254. US-Russia Talks: Is Trump Selling Out Ukraine?
47:25 Share

This episode is brought to you by MeUndies. Underwear drawers are like the Wild West. You never know what you're going to pull out or what shape it's in. So upgrade your collection with the buttery soft comfort of

That's meundies.com slash Spotify. Code Spotify.

Hello and welcome to Battleground Ukraine with me, Patrick Bishop, and Saul David. This week marks a historical turning point in Russia's war with Ukraine. As we speak, the diplomatic logjam is breaking up in front of our eyes.

President Trump has delivered on his pledge to bring the conflict to an end. Following an apparently very cordial 90-minute phone call with Vladimir Putin, talks have begun between Washington and Moscow to stop the war that Russia started almost exactly three years ago.

At the same time, we've received stark clarification of the concessions that America expects Ukraine to agree to in order to achieve peace. They're spelt out in a tough statement by new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which left Europe in no doubt that the U.S. is no longer to be depended on to underwrite security for the continent.

Reaction to these developments has been delight in Moscow and dismay among the Ukraine's friends, with some comparing it to the British and French sellout of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in the Munich Agreement of 1938. Well, you'll hear our views later, but first, let's spell out what we know.

Well, let's start with Trump, Patrick. He announced via his Truth Social channel that he held a 90-minute phone call with his Russian counterpart on Wednesday, the first confirmed contact between the pair since Trump returned to the White House. "'I just had a lengthy and highly productive phone call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia,' Trump wrote in a post. "'We agreed to work together very closely, including visiting each other's nations. We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations.'"

Trump then went on to speak with President Zelensky and said that Kiev wanted a deal to bring the fighting to an end. Well, the first response from Moscow was, maybe not surprisingly, quite warm and positive. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said that Putin had invited Trump to Moscow for talks. President Putin mentioned the need to address the root causes of the conflict and agreed with Trump that a long-term settlement could be achieved through peaceful negotiations.

Peskov said. The Russian president also supported one of the main theses of the American head of state that the time has come for our countries to work together. Well, it's all quite an astonishing departure from the rhetoric of the last three years, we have to say, Patrick. The US negotiating team will be led by Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Security Advisor Michael Walsh. Note there that there's no mention of Keith Kellogg, who's supposed to be the special envoy. Now, Trump said he'll be talking to Putin on the phone initially, but will meet Putin in Saudi Arabia at some point, followed by summits in Washington and Moscow. Now, in that first 90-minute call, Trump declared that, I can say with great confidence, he wants to see Putin.

the war end. One thing he was very strong about, he wants it to end. As for the Zelensky conversation, well, Zelensky himself described it in muted terms as a meaningful conversation in which they talked about opportunities to achieve peace and discussed our readiness to work together at the team level. No one wants peace more than Ukraine, he said. Together with the US, we are charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace.

As President Trump said, let's get it done. Well, there's a bit of a double whammy going on, wasn't there, Saul? Because this all came a few hours after Pete Hegseth, the new US Defence Secretary, so Pentagon boss,

said that Ukraine could not expect to regain territory lost to Russia, either what's been lost during the war that began in 2022 or the previous aggressions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which has been going on since 2014. So this all was said at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where Hegseth said,

was meeting his European partners. And he was very, you know, the rhetoric was very, very strong and clear. Apparently the draft of what he said, it was actually had been toned down from a previous effort. Anyway, he said, Trump, quote, intends to bring this war to an end by diplomacy, by bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the table. We will only end this devastating war and establish a durable peace by coupling allied strength with a realistic assessment of

of the battlefield, i.e., you know, Ukraine can't win this, it's got to give up its illusory, I think was the word he used, ambition of actually regaining lost territories.

