258. 3 Years On - Your Questions Answered
48:21 Share

You know what's smart? Enjoying a fresh gourmet meal at home that you didn't have to cook. Meet Factor, your loophole in the laws of mealtime. Chef-crafted meals delivered with a tap, ready in just two minutes. You know what's even smarter? Treating yourself without cheating your goals. Factor is dietician-approved, chef-prepared, and you-plated. Pretty smart, huh? Refresh your routine and eat smart with Factor. Learn more at factormeals.com.

This Presidents' Day, upgrade the look of your home without breaking your budget. Save up to 40% site-wide on new window treatments at Blinds.com. Blinds.com makes it easy with free virtual consultations on your schedule and samples delivered to your door fast and free. With over 25 million windows covered,

and a 100% satisfaction guarantee, you can count on Blinds.com to deliver results you'll love. Shop Blinds.com's President's Day Mega Sale last chance now for up to 40% off site wide. Blinds.com. Rules and restrictions may apply.

Hello and welcome to this special edition of Battleground Ukraine with me, Patrick Bishop and Saul David. Well, it was three years ago, three long years ago, that Russia invaded without provocation its neighbor Ukraine. In the intervening years, we've seen all sorts of horrors.

We've also seen the magnificent spirit of the Ukrainian people. And we've seen the way that the war has upended the old global diplomatic order with, even as we speak, shocking events, shocking changes to the geopolitical landscape happening.

virtually every day, sometimes twice a day. Before we go on, what are your memories sort of? Can you remember where you were and what you thought when you first saw those images of the Russians pouring over the border into Ukraine? We'd been led to believe it was going to happen, hadn't we, Patrick? A lot of intelligence reports coming out from the West that the invasion was on the cause. But until it actually happened,

Waking up that morning, I usually get up sort of about 6, 6.30 and already the invasion was underway. Ukraine is a couple of hours ahead. So it had probably been going on, I think, since the early hours of that morning. And it was utterly shocking because I think there was almost an inevitability that the Russians would...

with the weight of force that they put into that attack were actually going to take over the country in as little as the two or three days that Putin had been told by his military intelligence chiefs to expect the length of the campaign. Well, that didn't happen, did it? First of all, they were stopped

outside Kyiv. Then they were pushed back. Then we got the sort of rather hopeful moment in the summer and end of 2022, by which time we were following events, of course, Patrick, weren't we, on the podcast, that the Russians were being pushed out of Kherson. They recovered the only

provincial capital that was in Russian hands, and also the gains made in Kharkiv, the relieving of the siege there, the pushing of the Russians back into Donetsk. And it really did look at that stage as if with enough support, with enough Western support, the Ukrainians would be able to regain all their territory. But we've

really come not quite full circle, but we're in a much more kind of concerning phase of the war now, aren't we, Patrick? But what about your memories? Well, like you, I mean, it was sort of anticipated, but no one quite believed that Putin would be mad or bad enough.

to do it. And then we saw those shocking images. Like you, I think, and like everyone, we thought the Ukrainians couldn't possibly resist for very long. And my kind of immediate projection was, yes, Kiev will fall, the government will be removed, some sort of puppet will be put in it. But then I thought we were probably in for

a eternal conflict, which would be essentially a guerrilla war fought by Ukrainians against the Russians, which would go on for eternity. I had no doubt about the Ukrainian national identity being strong enough to resist the idea that they were just a province of Russia. And so it was a very depressing scene. Now, here we are. It's actually interesting to reflect on this because Ukrainians, it should not be remembered, have done...

done something very extraordinary. They've actually managed to keep 80% of their country. That is one way of looking at it. Of course, it's far from ideal, but they have cemented their national identity. They've absolutely established it.

their right to be a sovereign state, all the kind of stuff you get from the American right and from the European right about, you know, is there really such a thing as Ukraine? That notion has been absolutely demolished by events. So that is a positive.

Now, on this special edition, we're going to actually really hand the floor over to you, our listeners. You make a great contribution to the show. Your thoughts, your observations are plenty of really interesting ones in this latest batch. We're going to devote the program just to answering your questions, as many of them as we can. So we're going to start off with one here from Mark in Glasgow, which is,

something that emerged after the recent European Leadership Conference tried to come up with some solution to how they're going to react to the diktat coming from Washington about its responsibility for its own security, the continent's responsibility for actually protecting itself. And Marx says most key Western leaders went into the meeting talking about committing troops to Ukraine. Poland was explicitly saying they would not. I read that as false.

The peacekeepers tacitly accepting whatever Trump and Putin agree and the Poles refusing to accept a pro-Putin pause. What do you think? Well, I think the Poles' position is very simple and understandable. I mean, they're going to be guarding their own border.

