the past 180 days.

Hello and welcome to Battleground Ukraine with me, Patrick Bishop, and Saul David. The future of the Ukraine war, it would seem now, lies in the hands of just two people, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Their calculations about how they play their respective hands as maneuvering begins to bring an end to the war will ultimately decide the fate of not just Ukraine, it will also reshape fundamentally the landscape of European security.

Well, personal chemistry obviously is going to play a large part in this drama. And given the massive egos, massive but also fragile, it must be said, of those involved, anything could happen. That, I suppose, makes speculation rather futile. But nonetheless, there are enough known knowns for us to feel confident that we can make a few safe-ish predictions about the likely Russian strategy, wouldn't you say, Sawad?

Yeah, I'd love to think so, Patrick. I'm not sure that is the case. But the first noises coming from Moscow suggest that Putin thinks he might be able to play Trump by flattering him. Admittedly, not a bad opening move. And he's chosen an interesting way of doing it. That

That is, by endorsing Trump's unshakable conviction that he is the victim of a historic injustice when, in his mind, the 2020 election was stolen from him by Democrat skullduggery. This is what Putin said. I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided.

So the message is Trump is a well statesman who would have sorted out Ukraine if it hadn't been robbed of victory. Now, this is soft soaping of the most blatant, obvious kind, isn't it, Patrick? Designed to create a special bond with Trump that will enable Putin to strike a deal with him over Zelensky's head.

The question is, will the Donald go for it? Yeah, the charm offensive has been going on for quite a while now, of course. The Russian president's been cooing at Trump since back in the summer after that assassination attempt in July. Putin said that Trump had proved himself, quote, courageous and manly.

And he always gives a sort of very long end of year press conference to the Moscow media. And at his last one, he said that Trump was a really brilliant and talented person beyond doubt. Well, we'd like to think that this brown nosing doesn't work, but who knows? I mean, Trump's got a proven soft spot, hasn't he, for dictators and a very weird way also of measuring success. So

Think about his relationship with Kim Jong-un. He said, he liked me, I liked him, we get on very well. And the fact that Kim is demonstrably

I think to most people, mine's a nutcase, a murderous psychopath. And he presides over a poverty-stricken mess of a state, but that doesn't seem to bother Trump. Then in a rather more considerable figure, Xi Jinping, who's actually, you know, we're the America's number one adversary at the moment. He says, I consider him a friend. He's a strong guy, a tough guy, so a strange mixture of hostility and violence.

and respect. Well, Putin actually knows quite well. He's met him five times in total down the years, and he has seemed to have been genuinely impressed by him. Unlike, we've got to remember, Volodymyr Zelensky, who he used to take a very dim view of, but we'll come on to that later. But talking of Putin in the past, Trump has called him very savvy. He's called him a genius. He's

But however, this time, it seems that Trump has so far at least proved quite resistant to the Putin blarney, hasn't he, Saul? Yeah, it does seem that way, doesn't it? When Trump was asked about Putin shortly after his inauguration on Monday, Trump said he was not doing so well, suggesting the war was, and I quote, not making him look very good and that he was destroying Russia.

Then there was the threat of sanctions on his truth social account, which we mentioned in the last episode, that if Russia didn't show serious intent to negotiate, then he would, and again I quote, have no other choice but to put high levels of taxes, tariffs and sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States and various other participating countries.

And on the subject, Mark Gagliotti, the Russian expert, wrote a very good analysis of the relationship in The Times, which comes to the same conclusion that we have, that there is a very real likelihood here that Putin will overplay his hand. His flattery is half sincere, the respect of one strong man for another, but also part of the mind gaming he habitually employs in his relationship with the rest of the world.

What he may not grasp is that Trump has staked a great deal on getting a swiftish result in Ukraine. However, that will require concessions from Moscow that Putin may not be able to afford politically to make.

He will then have to stall and prevaricate a course of action that will not go down well in the Oval Office. Once Trump starts to feel he's being jerked around, relations could sour very quickly. And then, of course, there's the Zelensky factor, isn't there? It seems that he's managed to overcome Trump's initial aversion to him.