And he finished by saying, we want, like you, that's I, the other NATO members, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. So, you know, clear as crystal, that is. And he also rubbished the idea that Kiev might one day join NATO. So that was kicked not just into the long grass, it was just squashed flat, which would have been

of course, to the Kremlin's ears. On the mooted peacekeeping forces, you know, when the lines are frozen, of course, someone's got to monitor them or prevent or deter future Russian aggression. He's repeated that there'll be no US boots on the ground in any peacekeeping force. And,

And very significant, he said any British or European, French and other troops that did deploy, this is President Macron's suggestion, which Britain seems to be going along with, they wouldn't be part of a NATO mission. They wouldn't be NATO badged and would therefore not be covered by the alliances Article 5.

which means if they came under fire, they could not rely on America to come in to their defense. There was more stuff about Europe having to pay for its own defense. We'll come on to that a bit later. And Higgs has said it again with very stark terms. He says,

I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express the stark strategic realities of the current time, prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. Its interests are essentially in the Far East. We're kind of returning to a kind of pre-Second World War mindset, aren't we, here? So let's start off with the Trump part of the story first.

Are we, as Karl Bildt, the former Swedish diplomat, big figure in great world events in the past, well, he claimed on his ex-account that this is the start of a sellout that is on a par with the Chamberlain betrayal of Czechoslovakia.

to Hitler in 1938. Fair comment, do you think? Well, we'll have to wait and see, won't we? It's not a totally invidious comparison, but I suppose the obvious difference in this situation, Patrick, is that Trump and his team are insisting that Ukraine faces the reality on the ground, which is that as things stand, Russia already controls 20% of its territory. Obviously, they have a little bit in Kursk and Zelensky was talking about that. They hope to swap that and get a little bit of their territory back. But in effect,

Russia's still going to control a big chunk. Now at Munich, as you will remember, the British and French handed over territory, the Sudetenland, that was then sovereign Czech territory. I mean, you know, it was occupied by the Czechs. So there is a difference. And to be fair, this is pretty much the situation that Trump's

team have been briefing for months, which is a freezing of the current front lines. The subtlety in all of this is that Zelensky has said, and will say again, I'm sure, well, we may freeze the current front lines, but at some stage, we want to get that territory back. And the Americans seem to be implying with these comments, although, you know, it's hard to really tell that actually Ukraine is going to have to accept it's going to lose it in perpetuity.

There has, of course, been quite a lot of criticism of this. As you can imagine, some people are pretty upset. The former U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, Michael McFaul, that, of course, was during the presidency of Obama, said this is not how you negotiate with Putin. Hegseth has just articulated his administration's willingness to give Putin two giant victories.

Ukrainian land and no Ukrainian membership in NATO. What did he get from Putin in return? Nothing. Now, Annalena Baerbock, who's been a relative hawk, the German foreign minister, said peace can only be achieved together. And that means with Ukraine and with the Europeans, we must take this path together so that peace returns to Europe. It's certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions.

And the UK Defence Secretary John Healey said it was for Kiev to decide the timing and terms of any negotiations on ending the war with Russia. It's the Ukrainians that are doing the fighting. It's for them to decide when to start talking and on what terms, Healey told Sky News. Well, of course, the caveat to all of that, Patrick, obviously, Healey's comment in particular, is that in reality, America does hold the whip hand in all of this because the

Trump is able to say to the Ukrainians, if you don't come to the negotiating table, I'm going to withdraw support. He's already said he's going to do that. So the Ukrainians, of course, are having to go along with this. They may get tough during the negotiations, but they can't refuse to start those negotiations immediately.

even under the terms that the Americans are insisting, which looks like concessions to Russia. I suppose the best you can say is that Trump has at least got Putin to the negotiating table. And to get him there, given Putin's recent pronouncements on reducing Ukraine to a client state, he obviously had to offer carrots as well as stick, which is what it seems he's done. What's your take on this, Patrick? Well, I think that's right. I think that's a kind of, you know, nuance to the sense of, well,

way of looking at it, Saul, because you can get a bit overheated and a bit overexcited about this because there's a hell of a long way to go and there's a lot that can happen on the road. But what my take on this, you asked for it, I think that nonetheless, we're seeing a really profound and significant historical development here vis-a-vis America's relationship with the world, or at least it's

relationship with the rest of the world since the end of the Second World War. I think that the approach that Trump is taking, which he presents as characteristic pragmatism, the art of the deal, etc., there's something actually much more serious going on here. I think America can be seen or may come to be seen by historians as, in this event, abandoning its claim to be the moral leader of the free world. And I

I'm very worried about this kind of warm tone that you get coming from Trump. He appears to show every sign of genuine respect for Putin. Now, we stand back, we look at him. What do we see? We see a cold-blooded murderer. Essentially, let's face it, he's murdered many of his political opponents. He's murdered his own people in coming to power with the famous apartment bombings, or notorious, should I say, apartment bombings.

back at the beginning of the century. And he's declared war, waged war on a peaceful neighbors. His armies have committed innumerable war crimes.