They're actually in the front line, effectively, Belarus being really essentially Russia. So removing their fighting men from their border and putting them in a peacekeeper role would actually be not a very sensible thing to do. In fact, it would be a gift to Russia, you know, some of the best fighting men in Europe just standing there monitoring a ceasefire. We'll come on to that probably later on in some detail about what peacekeeping actually means. So I think it's a prudent move.

decision that everyone understands their best use, the Polish army's best use, defending Poland against a possible Russian attack. That's how it appears to me. What about you, Saul? Yeah, exactly right. There's no conspiracy theory here. It's not really. Poland may not be entirely happy with what it's heard so far and who could blame them in terms of the initial negotiations just between Poland

Russia and the US. But this is really about all the frontline states, that is those with a contiguous border to

Russia actually keeping their soldiers. And I think the same will be the case with the Baltic states and also with Finland. So it's very unlikely that any of those countries will supply peacekeepers, but they don't really need to. I think the other interesting question, I'm sure we'll come on to it, Patrick, in relation to peacekeeping is why are they even talking about peacekeeping when we don't have the terms of a viable peace yet? Now you could say, well, you've got to make preparations and the US needs to know who's going to be in, as Foxy put it,

in our last podcast, the coalition of the willing. But, you know, a lot more steps have got to be covered before we get to that, in my view. Okay, one from Ben in Delft in the Netherlands. He says, to what extent could European realignment prevent a sellout and what would be necessary to achieve it?

do you think that the larger nations of Europe would have to start looking at some sort of national service, national guard, such as that already practiced by other NATO countries like Finland and Estonia? Well, I mean, people have been talking about conscription for some time now, haven't they? Even in Britain, where it was abandoned a long, long time ago, back in 1960, it would have, of course, to be

Very different national service would have to be very different from the kind of old-fashioned square bashing that obtained in the post-war period where you just basically didn't learn very much, didn't contribute very much. You were just infant tears. But I think everyone's learned the lesson that if you can ever introduce some kind of national service, you've got to link it. You've got to make it attractive. You've got to make it something that you don't try and get out of.

And something that looks quite good on your CV. So if you're in some specialized field, thinking particularly, of course, of IT, etc., then you would be linked to your expertise. Your interest will be linked to what kind of service you actually do. I think we're in a different era now. The need for troops, despite what's been going on in Ukraine, the need for actual troops.

frontline soldiers is declining all the time. And of course, that's not quite the case for the frontline states. We're talking about, you know, that have a border with Russia and Belarus, like the Baltics and Poland, and of course, Finland. Very interesting emails come in from Boyd Davis in Kingston, Ontario. I wanted to comment on the rare earth business.

I'm a chemical metallurgist and work in rare earths, among other things. This business about Eastern Ukraine having all these critical minerals is just drivel, says Boyd. Well, try telling that to both the US administration and, of course, try telling that to the Ukraine government itself. I mean, it's interesting. I'll carry on. I'll read on because Boyd...

Boyd obviously does know something about this. The idea that eastern Ukraine holds vast, untapped rare earth deposits worth hundreds of billions of dollars is not quite true. The global rare earth market is worth about $3.9 billion, and that's for finished metal products. Mining and processing these minerals is a complex, multi-stage process that's significant

significantly reduces their value. On top of that, there are no excellent deposits in eastern Ukraine. Rare elements are not rare, just rare in good deposits, and a mine would take five to ten years to get into production. Rare earth elements aren't inherently rare, just concentrated in economically viable deposits, which are scarce. The notion of Ukraine possessing

500 billion dollars or even 1 trillion dollars worth of rare earths is pure fantasy. I just want to put the reality into the news story. Well, as I say, I think you'll get a bit of pushback on this, Boyd, but it is interesting hearing from someone who knows what they're talking about. I don't know whether that's good news or bad news if Boyd is right on this, Patrick, because of course it is an important part of

bargaining chip for Ukraine, certainly for the Americans to believe they've got a lot of vital rare earth metals that actually they need for the car industry, fighter jets and everything else. So I'm not quite sure what to make of that message. Certainly we've heard the opposite, haven't we?

We have, but once you dig into it, I was talking to James before we started recording, our producer, James Hodgson, who has dug into it a bit, and he says there is actually quite a lot of evidence that, well, I mean, Boyd clearly knows what he's talking about. He's clearly an expert. And there are other experts saying the same thing. You only have to step back. It's interesting how we just sort of swallow these lines, don't we? We haven't got the time to investigate everything that

said about the situation. But when you think about it, I mean, my very slight knowledge of the subject, there are lots of rare earths in Africa. But of course, Boyd points out that, okay, there's rare earths everywhere. But to extract them in an economic fashion, you've got to have concentrated, high-quality deposits. And is that the case in Ukraine? We don't really know. We're just taking both Ukraine and the American economy

word for it, but it does sound like it may well be another example of how a sort of Trumpian exaggeration, how this is going to be a brilliant deal, you know, a genius deal. And then when you look a bit more closely, it's not quite as straightforward as that. We've got to remember that Trump, you know, the genius businessman, he's

has declared bankruptcy six times. So his business is rather not himself. So, you know, maybe he's not actually terribly good at things he claims to be a master of. Okay, moving on to a related question from David Harrison. You referenced, he writes, the seemingly reasonable point that the US cannot actually develop and exploit all the mineral wealth

of eastern Ukraine, if there indeed is a lot of mineral wealth in eastern Ukraine, unless Ukraine itself is secure. Are we sure of that? Are we sure that Trump did not come up with the idea of having a joint venture with Russia with respect to the development of those resources as a way of promoting peace between Russia and Ukraine? I do believe that Trump had floated the ludicrous concept quite some time ago, long before he was president.