You know, he's a very charming man, Zelensky, isn't he, and what he wants to be. And he's been doing his own fair share of hosing down the new president with lots of syrupy compliments designed to reinforce Trump's own self-image as a strong man who will bestride the world as a colossus. One of these compliments is that he said that Trump is the only man that Putin loves.

truly fears. That's just the kind of thing I think to stroke the Trumpian ego. Plus there's been a huge kind of diplomatic offensive going on. Ukrainian officials have been working night and day for some time to win the new White House over and is having some success it would seem. For example, Pete Exeth who's now going to be the defense secretary when he was being grilled in the Senate in his confirmation hearing

He said straight out, we know who the aggressor is. We know who the good guy is in the Ukrainian conflict. Well, that's good to hear, isn't it? However, this being the Trump administration, the messages coming out are very mixed and often contradictory. I'm thinking of the freeze announced by the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, on all American overseas aid projects, including the huge programs that the USAID is

That's the one that oversees the whole kind of American aid program, including the money they currently pour into Ukraine. USAID provides or has been providing over 2.6 billion in humanitarian aid, 5 billion in development assistance and aid.

$30 billion in direct budgeting support, i.e. just, you know, cash they can draw on since the start of the full-scale invasion. Now, this is a temporary freeze, it said, while a root and branch audit of America's overseas aid engagement is carried out. And Zelensky himself has said that it doesn't affect military aid. But, you know, the question is, is this just a sort of

shock and all policy blitzing that seems to be the hallmark of Trump world and Ukraine has just unfortunately got caught in the general blast or is there something more going on here Saul? Well we don't know yet Patrick and of course it's not good news that any aid is being even temporarily stopped for Ukraine but at the same time the other indicators going on from your comment about Zelensky saying

this freeze won't affect military aid. Well, that does seem to be the case. I mean, for example, Reuters reported yesterday that the United States transferred 90 Patriot air defense interceptors from Israel to Poland. So those are obviously the missiles. That's probably a single battery of various units. But it does look like they've been sent from Israel, which needs them less, of course, now that things have

have wound down a little bit with the peace in Gaza and also the situation in Syria. And they're sending them instead to Ukraine. Now, this is obviously something that's being authorized by the current administration. We have seen the reports, but have nothing to provide at this time, a Pentagon spokesman said in response to the report in Axios. So,

It does look like they're continuing with their support. You mentioned Hegseth comments. I think that's pretty important. But I'd also like to add some from Rubio, Marco Rubio. The thing to remember about Rubio is that he was a former political opponent of Trump's, but he certainly seems to have come on side now, hence his appointment as Secretary of State.

But the key to him is he understands foreign affairs. He was on the Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee for many years. He's up to speed on foreign affairs. And in my view, he's going to be a force for good in advising Trump on what is vital to America's interests.

Now, the day after he was confirmed as the new U.S. Secretary of State last week, he gave an indication of the position he's going to take on ending Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He said, we are going to engage in making it, that is the war, end in a way that is sustainable, meaning we won't just want the conflict to end and then restart in two, three or four years down the road.

we want to bring stability and in a rare display of bipartisan consensus Rubio was confirmed just hours after Trump was sworn in for a second term in the White House last week so you know he went on to say it is a stalemate in this war that was started by Russia but it is now a stalemate a protracted bloody conflict so like hence said he's saying all the right things and I think slowly but surely there's going to be an indication or there will be more indications

that Trump is getting this, in my view. Other positive signs from Rubio came in his meeting, this was just yesterday, with European Union foreign policy chief Kaya Khalas. And she's generally seen as a hawk on all of this. They discussed the Ukraine war, Iran and China in their first phone call since the Trump administration took office on the 20th of January.

And basically, as Kala said on our social media platform X, we discuss global issues where the EU and US have the same interests, including Russia's war in Ukraine, Iran's malign influence and challenges.

posed by China. So as we've been saying, Patrick, all of these things need to be seen in the round. It may be that Rubio is getting this, and we hope that Trump will too. Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Because it will be, you know, what is in his mind on the day when he opens talks with Putin. But all this makes me think back to 80 years ago. I can't help making comparisons with the world we live in now,

where it seems that momentous questions of world historical importance are settled in this sort of personal way, leader to leader, highly personal engagements. And this is very much, I won't say it always exactly, but it's, you know, you would think that the process would become more sophisticated, but it seems to become much more sort of primal in a way. Of course, 80 years ago was the

Yalta conference, which was held at Stalin's insistence, it has to be said, in the Crimean Black Sea resort of Yalta, which the Germans had only just recently vacated and, of course, was in a pretty rough state. And the purpose of the meeting, of course, was to order post-war Europe to