And, you know, in every respect, he represents the very opposite of the values that the U.S. has since the Second World War, at least claimed to uphold. So basically, his attitude seems to be that as long as the deal suits, any deal suits his interpretation of America's interests, everything can be forgiven immediately.

and forgotten, but it's early days, of course, but it sounds to me that there's going to be a lot. You mentioned carrots and sticks. I think so far there's a lot of carrots and no stick in this negotiation. And if it continues like that, it may be that he's prepared to abandon sanctions, war crimes, that murderers will be allowed to walk free.

What we see here is that Trump, and we know this already, but it's really starkly on display here, is Trump's pathetic vulnerability to flattery. But as you say, the negotiations continue.

could very quickly run into difficulties. You know, what does Putin actually want? Well, he started this war and we've said all along that he has to get some kind of result, some plausible victory and something he can call a great success to justify all the losses and everything for his own survival. And can he really give any meaningful security undertakings? So his terms, I think, are going to be tough.

down the line, and even Trump might find that he has to kind of reject them. This is certainly the view of Russian analysts outside Russia, who are saying that Moscow is not going to accept anything that doesn't give them sovereign control of the gains they've made in eastern Ukraine. Just look at what Peskov said. He said President Putin mentioned

the need to address the root causes of the conflict. Now, what are those root causes in Russian eyes? Well, basically, the root cause is that Ukraine dared to actually try and make a future for itself as an independent sovereign state. So according to that interpretation, Zelensky would have to go as part of the deal and some stooge of the Kremlin be put in his place. So, you know, is Trump really going to be

willing to do all that. I think, you know, there's a lot of obstacles before we can get to a point where anyone would accept that this was anything other than a complete cave-in to Putin. But let's get back to, I've been going on a bit, what about Hegzeth's remarks, or do you think Ukraine could accept the at least temporary loss of Donbass and

and Crimea, or large parts of the Donbass and Crimea? And what about all the peacekeepers and the NATO issue? Well, on the issue of the loss of territory, Zelensky has already said that he accepts that a peace deal will almost certainly mean that temporarily, it will have to accept that Russia stays where it is. But it will never, that is, Zelensky has said, and we've spoken to a number of people in Ukraine, haven't we, Patrick, who are pretty determined that

that land will not be signed over in perpetuity. And that's important because going back to the Munich Agreement, effectively, the Sudetenland was handed over to Germany in perpetuity. So I think that's going to be a red line for them. As for the peacekeepers, of course, Zelensky can't insist they're NATO, and America seems pretty determined that NATO and it as part of NATO won't be there. But Zelensky will certainly want Europeans there.

want the British and want the French. And I think the British and the French will be up for the task. This will all hinge in the end, Patrick, as we both know, and we've been saying for a long time, on what security guarantees the US is prepared to offer Ukraine. Now, you may think they look like they just want to cut and run, but don't forget,

that Trump's team realized that for them to get access to Ukraine's rare earth metals, which we mentioned last week, they need a sovereign and secure Ukraine. And even Hegseth is saying Ukraine needs to be sovereign and secure, smaller than it is at the moment, or at least that technically is at the moment, but sovereign and secure. So they are going to have to give the Ukrainians some kind of guarantee if they're not going to be admitted to NATO.

that is going to allow Zelensky to sign this agreement. And one term certainly won't be in there that Zelensky has to go. The country of Ukraine will never agree to that. Yeah, I think that's right. We ought to be sounding all these caveats because the language, the way that the Trump administration does business is very kind of full volume, isn't it? And the subtleties tend to get drowned out, but they are very important subtleties.