That seems exactly the sort of deal that a person like Trump would propose to Putin and think that would virtually guarantee his much desired Nobel Peace Prize. Curious as to your thoughts also on the current status of Keith Kellogg, as it now seems that he was a convenient placeholder, mannequin, I won't say dummy, as I believe he was in earnest, if somewhat deluded while they set up the new channel to Putin. I'm curious if the US military will ever bristle at Trump's recurring humiliation.

distinguished soldiers? Well, two questions there. I mean, the first one is interesting, isn't it? Because frankly, David, if you'd asked that question last week or the week before, I would have jibbed a little bit of the possibility of there being some kind of joint deal with Russia. It seemed logical to me that America would want the control of the vast majority of those metals themselves. But given what we know of the cozying up to Putin in the last week, the fact that Wyckoff

the Middle East envoy has actually been out to see Putin in person. I wouldn't be surprised to be truthful. The question about Kellogg's also interesting. I mean, we thought he was going to play an absolutely key role. He's just been to a meeting in Ukraine. So the first American who's actually spoken face-to-face

with Zelensky. And the press conference that was supposed to take place after that has been cancelled at the Americans' insistence. And that's obviously the Trump's administration's insistence. So it does seem to me that, you know, and very unfortunately, because I think Kellogg has the right intentions, that he is being frozen out of this a little bit. Patrick, what's your reading? Yeah, I think that's right. I think we're seeing signs that he is being

moved to the edges of the negotiation process. Interesting, actually, that Joe Lindsley said that Kellogg's daughter is in Ukraine and is a pro-Ukrainian activist, not saying that he's necessarily going to be influenced directly by her, but the Kellogg family clearly have some sympathy.

for the Ukrainians. And that may not be a great qualification in the eyes of Donald Trump for the job that General Kellogg is now engaged in. I want to address this thing, a really, really interesting point that David makes about the U.S. military. He says whether the U.S. military will ever bristle at Trump's recurring humiliation of distinguished

soldiers. Well, that is not an exaggeration. That's exactly what Trump has been doing. He's got a kind of pretty low regard for the military generally. I'm just thinking back at what happened to Mark Milley. Now, Mark Milley was chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Trump administration. That, of course, means he was America's

most senior military officer. Well, one of the first things Trump did when he came in was to remove his personal bodyguard detail, i.e., the military protection, close protection detail he has, which even after retirement, he carries on with the court for obvious reasons.

Well, Trump withdrew that, apparently in revenge for some unobliging comment that Milley had made about his former boss in private. He told some of his fellow senior officers that he believed that Trump was, quote, fascist to the core. And he also said that they had no obligation to obey the orders, essentially, of someone dictator. Now,

That's one that's just an act of petty revenge, spite, I suppose you could say. But just very, in the last, literally in the last couple of hours, we've heard that Pete Hegseth, the new defense secretary, is moving to remove, to get rid of,

The current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that's General C.Q. Brown, and also the head of the Navy, Admiral Lisa Branchetti. So Hegseth's officials are saying that Hegseth is going to go to combat to get them removed. Now, this is something that is completely unprecedented. This has never happened before.

in modern American history, that an incoming administration gets rid of people at the very top of the military who they deem to be clearly the subtexts as they deem them both to be politically unreliable. And apparently, they're just at the top of a long list of names of people who are for the chop. So this is a really, really worrying development. They're basically

If this goes ahead, which it undoubtedly will, this is the start of Trump politicizing the American military. Henceforth, you will have to, certainly in the years that he's in power, you won't get any promotion unless you're approved MAGA enthusiast. What an appalling development.

Okay, moving on. EC from Madrid writes, in Monday's podcast, one of you commented that you could not understand why Trump would invite Putin, such a despicable and unpleasant person, to the peace talks on the Ukrainian war and leave out Zelensky, a charismatic national hero, an epitome of the values of courage, strength, and entrepreneurial spirit that should, in principle, appeal to Trump. I do not believe that the root of this dismissal of Zelensky and above all Europe should be seen in these personal terms.

Excluding Europe, writes EC, from Ukraine peace talks is likely a tactic to punish and humiliate the EU for its aggressive stance against big tech. US tech giants repeatedly fined for GDPR and antitrust violations want to weaken enforcement of the Digital Services Act.

and AI Act, which threaten their business models. Just as they influence US tech policy, they aim to control European policy. Trump's repeal of the AI executive order signaled this intent. Where lobbying fails, the Ukraine war serves as leverage. I mean, fascinating stuff, isn't it, Patrick? I mean, as I said in the last podcast, follow the money. And, you know, and the money is also involved in this. And we know, of course, how influential the tech

and in particular Musk are at the moment in relation to the Trump administration. So I wouldn't entirely rule out E.C.'s argument from being the case. Yeah, I mean, I think you tend to see things in a kind of economic sense.