It was a really fascinating event, and the reason I'm mentioning it now is that it's actually the subject of this week's Battleground 45 episode with Giles Milton, who's written a brilliant book on the subject. Well, it starts off actually analysing the conference, not just in the kind of

diplomatic sense, but just all the wonderful theatre, very symbolic theatre that was involved in it. Now, personal chemistry was involved there, particularly between Roosevelt and Stalin, but it was a hugely serious performance conducted by three giants of the age with enormous experience of how the world works between them. And I think that the end of the Ukraine war could have

as much significance for Europe as Yalta did. But you do get a sense, don't you, Saul, a little bit that Trump doesn't quite grasp what an opportunity there is here to put the world on a better footing.

And, you know, they always talk of a deal. Everything is a deal in his mind. And I'm sure he understands it's an important deal. But does he understand what actually is at stake here? We'll find out. Yeah, we will. And that's where, as I've just said, people like Rubio, Hegseth and Kellogg, who, of course, is going to be the special envoy to Ukraine. And we are expecting him to be moving to Ukraine in the not too distant future. That's where they'll all meet.

come into play. Meanwhile, on the battlefield, some interesting developments, more successful long-range strikes by the Ukrainians against power supplies, oil facilities, and supply depots. I mean, they're knocking out things left, right, and center, including a second strike on the Ryazan oil

refinery, which was on fire for a considerable period of time. That refinery is one of the four largest in Russia and produces fuel for military equipment, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products for tanks, aircrafts, and ships. So it's hugely important in the Russian inventory. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Russian forces have made more advances in various locations, including Toretsk, Chasiv Yar, Kurokov,

and Velkia Novosilka, which is in the western Donetsk oblast. And yet at the same time, Ukrainian forces have recaptured positions in Turetsk and in a couple of other locations. So there's a bit of back and forth going on there. Still, for sure, the Russians are nibbling away at Ukrainian positions, Patrick.

So, you know, it's more of the same. And it'll be interesting to see how quickly the Trump effect has on Russia's willingness to keep pushing forward in the battlefield because they seem pretty determined to do so. Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any slackening of the tempo, does there, on the Russian side? There's some kind of gesture of goodwill. You'd imagine they might have just scaled things down a bit. But as you say, it's still a massive...

slogging match. But a few little intriguing developments I spotted, you no doubt saw this, saw North Korean soldiers appear to have been temporarily at least withdrawn from one of the axes on the front, on the Russian front inside Kursk oblast. It appears that this is a result of them suffering significant losses. So they have been pulled back

the time being other reports that other Korean units have been sent off for further training. I mean, we've been hearing lots of stuff about how communications are terrible, the language barrier. There's obviously a sort of disconnect between the way Koreans do things and the Russians do things. And so all in all, this has not been thus far anything more really than a sort of publicity stunt, has it? In my eyes, the military value of the North Korean troops seems to be

pretty limited. And it's all about demonstrating this new global order that Putin is trying to construct with what we would regard as the pariah states of North Korea and Iran, with China, of course, very much looming behind all that. But I don't think it's particularly significant, but it's nonetheless a negative, isn't it, ultimately, for Russia that issues you with a fanfare when the Koreans turned up

And they seem to be more of a liability than an asset. Yeah, I mean, but nevertheless, 11,000 troops is not an insignificant number, Patrick. They have taken heavy casualties, but the Russians, you know, no more than the normal method of fighting for the Russians. And there are also reports that more North Korean soldiers are on the way and they're sending more heavy artillery systems too. So, you know, they're not exactly pulling back on all of this. And, you know, as I said weeks ago when we first reported that the North Koreans were

we're heading for the battlefield. This is not a good look for Russia with the looming Trump presidency, which now, of course, is actually in position because it does allow Trump and others, certainly Rubio, to join the dots and say, hold on a second, we've got North Korea

We've got China in the background. We've got Russia. You know, this is a problem. And all these different potential areas of conflict are joined. So I think the North Korean deployment was a mistake from the word go. And the Russians clearly haven't learned their lessons if these reports that more on their way is about to happen. Yeah. The diplomatic aspect of this is very old, isn't it? Or hard to explain.

Something else which we'll talk about a bit later on in answer to one of our listeners' questions is this new deal that has just been struck between Iran and Iran.