And you're right, they're not actually ruling out any involvement in Ukraine's security. There's been a lot of talk about providing some sort of air cover in the way of missiles or indeed actual fast jets or proper sort of conventional air power. So that hasn't been ruled out. There's a lot of detail here, which is going to be crucial, of course. But there's this other aspect, isn't there, of Hegseth's statement, which I think will have...

sent shivers down European spines. That, of course, is this insistence that they're going to have to take charge of their own security, essentially, and starting with spending a lot more money, and money that's not going to be spent just on security.

and maintaining the structures of NATO in Europe as it is, i.e. on all the administration, pensions and the like, but actually on hardware, on arms, upping its actual capacity to produce the materials that you fight wars with. So where's Britain going to find this money? They're committed to 2.5%. They've got huge financial problems at the moment. The Chancellor, they're only on 2.3%. There's no date given for when they're going to get up to 2.5%.

Of course, the Baltics and Poland are well ahead of that 2% target that was set for NATO. But France and Germany are also struggling. They've got their own economic problems. So this is a massive challenge for the political leadership of Europe. We've just learned that Russian military spending increased by more than 40% last year, which outpaced Europe.

the whole of Europe put together. Now, that's a kind of slightly artificial situation. Russia, after all, is at war. But this is not going to change. I think this is the final word on it. I think Europe must wake up to the fact that America cannot be relied upon henceforth to underwrite European security. No, that's absolutely right. And actually, we may look back on this in five, maybe 10 years' time and said that this was coming and it took someone as blunt and as brusque and as

and as game-changing, I suppose, as you might call it, as Trump to actually make the Europeans wake up and realize they need to take responsibility for their own security. Now, I'm reviewing a book at the moment, a rather wonderful book called The Price of Victory, which is about the story of

Britain's naval history from the Napoleonic Wars to the Second World War. And you might think, what's the relevance of that to this? Well, in his final chapter, N.E.M. Roger, our finest naval historian, talks about British defense spending in the 1950s. Now, remember, Patrick, this is after the Second World War. The country is effectively bankrupt. And yet at the start of the Cold War, when there was a very real threat, particularly during the Korean War, guess what our defense spending was as a percentage of GDP?

10%. And that was not a proper hot war scenario. This was a Labour government, by the way, an Attlee government that then proposed increasing it to 14%. Crikey. So defence spending is a question of choice. We choose not to spend that much of our money on arms because obviously there are many other things we can spend it on. But when things get as

as they are in the world at the moment, with Britain and Europe facing threats from multiple different directions, then you do, I'm afraid, have to step up. I'm not suggesting we go to 10%, but certainly way beyond 2.5%. All the major European countries is going to be required in the next few years. That's right. But also, I think there are going to have to be societal changes

changes, aren't there, Saul? I mean, the profession of arms, being a soldier these days, is not a very popular career choice in any European country, is it? Except perhaps Poland. In fact, Poland have really changed the whole kind of ethos emerging into independence. They've made defending your country part of being a citizen, and lots and lots of young people are going into the armed forces, but that is

an outlier. I think in Britain, very few people consider it as a career. So I think something is going to have to be done fundamentally to change the way we think about what being a soldier is. Anyway, that's a subject for another day. But just looking back at the feebleness, I think we've been quite harsh on the Biden administration for the way it drip fed support, military support for Ukraine. But everyone's guilty. Europe's guilty. The UK's guilty. I was reading a

story by Maxim Tucker at the time, the excellent Maxim Tucker. We quoted a few times, releasing to get out there and do some terrific, innovative, enlightening stuff. And he had a story, he was with a unit equipped with British Challenger II tanks. Now, listeners may remember we gave, I think, 14 tanks to the Ukrainians, of which 12 survived. And

And his dispatch showed just how incredibly effective they have been. So he was with this unit and just one tank managed to wipe out an armored column of about 10 tanks and Russian armored vehicles from long distance.

Yet, you know, why did we only give them 14? They clearly do make a huge difference on the battlefield. So although the tone of what Hegseth says may sound quite brutal, it really is just the truth, isn't it? And his line that...