I think this is right. It's good that we complement each other. I tend to sort of highlight the personal. I think there's obviously elements of both in this story. But I think the personal thing is important. Basically, Trump's a grudge bearer. He's someone who pursues vendettas. And in the case of Zelensky, they've got history going back to 2019, long before the war. Trump's

Trump basically blamed Zelensky for not cooperating with his plans to damage Joe Biden's

presidential chances. Now, this is all around the murky activities of Biden's son, Hunter. And so Trump basically was leaning on Zelensky to announce an investigation into what Hunter Biden was up to in Ukraine. The mud that was gathered from the investigation would then be useful to sling at Joe Biden. Now, I'm not saying Zelensky was a saint to this because he was prepared to go along with this in order to ensure continued funding from America.

One reason or another, Trump's attempts to stop funding were thwarted. And so basically, Zelensky didn't have to do a dirty deal with Trump. But beyond that, is that enough to explain everything? There's just this one kind of hitch in the relationship. I think it goes beyond that. I think it's a practical message, I think.

Trump basically envies and is jealous of Zelensky. Just look at the optics. You've got this 47-year-old up against a 78-year-old.

who still thinks of himself as being a handsome, virile, masculine figure. And in fact, we look at him and we see a sort of strange peach-hued person with a strange hairdo. And against him is this charismatic, inspiring, courageous, and virile man who's kind of largely respected in his own country despite three years of war. And he's a hero everywhere he goes.

that freedom is cherished. So I think Zelensky's charisma, his fundamental decency rattles Trump. And it's hardly any wonder really that Vladimir Putin is more his kind of guy. Okay, another theory on all this comes from Philip Glucksmann. I just want to hear your thoughts on Boris Johnson's explanation regarding Trump's false and ridiculous accusations against Ukraine and Zelenskyy.

Boris basically said that all these false and ridiculous statements by Trump are to, and these are quote marks, wake up Europe, make Europe come together as they really have now, and also release the 300 billions that are mostly Belgian and French money, or at least in Belgian and French banks, to Ukraine. Does he mean, I think, by that, the 300 billions, Patrick, the money that's being held from...

Russian assets that's been frozen in Europe. I'm assuming he does mean that. Yeah, yeah. I think that's the frozen assets, which, you know, we haven't heard much about them lately, but they're obviously going to be a big part of Russia, I'm sorry, of Europe's arsenal when they're looking at how they're going to kind of muster their resources, both financial, military, diplomatic, et cetera, to fill the American gap. And then that, you know, that 300 billion is going to be a big part of the calculation.

He goes on to say, I'm a supporter of Boris, even though he both looks and acts a bit crazy. But he stood real firm against Putin from the beginning, like Churchill, and sees through all the lies and false claims of his opponents. I mean, I think we'd agree with that, wouldn't we, Patrick? Well, we would. But I think he also claims to have or claimed to have had Trump's ear. You know, he's been described as a Trump whisperer.

You know, the idea that he can actually, this is something that Joe Lindsley was talking about, the idea that you can actually take Trump aside and say, actually, you know, with all due respect, what you were saying, it's not actually true. Well, I think what we've seen the last couple of days has shown that there is no such thing as a Trump whisperer.

and that anyone who thinks they can actually steer him off a course that he's decided on is deluded. Trump will go with whatever the voices in his head are telling him, and that if you do contradict him, you're going to be shown the door pretty quickly. Okay, we'll take a break there. Do join us in a moment for more listeners' questions.

When you check out at the pharmacy, you see the journey from idea to medicine, thanks to our Intellectual Property System, or IP for short. IP safeguards inventions, like a new way to prevent seizures or lower cholesterol. And IP supports competition from other brands, then lower-cost generics, which are 90% of prescriptions filled in the U.S. Innovation, competition, lower costs, thanks to IP.

Learn more at phrma.org/ipworkswonders

Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details, and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. SecureVPN keeps your online activity private. AI-powered text scam detector spots phishing attempts instantly. And with award-winning antivirus, you get top-tier hacker protection. Plus, you'll get up to $2 million in identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com. Cancel any time. Terms apply. Welcome back.

Okay, moving on to Glyn. I've followed your podcast for a couple of years now. I want to thank you for the excellent and balanced coverage. I have a question and would value your opinion knowing you have contacts in the British military. I have friends who served in the British Army and due to my interest in military history and my network of friends, I've joined a few groups on Facebook that include a significant number of veterans. I've recently seen a noticeable surge in misinformation on these groups, often clearly AI generated, but all targeting the current government and specifically the senior leadership.

Despite being obviously fake, the veteran community seems overwhelmingly ready to support the misinformation and will often post pictorial abuse aimed at the Labour Party. I remember the scandal when an army ranger was reported to use images of Jeremy Corbyn in the targets and list Lemby to one dip. We have a cultural problem within our armed forces whereby our soldiers are being conditioned to hate any liberal left-wing political ideologies."