Russia promising eternal friendship, military cooperation, energy cooperation, etc. Now, we all know that Trump's one real commitment, foreign policy commitment, is to Israel, who is Israel's sworn enemy, Tehran, Iran. So why is Putin going out of his way to advertise this connection, this bond, you know, full of flowery language of friendship and all the rest of it, with a nation which most people

civilized countries regard as a sort of barbarous entity. Again, it seems to be just sort of sticking two fingers up at the incoming administration. Well, that's it for this half. Do join us in part two when armed with all the new information, all the new impressions we've formed on our trip to Ukraine, which we've just returned from, we'll be informing our answers to all your questions.

Welcome back. Well, the first question is from Ben in the UK, and he asks, apropos our recent trip, one thing I've been curious about is the difference in the way in which Ukrainians view the war depending on their geographical location within Ukraine. Since you guys moved from west to east, were there more people in the east calling for peace given their proximity to the fighting?

Well, it's a very good question, actually, Patrick, isn't it? I mean, just to be specific, we started off in the south, Odessa, then we went east to Kharkiv. We'll come on to this comment in a while, but we've been brought to task on our pronunciation, or probably I have, Patrick. I know you're much better at it.

these things than me. But we went to Kharkiv and then of course we moved west to Kiev and finally on to Lviv. So we were in the four main cities of Ukraine and it did give us a chance to speak to local people and get a kind of sense of what was going on. But

I don't think you can specifically say because people are in the east, they're closer to Russia, they're more desperate for peace. They've had more missiles landing on them. In some ways, you get the opposite effect, don't you, Patrick? I mean, they were pretty stoical in Kharkiv. I have to say, we were out having dinner one evening and of course, the air raid sirens are going off all the time and people do not seem coward in any sense, in some senses. And certainly, if you listen to Joe Lindsley, who we spoke to on the podcast, I think it came out last

Monday, you very much get a sense that, you know, Kharkiv, they are absolutely determined to see this through. And they do feel their proximity to Russia. And that emboldens them in some senses not to go for, you know, a peace that's not in Ukraine's interest. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. So, I mean, we were all impressed by the kind of pride they took in their defiance. And that was particularly noticeable in Kharkiv.

It's not just the listeners. It's also friends of mine who know that part of the world. So you guys have got to try harder on the khaki. So we're going to give it the full welly when it comes to this particular pronunciation. So, yeah, I mean, do you remember we turned to that first morning we arrived there? We went off to have lunch and there were families. It was a very nice restaurant.

kind of Ukrainian traditional food right in the middle of town. And there were families there. Sirens were going off. No one took a blind bit of notice. Now, what I would say is that, I mean, everyone, we didn't find anyone that didn't say they didn't want peace. Everyone wants peace. But it's a question of how badly. And we didn't hear anyone calling for peace at any price and begging Zelensky to stop the war, did we? Perhaps surprising or perhaps unsurprisingly, the most robustly

opposed the idea of peace any vice, where the soldiers, I suppose, having made the sacrifice, they want to get something for it. That achieves some of Ukraine's goals, notably the reduction in the threat from Russia. And this territorial issue doesn't seem to be

so much at the forefront of their minds. I think the impression I got was that people are prepared to cede territory temporarily as long as sovereignty is not given away. So, yeah, peace, but peace with some degree of plausible security, some genuine guarantees that if Russia does resume its offensive, people in the West will come to its aid in a meaningful way. But also keeping the question of the territorial question open. So,

who knows who will be in power in Moscow in five years' time. Then the process of regaining that territory, either through diplomatic or ultimately perhaps by military means, is still an option. Yeah, that's right. And we should flag up at this point, Patrick, some remarkable interviews we did. We haven't had time to put them out. They're still being edited. But we spoke to these extraordinary characters, the Khartia Brigade. We've mentioned that before on the podcast because Asgol Kruzelnitsky, a good friend of the podcast,

who appeared, of course, last week, initially made contact with them. And they're very much doing things in a way that's different to the normal Soviet way. It's a fascinating interview as to how they launched their attacks, but also on what they're thinking about the future. Apropos your comments just now, Patrick, yes, they want security guarantees, but they don't entirely trust the Russians with very good reason. And they feel it's absolutely vital that you beef up the Ukrainian military and

preferably with support from NATO, eventually in NATO, to give them the best chance of long-term security. Well, kind of a related question here from Mark saying, thank you for a great podcast. I found Julius's description of Transnistria fascinating. This, of course, was

a pod that's already gone out, which was Julius Strauss and his partner, Kim Rezek, went down to Tunisia, which, of course, is the breakaway region on the eastern side of the very small state of Moldova, which is Russian-controlled. Definitely worth going back and having a listen to that. Well, Mark's question is, why?