NATO needs to be a more lethal force and not a diplomatic club is pretty close to the mark. Yeah, I'm afraid it is. And you know, there's no change from us on all of this, Patrick, we've been saying exactly the same thing for the last couple of years. So, you know, one of the reasons why NATO has been a bit wary about handing kit to Ukraine, they're

all in on Ukraine being able to defend itself. But actually, they don't have enough kit themselves, do they? I mean, that's obviously one of the big issues here. You mentioned the 14 tanks. I mean, it's ludicrous, isn't it, that they've only got 14 of these really very effective battle tanks. Well, they had 14. They've lost a couple. They lost one, interestingly enough, in the actual incursion into Kursk. And going back to that Tucker article, it was fascinating because it shows you actually how good the Challenger is.

there are very few things that can take it out. I mean, it's been hit. Well, some of those tanks have been hit by a lot of things. So clearly Ukraine needed more of them, but we don't have enough to give them. So, you know, it's a knock-on effect, frankly, isn't it, from underfunding in defense, both in the UK and in Europe, and it has to change now. And as I say, Patrick, we may be looking back on this and thinking it wasn't a bad thing that Europe finally had to wake up to its own defense, because it can certainly afford to do so. If you look at the combined

Combined economies of NATO, certainly of Western Europe, you realize that if they spend the money in the right way, if they spend a little bit more money, even a percent or two per country, they could create a very effective armed forces.

And of course, the crucial point is that's what they're going to have to do. We can't rely on America anymore. It's going to have to be Europe, maybe a two-tier Europe led by Poland and the Baltics, backed up by the big economies, by Britain, France, and Germany. And I think America, maybe they're there for us, maybe they're not, but it's certainly no longer guaranteed. Okay, well, that's it for this half. Do join us after the break when we'll be answering listeners' questions

Questions. Got to remember, we're recording this on Thursday, so there may be development overnight. Everyone's meeting, everyone who matters is meeting in Munich at the moment for the Great Security Conference. So this Ukraine question will be top of the agenda. So if there are key developments, you'll be hearing about them in a special report we'll be putting out.

Welcome back. Well, the first question is from Tricia Smith. I just wanted to say I'm a regular podcast listener from Australia, she says. I truly enjoyed the podcast on Dresden with Sinclair Mackay. That was the one Patrick did. I have been there and I learned so much from your podcast. I am now bought his book, Mackay's book. Thank you so much. And so just to flag that up, actually, Patrick, I mean, obviously, they're important events, you know,

epoch changing events going on in Ukraine at the moment. We are also covering the Second World War, which let's face it was another of those big moments in world history. So we would direct listeners if they want to hear a little bit of history as well as current conflict to concentrate on those Wednesday episodes as well as our regular Friday on Ukraine.

Yeah, and there are lots of parallels. And Sinclair MacLachlan, a great author, wrote a terrific book on the bombing of Dresden 80 years ago this week, actually. And this is real kind of world-class contributions that we're getting, isn't it? It's all from the best people in their field. So it's definitely worth a try if you haven't already listened to our Wednesday Battleground 45 podcast.

Okay, we've got one from Lucas from Krakow in Poland. I wish you could comment on how the current Ukrainian-Russian conflict serves as a testing ground for new technologies. And drones are an obvious example, but recently one piece of news has been that Ukraine has developed its own laser technology.

so-called TriZub drone interceptor system. Well, according to Lucas, that's what they claim. What actually happened is they were given this new Dragonfire system that was actually developed by the UK. I remember seeing this about a year or so ago, Patrick, that the UK have effectively developed this system

to be a laser, which can knock down drones. There are 50 kilowatt lorry based lasers which act against drones. So what Lucas is saying basically is the Brits have given some of these, I haven't heard any confirmation of this, I must admit, to the Ukrainians. And of course, Ukrainians get the latest in air defense weapons and the UK gets to test it in real life combat

and gather valuable experiences, which is what Lucas is saying. And I'm sure that's happening. I mean, when we were there, Patrick, we were told on the QV that there was a lot more exchange of ideas, more personnel from NATO, certainly from Britain, France and other countries out there assisting the Ukrainians in some way. And it would make complete sense to me that we do want to test out some of these weapons systems in a real life situation, particularly if it can be of use to the Ukrainians.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm a bit intrigued as to how the laser actually worked. What it sounds like to us, something like a 1950s sci-fi movie.