And now manifesting with veterans being primed and ready to believe whatever their right-wing populist leaders tell them are veterans becoming an active part of the Moscow-led misinformation agenda.

Possibly. That is possibly the case. We know that Moscow is... A really interesting comment came from, I think it was in an article last week, Patrick, about what the FSB, that is the former KGB, actually gets up to. And the former KGB officer who's being interviewed is obviously someone who'd come over to the UK, said actually only 15% of our time is spent spying and doing all the things you'd expect

normal intelligence outfit. The rest of it, that is 85%, is spent trying to persuade the West, in particular America, but other major Western nations, that basically spreading misinformation and trying to get them to question the kind of basic beliefs and fundamental ideas that underpin their society. I mean, it's pretty chilling, if that's true. And it may be that they're having some effect on our veteran community. Have you heard anything of this, Patrick?

I haven't, Saul, no. But, of course, agitation and propaganda was a big part of the old communist sort of undermining of the West strategy. So I suppose they've just inherited that. I mean, it's a continuous line that goes from the early days of the Cheka right up to the part of the revolution, right up to the FSB. So I suppose the methodology has been pretty consistent there.

But I think you must have seen this. I mean, soldiers tend to be jokey. I think that's something people don't get. They're kind of slightly anarchic, despite the fact that they're in a very

strict sort of discipline. They operate under discipline. They've got a great sense of humor and often the sense of humor is iconoclastic. So I wasn't particularly outraged when I heard that Jeremy Corbyn's image was being used for target practice. I didn't see it as a sign that there was some putsch in the offing. But I think if it is actually directed as a current leadership, I think it's misplaced because I see in John Healy, the new defense secretary, someone who's really committed to the military and

And when you look at the Tories' record, that was pretty poor, even though they had some good ministers like Ben Wallace, you know, former Scots Guards officer himself. It's basically, you know, the military, all governments have been at the mercy of the economic winds. And, you know, the military's, even though all the danger signs were there, the military has consistently been there.

not being given its fair share of the budget. That is changing, and that is largely due to the pressure that's been put on by John Healy. And of course, you know, the fact that our Prime Minister Keir Starmer has actually got the message and is doing his best to change things. So we've got one here from Graham Young, who says he's 70 years old, and he's making a point that several people have made, including Simon Healy, who's living in the States. And this is really about the compromat, this thing that we've

Heard a lot down the years about have the Russians got dirt on Trump, which may explain his behavior. And Graham says on this, he makes several points, but he's asking the fundamental question. We're all asking why has Trump gone against Ukraine and Western democracy in general? And his suggestions are,

And the first one he comes up with is this business of compromise. And he writes, during Trump's first presidency, there was a rumor there was a young man. He went to Russia and was involved in a classic honey trap sting by the KGB. So Putin has a hold over him. And he goes on, but surely...

after the stormy Daniels embarrassment, i.e. the claims that he'd had an affair with this porn star, he could resist this moral attack and his supporters would think it was past history. He wasn't such a young man. I think the

The story dates back to about 2016 when he was in Moscow, I think, for the Miss Universe pageant, which he had, I think he ran, didn't he? And then he was allegedly filmed by the FSB in his hotel room cavorting with prostitutes. Now, this has been, this story has gone round and round and round. What do you make of this? Or do you think there is any compromise on Trump that may explain his behalf?

behavior? No, in a word. I mean, I'm not saying the Russians don't hold something, but I really don't think it's the key to understanding his admiration for Putin. I think it's much more fundamental. It's almost ideological. Does Trump want to become a dictator, an authoritarian leader himself? Possibly. Will he find it difficult? I

maneuvering in the United States to get to that position. I think he will find it incredibly difficult. I mean, the doomsayers are saying this is where the US is heading. I think a democracy as mature as the United States is really unlikely to go down that track. I think there would be a lot of pushback. But who knows? What we're really asking is what are Trump's motivations? And is his friendship or his close association with Putin, indeed his admiration for Putin,

actually a cover for the fact that Putin's got something on him. I'm not really buying that, Patrick. Yeah, well, me neither. But I think this is an interesting point, isn't it? That basically he wouldn't have, even if it was true, I don't think it would change things very much because his

His fan base, even the evangelicals who have been a big part of it, they don't seem to mind what he's got up to. And so I think, you know, just a little bit more detail is not going to actually undermine his position in them.

Tom from Owen Sound in Ontario refers to Joe Lindsley's recent analysis. That was a couple of podcasts ago where he describes Joe Lindsley's recent analysis of where we are in Ukraine as heartbreaking. And I don't share his hope that getting the true story out will help in any way. And what's...

by the true story, of course, he's referring to is what is actually happening in Ukraine. You know, the real reason Ukraine was determined to get its independence from Russian-influenced politicians, and that, of course, was the two presidents prior to the current president. He goes on to write, Will Europe, Great Britain...