What were the opinions of Ukrainians towards Donald Trump? Did they hope or were they resigned to the fact that he may withdraw US support? Well, I think Ukrainians' reactions are pretty much the same as ours, aren't they, Saul? He's a bewildering character, as we've just said. His position shifts here, there and everywhere. So I think he says one encouraging thing one minute and a discouraging one the next. So I think they've, like us, they've given up trying to

second guess him and are awaiting actions not worse. They are, but at the same time, Patrick, as Joe Lindsley was pointing out to us a couple of months ago when, of course, Trump first won re-election, there was a kind of sense of under Biden things were drifting, it was a slow death, and at least there would be

movement one way or another. And we very much got that sense when we were there. And of course, they didn't know what was going to happen next. And yes, they were concerned, but almost better to have the war moving to some kind of conclusion than this slow death, as I say, that they felt that they were enduring under Biden. So cautious optimism.

I would say from some people, not from everyone, but cautious optimism. Okay, we've got a question from Tom Martin in Ontario, Canada. Followed you to the outskirts of Kharkiv. Wonderful reporting. Hope the rest of the trip went well. Well, he obviously heard our piece last week in which we'd first arrived in Kharkiv. We went to the north of the city, very cold, pretty brutal architecture. You could see a lot of the damage from the initial Russian invasion in 2022. You know, fascinating insight into we were just...

15 miles, I think at that point, Patrick, maybe 20 miles from the Russian border, and even closer to the Russian front lines. So it did feel that we weren't quite in the front lines, but we weren't a million miles off. And it was interesting seeing the, you know, the determination of the Kharkiv residents to keep living their lives. Anyway, Tom goes on to say, don't know if you saw Diane Francis on the BBC, link below. Actually, I think it was a Times Radio interview, wasn't it?

Patrick, but nevertheless, everything she says sounds pretty good to me. Do you agree or disagree with her on the following points? And I listened to this interview and she makes a lot of points, Patrick. And the first one is stop the shadow fleet with a naval blockade in Baltic and elsewhere. That, of course, is the Russian shadow fleet that's been allowing them to sell their

oil, get tough on India, China and Turkey for sucking up dirty Russian oil and looking the other way, get the EU to wake up and start making a bigger commitment to the war effort. What of all that dirty money she talks about in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and London? And Putin cannot be belittled. He will never stop. Either Putin is removed or the war will go on. Well, I agree with all of that, apart from the last point, actually, that

Patrick, and I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Putin cannot be bullied. I'm not so sure about that. I think the one thing you can do with a bully is bully him because they understand the application of force. So it may be that Trump is able to bully people. A lot of people say no. A lot of people agree with Dianne Francis that he'll never stop. And I'm not so sure. Patrick, what's your feeling?

Yeah, just to go back to Dan Francis, she speaks very forcefully and very impressively. I think she's an old journalist, an expert in foreign affairs who sort of segued into being a foreign policy expert. On that specific point, Putin cannot be bullied enough.

Yeah, I kind of think you're right. But I mean, I think the question is, he could be cowed, but it may come to the point where he can't afford to show any weakness. Otherwise, the whole edifice will come crumbling down. I think we've said this all along. That's his great weakness, is that he staked everything on the Ukraine adventure. And anything that looks like a climb down, anything less a defeat, may be enough to pull out the rug from under him. So it's a complicated thing.

I would say. I just want to finish off with one thing that Tom said. He says, they've hauled my 63-year-old carcass out of retirement. There's a teacher shortage still in Canada, obviously, since COVID. So he's soon going to be teaching Canadian history 1914 to the present to a bunch of 15-year-old students in a little rural school. And he says, when we hit World War II, I intend to have the students write some questions for Battleground 45 now, so we'll be looking out for those.