literature, doesn't it? What actually happens? Well, I mean, it's sending out a signal that is actually able to destroy the drone. I mean, presumably heat, you know, it's burning up. Literally, it's like out of a sci-fi film. But these things are actually real, the so-called dragon, Patrick, and they've been shown to work. So I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are there. And another bit of news that Lucas mentions, which we also should have referred to, actually, is that

France has handed over a number of Mirage 2005 fighters to Ukraine. Now, according to Lucas, the most likely number is only six. But according to Lucas, this is great news as those jets are more valuable to Ukraine than the F-16s. Why? Because according to Lucas, the Mirage 2000 is a platform that can carry scalp storm shadow air to ground missiles, which would make sense, of course.

because they're French. And it's no secret, Lucas goes on to say, that the number of Su-24s that Ukraine was using to fire the scalp and storm shadows was dwindling. In other words, the number was dwindling and a replacement was sorely needed. So these mirages will be very useful in that sense, it looks like. Now, we've had a very interesting contribution from Katrin Richter in Copenhagen in Denmark,

who writes, I'm a Danish historian and your podcast is both kind, devastating and localized, which makes for incredibly thought-provoking listening. Well, thank you very much, Catherine. She goes on, as a woman, I'm deeply conscious of how sexual violence is weaponized. We know how it's been used to detrimental effect in conflict in Africa.

and we're getting increasing evidence of sexual violence against Ukrainian prisoners of war. This is a key issue we need to talk about as any peace discussions with Putin must be accompanied by devastating evidence of their war crimes to ensure justice for the valiant fighters who risked it all for Ukraine and Europe. Well, here, here, Catherine, we both agree that

profoundly with that, but is that going to happen? This is one of the things that really concerns me about the nature of the package.

I suspect, I hope I've proved wrong, that immunity from any war crimes proceedings will be part of what Russia is looking for and part of what Trump may, on the kind of showing so far, be inclined to cede. So let's hope that's not the case. But on the general subject of war crimes and particularly war,

violence being used as part of this Russian way of fighting wars is something we really ought to concentrate on in some future episode, don't you think, Saul? It's a big part, a horrifying part of the picture. And

there's plenty of evidence out there, which I think is not getting the attention it deserves. No, and we should stress, actually, that one of the points that Catherine is making is, we've spoken before, of course, about Russian soldiers raping Ukrainian civilians, and that's happened. That's been widespread, Patrick, from Bucha, you know, to the occupied territories. But what is interesting about

The articles, the links of which Catherine sent to us is they're talking about sexual violence against male prisoners of war, no doubt female prisoners of war too, but the use of sexual violence against male prisoners of war, particularly rape, you know, to humiliate, we mentioned before castration.

But this kind of almost mass rape of Ukrainian prisoners of war is a new one on me, Patrick. And, you know, we've spoken, of course, about Russian soldiers raping Germans in the Second World War, German females in the Second World War. But this raping of their male captives is, you know, a step further. You can see what's going on there, the attempt to humiliate, to demean. But, you know, have you heard of that sort of thing happening before?

I think there was evidence of it in the Second World War as well, but most of the attention was paid to the vast numbers of German women who were raped by the Red Army, but I think there were also cases of men being raped as well. But on this scale, as you say, there seems to be something deliberate, systematic almost about it. And yes, thanks very much for those links, Catherine. We'll definitely be returning to this subject. Moving on to one here from...

Simon Pearce, he says, following up on the point about Ukrainian conscription and the willingness or otherwise of younger Ukrainians to fight. I agree with Saul. It's not really for us to either judge or stereotype.