Commonwealth countries and other friends of Ukraine around the world continue to stand by Ukraine if Trump gives Putin a good deal, or will one outlandish threat by Trump send Ukraine's friends into hiding? Trump has moved on from annexing Canada. That spaghetti didn't stick to the wall. Or will his gaze fall on us again? Either way, Canadians understand everything is suddenly different. We are now vulnerable by being so reliant on everything on our now unreliable neighbor. Whether we can distance ourselves or chart a different path

seems highly unlikely in the short term. Is there a path to victory in Ukraine that does not rely on the support or permission of the USA? This feels like the lowest point in the conflict to me. Do you have anything to lift your weary listeners' spirits? I mean, it's a brilliant question, isn't it, Patrick? And you and I have been tormenting ourselves with that exact same question over the last week. And I think both of us, and certainly I can speak for myself,

But this week's been a real turning point for Europe. And I hope in the long term, it'll be a good thing that we will have to understand that we need to take care of our own security. And if Europe is united and Europe is prepared to spend enough money as a deterrence against future warfare on defense, it will be able to solve the problem of Ukraine on its own. I mean, we've spoken many times about the combined economic might of Europe compared to Russia. It totally dwarfs Russia.

And there's absolutely no reason why Europe alone could not keep bankrolling Ukraine until some kind of just peace happens, not least because, as we've also said many times on the podcast, the reason Russia is so interested in this so-called peace deal is because it's in a parlous state economically and things will probably begin to shut down within the next year or so. So time's running out for Putin in that sense.

Yeah, well, it was running out. But, you know, the boot has been taken off Putin's windpipe, hasn't it, by Trump. So he lives to fight another day, and it may well be fighting another day. But on the question of is there anything to lift Putin,

our listener spirits well i think you know what i said earlier on about you know ukraine is battered but it survived and will survive i think i think there's enough capacity in europe at present and building all the time we hope to keep ukraine in the fight if there is no peace at least for the time being and things could move very fast now the dangers have been made so

So, yeah. And, you know, there is a Ukraine. There is a Ukrainian national identity. There's a strong spirit. There's going to be endless problems. I'm not going to make out that it's going to be easy. A lot of people have left. A lot more people will leave. But there is the battered sort of structure of a state there, which I think all sensible Europeans. So that's like virtually everyone apart from Slovakia and Hungary,

We'll rally around. Of course, the problem always with Europe is trying to get a unified policy. We're not Russia. We don't have a dictator. We're not America where there's a sort of essential, essentially a sort of imperial system now. So everything requires discussion. Everything requires agreement and

And that is a lengthy process. I hope to heavens that there's some way of kind of short circuiting, you know, the councils and the system now by which decisions are arrived at. Maybe events will streamline that decision making process.

So Sean asked an interrelated question. Of course, they're all about the peace talks, aren't they, Patrick? Inevitably. Do you agree with Philip Sobhraan that the USA has switched sides in the Ukraine war? I don't expect a live war with the US military tomorrow, writes Sean, but an economic war is coming. Who knows where that leads? Maybe we need a Battleground 35.

I think he means 2035 on that one. I won't be crying tears for NATO. The EU always had to hold its nose on US foreign policy within NATO. Now Europe needs to control its own destiny. An EU-led defence force would be more palatable for me in Ireland, and our country urgently needs a debate on neutrality.

I've personally revised my opinions. Many have made parallels between Munich 2025 and 1938. I would give Chamberlain some credit for giving Britain time to prepare for war with Germany. One of the messages we need to hear is that time is no longer on our side. I mean, I agree a lot of

what Sean said. Not entirely sure about the Munich 1938 parallel, though. The strong argument made by many historians, actually, is that war in 1938 would have suited Europe much better than actually it did a couple of years later. Germany was the one that strengthened in that time, but obviously that's up for debate. Got a couple of related questions here. Alex in Gran Canaria, Lynn in Ireland. They're basically asking, what does...

this American withdrawal from Europe mean for the European arms industry? We're clearly going to have to boost our production, development, all the rest of it, research and development. They're both saying, you know, this is going to have economic consequences. Alex is saying this will be a huge boost for forgering European arms.

economies and then saying are there companies which companies are going to benefit from the increase in defence spending well I think the heart's in a lot of them isn't it if I had any spare cash I'd be investing in the defence industry now but there is a positive way of looking at this isn't there sort of this will create jobs as well

boost economies if we go at it the right way. Yeah, absolutely right. You know, as we both keep saying, you know, a lot of good can come out of this. I mean, what Trump often seems to forget is that it's done very well out of this war. Yes, of course, technically, it's handed over a lot of control

and they spent a bit of money on it. But its arms industries has done very well out of war and will continue to do very well out of this war. So the fact that the European defense industrial base is built up is no bad thing to a lot of the industries within Europe. And Britain, of course, is one of the leading producers of arms in Europe. It will be no bad thing for us either.