Well, thanks a lot for that, Tom. Okay, moving on to Alan in Gloucestershire. As I remember, you guys were in Kiev on your last trip to Ukraine. Was there a notable difference? I would imagine it felt safer, perhaps, as there are surely more Western air defences guarding the capital now. I'm also curious as to what the mood was like of those in the capital. Did it differ from Kharkiv? Was it more bleak than last time? Well, this is a really interesting question, Patrick, because you might imagine our answer to be, yes, you're right, Alan, we felt safer in Kiev. But

I'm not sure I did. I mean, for example, the day after we left and a couple of days before we got there, there were deadly strikes on Kiev, unlike the last time we were there. They do have more air defense systems, but they're not using them for anything that's coming in. So, for example, the drones, the Shahid drones,

generally speaking they're not going to waste a Patriot missile on them and some of those are getting through and they are causing a lot of damage so you know you'd have to be really unlucky it's true Alan but I personally I don't know what Patrick felt but personally I felt a little bit twitchier in Kiev this time the people there will similar to the point we were making about those in Kharkiv certainly no sense that they want to throw the towel in

at all. Yes, war weariness, but also a stoic determination as well. Yeah, it was the depths of winter as well, which tends to make the outlook look a little bit more bleak. But nonetheless, yeah, I didn't discern any great shift in people's morale. I think we have to emphasize that these are great cities. They're Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev, great places. I mean, once all this is over, they'll be fantastic holiday destinations, great food,

Great bars, wonderful things to see, and there's a great spirit. Got an interesting one here from Tony. And this was really inspired by our answer, I think, a few weeks back to a question about whether it'd be a good idea for the Ukrainians to start targeting the Russian civilian population in response to what the Russians are doing to Ukrainian civilians. I think we all agreed that was not a good idea.

But he says, what about a strike against the FSB and related structures of oppression within Russia, which might demonstrate to the Russian people that their big brother overseers are vulnerable?

That is an interesting thought, isn't it, Saul? I'm not sure yet it would necessarily be a good idea because it's quite hard to determine to what extent they do see the FSB, i.e. the successors of the OKGP, as their oppressors. I'm just thinking of the fact that, you know, statues to one of the founding fathers, really, of the Russian state police, Felix Zhirzhinsky, who was actually a Pole, but a rabid communist, a rabid macho,

member of the early leadership, architect of the great terror that followed the 1917 revolution. Well, there's, you know, the other day, well, a couple of years ago anyway, they unveiled a new statute to Dzerzhinsky outside FSB headquarters. Now, people with long memory might remember that one of the key symbolic moments of the collapse of communism was when

In 1991, the monument to Zhezhinsky that stood outside KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square in Moscow was pulled down to mass rejoicing, but now it's gone back up again. Now, you could argue that that's the state that's putting it back up, not the people. But the fact is the state feels that it can do this without people regarding this as a terrible kind of

insult and honoring the memory of this man who killed literally millions of Russians seems to be a very sort of weird thing to do, but they must calculate that there's a certain amount of

acceptance that Cheshinsky was indeed a great man. Yeah, I think it's logical that the Ukrainians would see FSB headquarters, in fact, all military installations as legitimate targets. They are, they would happily attack them, I'm sure. But they'll also be some of the most effectively defended. So the point is a good one. I think to, you know, attack the Ljubljana would be something that, you know, all Russians would have to sit up and take notice of. And it would

lead them to ask questions, why the hell hadn't it been better protected? So they obviously are concentrating on protecting those sort of targets. And the Ukrainians have to be a bit more selective in what they're actually hitting. And what they are hitting, of course, as we've already mentioned on the podcast, are those elements of the Russian industrial, military-industrial complex that are absolutely vital for them continuing the war. Power supplies, oil, refineries, and of course, all the munitions and various associated industries.

that helped the war effort. So that makes much more sense to me, frankly, than a symbolic attack on the Lubyanka. Now, we do like to advertise good causes on the pod, and there's a particularly good one, I think, here, don't you, you saw from Kevin.

who says, I'm a trustee of Reusing IT, a UK-based charity that's providing used computers to children in Ukraine affected by the war to help them gain access to the internet and restart their learning journeys. So far, Reusing IT has provided 4,500 PCs and laptops with a further 2,000 leaving in early January. So they must already be on their way.