But I wonder whether this recruitment challenge is a foresight of what might come in militaries across Europe. So this is really echoing the point I was making earlier, or rather I'm echoing Simon's point. And Simon cites a news piece from Sky, which looked at in part of the challenges in German rearmament. And he says the Germans are proactively incentivizing the younger generation to enlist troops.

at most, or familiarize themselves with military life, at least. Now, I noticed this myself. I started in Berlin in the summer, and all the trams in Berlin, or a lot of the trams in Berlin, had plastered along the sides these recruitment ads, you know, but presenting military life, not in sort of warrior, macho terms so much as if you were doing something that was socially valuable. And I think that's the key, isn't it, Saul? You

You're not saying to people, put on a uniform, pick up a gun, go off and shoot someone. You're talking about much deeper values, about protecting the vulnerable, being part of a big enterprise. And in technical terms, your skills have a military application, which is not necessarily about going off and firing a gun. We've seen a lot of this in Ukraine, of course, where

people who've got highly developed peacetime skills are then adapting them to wartime conditions so everyone can be a warrior i think is a message you've got something to contribute got something that you can bring to the great enterprise of preserving your prisms and defending your country yeah we need some of the that mindset over here patrick there was a report i think in the times on the weekend uh which looked at attitudes from the the youth of today british youth

And there was a significantly high proportion, I think, in the 40s saying that they weren't proud of their country, basically. And if you're not proud of your country and the values it represents, you are very unlikely to want to, you know, join up and defend it. I think the two are inextricably linked, I'm afraid. So there needs to be a lot of education. There needs, you know, people need to know what the alternative is to living in Britain, actually.

living in an authoritarian state, and then come back to us and tell us you're not proud of your country. Of course, Britain's not perfect. There are lots of aspects that you and I wish we could change, I'm sure. But the basic fundamental principles of the democracy in which we live and the rule of law, freedom of speech and everything else are...

absolutely valuable and worth fighting for and worth defending our country for. And it's that sort of mindset that needs to change in Britain, I feel, but not just in Britain, I'm sure all across Europe. Yeah, we shouldn't get too carried away by these polls there, because I'm thinking back to the notorious, infamous king and country debate in Britain in February 1933, which took place at the

Oxford Union Society. Now, the Oxford Union is a debating club, a sort of fancy debating club, where a lot of politicians or people who go on to become major politicians cut their teeth. And the motion put before the society was that this house will, under no circumstances, fight for its king and country. Now, the people in the audience are, you know, they're the young coming cream of British politics.

not in the social sense, but in the kind of political, economic. The other ones are going to go on to be the doctors, the lawyers, the leaders, the political leaders, the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen as well among them. Now that motion won convincingly by 275 votes to only 153 votes.

against it. Now this caused shockwaves through Britain. Everyone was aghast that the rising generation were totally lacking in patriotism, it would seem, etc. And of course these same young men, mostly young men it has to be said, would only a few years later be putting on their uniforms, going up and fighting and dying for Britain. So I dare you that we should necessarily read too much into it, but nonetheless certainly worthy of debate.

Okay, we've got one here from Mark Harris in Wellington, New Zealand. I read with interest recently of Trump's personal obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize. While we may not understand the new US approach, I wonder how much of it is actually driven by this one desire, hence the misguided but radical suggestion on taking over Gaza, for example. Could it all be as simplistic as that? There are plenty of examples throughout history of one man's desire to

driving entire nations and peoples in particular directions. Well, he undoubtedly does want to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Is that his main driver? I think it would be a nice bauble for him. I suspect it's more about, as you put it, Patrick, getting the deal done, but also a very real sense that America needs to look after itself. We shouldn't forget, make America great again. America comes first. These are important factors. Now,

We've said before, Patrick, this is not going to result in the breakup of NATO, in our opinion. But it might, given the sort of talk that he's been indulging on over Ukraine in relation to Europe looking after its own security, which we fully back. So I think it is partly down to getting deals done, but it's also partly down to this sense that America needs to look after its own interests and not Europe's.

Okay, we've got one here from Marnie in Warwickshire, and she starts off by saying, I'm not Russian, but I do have links to Russia and as much to Ukraine. I take offense in your comment referring to Russian soldiers posting videos of them committing atrocities on social media for people to enjoy.