Okay, we've got an important email from Doug in Ventura, California. Thank you, Patrick and Saul, for the work you do. As a citizen of the US, I'd like to point out an important statistic. Donald Trump got 77 million votes. Harris got 75. But 90 million eligible American voters did not even vote after witnessing four years of Trump. As Patrick noted in today's episode, Trump will figure out how to keep MAGA in charge of the US from now on.

Quite simple to scrub the voter rolls and set up review boards to massage election results. Most Americans are confused and upset by what is happening, and that is the MAGA plan. But many millions of us still support Ukraine and want to contribute. Many are cautious because they are not certain if a charity is legitimate. It would be wonderful to see a website created that would

list vetted Ukrainian charities and provide links. Perhaps the Kyiv Independent could help such an effort. On that point alone, actually, the Kyiv Independent is a very reliable source of information and almost certainly they will be pointing in the direction of some of the best Ukrainian charities. But also go to the official Ukrainian charity website where you can find a lot of interesting information on all of that. Now,

Doug goes on to say, even though Trump has thrown Ukraine and his valuable European trading partners under the bus in exchange for a pat on the head from a vicious dictator, many millions of dollars are available to Ukraine from private American citizens. It would give us a way to push back. These are tough times for all, but the wicked and cruel. It's good to hear your voices. And it's very encouraging, isn't it, Patrick, to hear those sort of statistics, to know that actually the

Firm backing of Trump is by a minority of Americans, certainly those who didn't vote. And, you know, there are a lot of right-thinking people in the United States who are not going along with this absolute madness.

Yeah, that's exactly what we have to keep in our minds at all times, because there is a tendency to blame America at large, America in its entirety for Trump. But that's a really interesting statistic, the 90 million who didn't vote. Now, that may not be out of apathy. That may be simply they looked at the choice and thought, I don't like the look of either of them.

but that's hardly an endorsement of Trump. So there are a lot of people there who are just weary of the thing or actively opposed to Trump. And let's hope that the system allows them to make their voices heard one way or another. I mean, when you said, Saul, that you were confident about the robustness

of checks and balances on the president, you know, I'm not so sure because I'm not hearing a great chorus of dismay from the great of the good in America. And thus far, there are individual voices being raised. But, you know, it's these, I suppose, you know, it's that confusion that Trump thrives on, isn't it? I think it'll take time before people

actually begin to organize. Well, another encouraging message came in from Michael Birchill, and he's in New Jersey. He also refers to our interview with Joe Lindsley. And he says, well, I think Joe Lindsley makes a few interesting points. I felt compelled to reach out to you both to remind you and your listeners that the vast majority of Americans, so same point that's just been made, do not agree with the Trump administration's unilateral approach to ending the

the war in Ukraine with their taking over negotiations with Russia and cutting out the Ukrainians as well as our European allies from the talks. We're also deeply disappointed in Trump's blatant disregard for our European ally security and are shocked and ashamed of this current administration's actions across a number of areas, both globally and domestically. And he goes on to make the same point that we just made, which is that remember, MAGA Trump followers represent only about 32%

of the American general voting population. Trump won the election by roughly 1.4% of the popular vote, hardly a sweeping mandate. Most analysts I've heard believe Trump won because too many Americans stayed home. So exactly the same point there. Why, you ask? The Trump administration's approach to ending the war is a recipe for failure for Ukraine's future and is designed to basically ingratiate Trump to Putin by giving him most of what he wants before the talks even start. Why, you ask?

It's pretty simple. Trump wants to be seen as a winner and to be able to declare victory. His ego and personality works

this way and his past behavior demonstrates this. It's not because he's jealous of Zelensky. Please keep up the great work with all your great podcasts, but keep in mind the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of what is taking place in our country. It has taken many of us a little while to recover from the disaster of Trump's reelection, but we have begun to awaken and will now start to organize and mobilize in earnest. And that too, Patrick, is really good to hear, isn't it?

Yeah, having said that, it will take time, won't it, for trust to be repaired when Trump goes. Trump will go, something that I've flagged up before my concern that I don't sure shared by many Americans, like our listeners writing in now is, will Trump go? Will he, when his time comes to step down under the Constitution, he has to do so? The Constitution clearly doesn't mean very much to him. So I think we ought to be bracing ourselves for him just ignoring it

declaring himself to be essentially beyond the mere constraints of the law and that he's the embodiment of the American will, the American people. These figures showed very clearly that he isn't, but I doubt if that will stop him.

They've got a sanitary observation from Richard here. And I think this is something we ought to bear in mind before we get too alarmist about what Putin might do next. And Richard says, given the reports of Russian troops being sent to the front in poor condition, some even on crutches, the alleged return of North Korean troops.

He asks, how would you assess Russia's military strength right now? And I think this is a very interesting point. I mean, we've read reports, which Richard references, of Russia scouring all Cold War depots for outdated tanks and equipment, APCs. We had a

a report a while back about these 1950s era APCs, which basically would only just about stop a rifle round, were being sent to the front. And Richard asked, is their military truly on the brink of collapse or is that an overstatement? Well, it's not clearly on the brink of collapse, but it has taken a terrible battering both in manpower and equipment since the beginning of the war. So,

The idea that they will march victoriously on into the Baltics, yeah, I'm sure they'd like to. I'm sure Putin would like to. Whether he has the wherewithal to do so, though, is another matter. My view is that it will take a long time for them to rebuild, but rebuild they will, and they'll probably rebuild better even. The Russian military must learn some lessons from the humiliations they've suffered in the Ukraine war.