And we're hoping to provide many more in the coming months as well. Well, I think this is a great cause. There's a definite need for them. The government's saying there are nearly 10,000 computers urgently needed for children who are living close to the front line and have been forced to study at home. So they're working with the government and Ukraine-based charities to try and fulfill this requirement as soon as possible. But, of course, the big but is we need more donations of used computers.

computers. So Kevin's posted a link here, which we'll put up on the podcast site. We've all got old computers lying around, haven't we? I mean, I've got a cupboard full of old laptops. So I, for one, will be sending...

some in. And he says it would be fantastic if you could mention something about our efforts on the podcast to help generate more donations. Well, I'm sure we're going to get a good response from listeners, UK-based listeners anyway, to this appeal. So great work. Keep it up, Kevin. Yeah. So just to be clear, that's reusing R-E-U-S-I-N-G-I-T. And if you look that up online, you should be able to get to the charity.

Just on a security point here, Kevin makes it clear that they data wipe and refurbish them. So all the data wiping is done to U.S. military standards. So all your bank details, everything going off into the unknown.

We have Gerard from New Zealand writing in to say, I listen with interest to your discussion of Trump's speech and the impact it may have on Ukraine. For me, there were three phrases that Trump used that point to the possible direction of his presidency. They are mentioning Monroe, that is the Monroe Doctrine, American first and exceptionalism.

These terms are rich in historical meaning and are somewhat contradictory, but when combined with his comment about the wars they do not get involved in, appear to indicate a desire by Trump for a kind of hemispheric dominance by America while staying out of the rest of the world's affairs.

Did you read it that way, Patrick?

And it was a key part of U.S. foreign policy for many, many years. But, I mean, what seems to be going on here, and I think we've had other questions about this, one from Tom Foley in Guildford, which is that what really came out of that speech was that America or Trump's America is in an expansionist mood. And it may be that that expansion is...

to their hemisphere. But all that, it all kind of links up, doesn't it? You know, the Greenland talk, the Canada talk, the Panama Canal talk, this is all sort of saying, you know, we will go where we think our interests are served. And, you know,

Existing boundaries are not necessarily set in stone. And of course, this rings alarm bells, doesn't it? Because it appears to give a green light to exactly what Russia is doing in Ukraine and what China would like to do in Taiwan. So this is basically giving these autocratic states the...

the opportunity to say, well, you know, what source for the goose is source for the gander? Why is it okay for you guys to do this stuff and ask not to carry out our own expansionist programs? And, you know, of course, there is very good reason to think that's exactly what will happen. However, I would say that they're going to do this anyway, aren't they? They're not going to be deterred by us being nice to them.

I think the question of whether it's wise for Trump to be going down this route is a separate one from whether this actually encourages autocratic states to carry on with their own programs. And I would say it doesn't actually make much difference. They're going to do it anyway, if they can. Moving on to Chris Hennemeyer, who's a humanitarian volunteer from Washington, D.C., and sometime from Odessa in Ukraine. And he takes us to task a little bit, Patrick. I mentioned the pronunciation. Well, Chris, right.

Right. Kudos on making your way to Kharkiv, a city I lived in for several months back in 2015 during the first Russian invasion. However, I have to take issue with your rather condescending description of the place as old, shabby and Soviet. Okay.

Of course, as you were reporting from a tower block in an outlying suburb, you got a negative impression, as you would in Croydon too. I'm not sure everyone in Croydon is going to be pleased to hear that, Patrick. However, most Ukrainians I know are quite fond of Kharkiv, recognizing it as a real city replete with a bit of grit, unlike the chocolate box prettiness of...

of, say, Lviv. And, you know, I think he's got a point there, Patrick. I mean, part of the problem with the way we're putting out the pod is we're giving little extracts of our travels. And actually, in some of the other bits that we haven't yet aired, we are much more complimentary about Kharkiv. I mean, the center of the city is very beautiful, where we were staying in a hotel, a lot of the restaurants, restaurants,

Yes, they've been badly knocked around. You can see damage from bombs and glide bombs and missiles everywhere. And yet you can't take away from the fact that this is a pretty impressive city. Yeah, I think we both loved Kharkiv, didn't we, Saul? And it has definitely got a separate personality, a very distinct personality, as we say. There's that bit

Bit of kind of grungy, griminess to it, which adds to its authenticity, I suppose. Yeah, we were, I think we made it pretty clear that we were up on the northeast edge of town in an old Soviet block. But no, you know, how could you not love Kharkiv and its spirit?