Many Russians, says Marnie, do not enjoy what's going on. Many Russians have Ukrainian families and extended relatives there. Please try and stop making comments that continue to add fuel to the Russophobia that exists today, has done for years, and is now making decent Russians in the UK and elsewhere fear for their safety. To the extent friends are saying they are not Russian because of this, how would you as an Englishman feel about this?

if the shoe was on your foot. Well, it's a perfectly reasonable request to make, Marnie, and I sympathize with your situation, but that doesn't take away from the fact of the reality, frankly, that Russian soldiers are posting videos of themselves committing atrocities for some people to enjoy. I'm not suggesting for a minute that all Russians, in fact, it was probably you who made the comment, Patrick, but neither of us would suggest for a minute that all Russians, particularly those Russians not living in Russia...

are either responsible for this war or are enjoying what's going on. I'm sure that's not the case. We know for sure that a lot of people in Russia are just fearful and can't actually voice what's going on. But as we say, these videos are being posted and some people are reveling in them. And that's, frankly, the reality on the ground. But it is also true that you make a very good point, which is

it's important for us, I think, to be careful in our comments so that not all Russians are tarred with the same brush. I mean, you make the point that you're not actually Russian. You go on to say, I've traveled and lived in Russia since the early 90s. I'm English-Irish and have a Russian-Ukrainian extended family. So I don't know if that's

because you've married into it or whether, you know, some distant relatives. But either way, you make the point, I love Russia and respect the Russian people I meet. Yet my two daughters living in the UK are afraid to say they have this heritage. That, I'm afraid, is something you need to take up with Putin. If Russians are unpopular around the world, it is, I'm afraid, because of what's going on

Within Russia, as far as the regime is concerned, and also in Ukraine, of course we shouldn't add fuel to the fire, and we'll be careful not to do that in the future.

Yeah, but to be fair to us, I think, Saul, I wasn't saying for a moment that the Russian population in general were delighting in these disgusting videos, but certainly someone is. Otherwise, they wouldn't be posting them. And there is an enormous amount of evidence to show that the Russian army, at least, is a brutalized, brutal force that doesn't reflect at all well on Russian society and culture. So,

It may be hurtful to Russians who don't share those views. They live in an autocratic society where one peep out of them, I guess the regime is going to land them in jail. So I completely understand that. But I think I stand by what I said and I wasn't trying to extend it.

the enjoyment i was going to say that the whole of russia uh exalted in this sort of behavior that i was simply stating a fact so um yeah okay we're going to finish with one from uh tim reese who says he's a brit living in munich he says hi lads great cod have you seen this oh dear extra he's he's based a link uh to a story i think a lot of people would have noticed which is

images of Russian troops receiving resupply by rather sweet-looking donkeys laden with kit being brought up from the rear with resupply for the troops in the front line. It was very reminiscent of a First World War imagery, wasn't it, Saurland?

I think it's just a practical response to, A, the losses of vehicles, which have been massive down the months and years. So it's an indication of just called shortages, but also probably quite a practical response

of moving stuff around, you know, in this mid-winter or late-winter period when there's a lot of mud on the ground. And so, yeah, but of course, I think a lot of people express great sympathy for the donkeys, but Tim...

It's a humanitarian note, so you've got to feel sorry for the Russian soldiers. Very sad. And, you know, it's rather addressing Marnie's point as well here coming back to it. Frequently we've said, haven't we, Saul, that yes, there are lots of unpleasant people in the ranks of the Russian army, an enormous amount of documented people.

Appalling behavior, but there are surely a lot of people who don't want to be there, who fate has delivered them there, or poverty has delivered them there, and our sympathies are with them as they're sent in by inept commanders into the Ukrainian guns. So yeah, we do spare a thought for them too.

Okay, that's all we have time for. As Patrick said earlier, if there's any important breaking news over the next day or two, we will bring you a special. Otherwise, do join us next Wednesday for the latest episode of Battleground 45 and also on Friday when we'll be returning to Ukraine. Goodbye.

We are now living in a world where cold hard power is being exercised. Disorder is now partnered with the Royal United Services Institute, the world's oldest and the UK's leading defence and security think tank. And if the UK wants to convene, it needs to bring something to the party. In this week's episode, hear me, Jason Pak, in conversation with Matthew Saville, RUSI's Director of Military Sciences.

We look at Britain's role in the world. Can Britain use hard military power to become an ordering player on the global stage? If we just see ourselves as essentially a place to have nice conversations at Lancaster House, then all we're going to do is be standing still whilst China and Russia are using hard power to achieve their objectives. Follow Disorder wherever you get your podcasts.