Yeah, and you'll have noticed as we made that answer, we were making every effort, which Chris urged us to, to pronounce Harki properly, not with a hard K as we were initially using, or I certainly was, but with a slightly guttural H at the start of its name. And Chris just finishes off his message,

enough preaching from me greetings from kiev and keep up the good work it really is valuable in keeping ukraine in the public eye well that's something we feel very strongly about patrick don't we as the news cycle moves here and there we're pretty consistently on ukraine absolutely right a bit of a technical one here but worth mentioning from christopher in finland and he's referring to something we said the other day about the budapest memorandum a question of the

supposedly giving security assurances to Ukraine signed all the way back in 1994 by Russia, the US, the UK. And it wasn't just Ukraine that was involved. It was also Belarus and Kazakhstan.

So he's basically saying you made the point that these were security assurances rather than security guarantees. But was this, were they even that? He says, to my understanding, the main content of the memorandum is that the parties promise not to attack each other. And in case they are attacked with nuclear weapons, they consult with the UN Security Council. This latter topic, of course, being a no brainer. Well, I think what he's saying about that is that much good with that, do you? Well,

But yeah, it is really, if you actually look at the Budapest Memorandum, it's been honored more in the breach than the observance, as we've seen, obviously, with the Russian annexation of Crimea, the incursions into eastern Ukraine, etc., etc., with no consequences, of course. So, you know, these assurances turned out to be really not worth the paper.

they were written on. So yeah, I think that's the point of this really is that that is why Ukrainians often mention this memorandum as an example of what they are not prepared to sign up to again. That was a very salutary lesson in how flimsy these supposedly reassuring kind of documents can be. So the next time they sign

they go into talks in this new situation, they're not going to accept anything than cast iron guarantees for their own security. Yeah, just to be specific, Patrick, it's interesting, isn't it? Because we always think of the memoranda as being signed by Russia, basically, and Russia giving assurances.

Actually, when you look at the detail, the memoranda prohibited Russia, the US and the UK from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. And here's the kicker, except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. And as a result of that, of course, as you say, Patrick,

That and other memoranda between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. So we can toy around with the exact terminology. But in a sense, this was an assurance to Ukraine and these other countries that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, then they would be secure for the future. Well, clearly, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Hence, Patrick's point that Ukraine needs much, much more Carl Stein security guarantees in the future.

OK, we've got one here from Glenn. My heart goes out to people in Ukraine battling to save their country, and I have little time for those who criticize the Ukrainian government for not mobilizing younger groups of people. Biden consistently failed to provide enough equipment at the right time and in Europe. Germany has been particularly lackluster in providing the actual support it promised to deliver in various states.

speeches. Given this scenario, can you be surprised that Ukraine doesn't want to mobilize the brightest and youngest when the support they need to achieve victory is missing? Surely the time to mobilize the younger groups would be when and if Europe and the USA offer Ukraine a winning strategy and enough equipment to execute it. Until then, it strikes me as entirely sensible to avoid mobilizing the youngest groups when you know the survival rates are so low. What's your feeling about that, Patrick?

Well, I think you would agree with me, Saul, that every soldier we spoke to agreed with the proposition that the age of conscription should be lowered. That might have been the case, the old argument that we're preserving the best of the brightest for the next generation. I think we've passed that point, haven't we? Everyone needs to go all in at this point. And that's certainly what we heard from

senior commanders to junior officers and just ordinary guys. They're doing it, why shouldn't everyone else? It is remarkable the number of young men are fighting as you see going about their business in the big cities. We did hear quite a lot about these press gangs, didn't we, before we went, but we didn't actually see any inaction while we were there. I think another point is that there is going to be, when all this is over, there's going to be

a big division in society between those who did don uniform and those who didn't. And I don't know if you remember that lunch we had with a Cartier brigade officer. And I asked him if he thought that there would be a stigma attached to those who didn't fight, who didn't do that bit when all this is over. And he replied, I hope so. So I think that's a harbinger of what we can expect.

Okay, that's all we've got time for, I'm afraid. It's a shame because there's a number of questions raising really interesting points, which we just simply haven't got the time to get round to. But do keep sending them in. It's an absolutely vital part of

of the pod and we love answering all your queries so bear with us and do look out for special episodes which will be coming thick and fast from our trip to Ukraine in the coming weeks Battleground 45 on Wednesday and of course Battleground Ukraine on Friday when we'll be bringing you up to date with all the latest developments goodbye