Okay, well, I'm afraid that's all we've got time for. We didn't get through all the questions, but we did read them all. We do take them all on board. So please do keep them coming and we hope we'll get round to your query or your observation in some future episode.

That's it for now then. So do join us on Wednesday for another episode of Battleground 45. And of course, we'll be back on Friday with all the latest on Ukraine. There's bound to be lots of extraordinary developments between now and then. Goodbye.

Hi there, I'm Al Murray, co-host of We Have Ways of Making You Talk, the world's premier Second World War history podcast from Goldhanger. And I'm James Holland, best-selling World War II historian, and together we tell the best stories from the war.

This time, we're doing a deep dive into the last major attack by the Nazis on the West, the Battle of the Bulge. And what's so fascinating about this story is we've been able to show how quite a lot of the popular history about this battle is kind of the wrong way around, isn't it, Jim? The whole thing is a disaster from the start. Even Hitler's plans for the attack are insane and divorced from reality.

Well, you're so right. But what we can do is celebrate this as an American success story for the ages. From their generals at the top to the GIs on the front line full of gumption and grit, the bold should be remembered as a great victory for the USA. And if this sounds good to you, we've got a short taste for you here. Search We Have Ways wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks.

Yeah. Anyway, so who is Obersturmbannfuhrer Joachim Peiper? But I see his jaunty hat and I just think... And his SS skull and crossbones. Well, I see his reputation and I think, you know, you might be a handsome devil, but the emphasis is on the devil bit rather than the handsome. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyway...

Be that as may, he's 29 years old and he's got a very interesting career, really, because he comes from a pretty right-wing family, let's face it. He's joined the SS at a pretty early stage. He's very international socialism. He's also been Himmler's adjutant. He took a little bit of time off in the summer of 1940 to go and fight with the 1st Waffen-SS Panzer Division.

Yeah. Did pretty well. Went back to being Himmler's adjutant. Then went off and commanded troops in the Eastern Front. Rose up to be a pretty young regimental commander. I mean, there's not many people that age. Or an Obersturmbannfuhrer, which is a sort of colonel. Yes, I... You see, what must it have been like if you're in...

If Himmler's adjutant turns up and he's been posted to you as an officer, do you think, well, he only got that job because of his connections? For Piper, it must have been always, he's always having to prove himself, surely, because he has turned up. He's not worked his way through the ranks of the Waffen-SS. He's dolloped in, having come from head office, as it were.

It must be a peculiar position to be in, right? He's got lots to prove, right? That's what I'm saying. Yeah, and he's from a sort of middle-class background as well. Yeah. But he's got an older brother who's had mental illness and attempted suicide and never really recovers and actually has died of TB eventually in 1942. He's got a younger brother called Horne.

He's also joined the SS and Totenkopfverbande and died in a never really properly explained accident in Poland in 1941. Piper gains a sort of growing reputation on the Eastern Front for being kind of very inspiring, fearless, you know, obviously courageous. You know, all the guys love him, all that kind of stuff. But he's also ordered the destruction of the entire village of Krasnaya Polyana in a kind of revenge killing by Russian partisans.

Yeah. And his unit becomes known as the Blowtorch Battalion because of his penchant for touching Russian villages. So he's got all the gongs. He's got Iron Cross, Second Class, First Class, Cross of Gold, Knight's Cross. Did very well at Kursk. Briefly in Northern Italy, actually. Then in Ukraine. Then in Normandy, he suffers a nervous breakdown. Yeah.

Yeah. And he's relieved of his command on the 2nd of August. And he's hospitalized from September to October. So he's not in command during Operation Lutich. And then he rejoins 1st SS Panzer Regiment as its commander again in October 1944. It's really, really odd. I mean... But isn't that interesting, though? Because if you're a Lancer, if you're an ordinary soldier, you're not allowed to have a nervous breakdown. You don't get hospitalized. You don't get time off.

How you could interpret this is this is a sort of Nazi princeling, isn't he? He's him as adjutant. He's demonstrated the necessary Nazi zeal on the Eastern Front and all this sort of stuff. It comes to Normandy where they're losing. Why else would he have a nervous breakdown? He's shown all the zeal and application in the Nazi manner up to this point, and they're losing, you know. And because he's a knob, you know, because he's well connected, he gets to be hospitalized if he has a nervous breakdown. He isn't told like an ordinary German soldier, there's no such thing as combat fatigue, mate.

go back to work. Yes, and it's a nervous breakdown, not combat fatigue. Well, yes, of course. But, you know, what's the difference? One SS soldier said of him, Piper was the most dynamic man I ever met. He just got things done. Yeah. You get this image I have of him of having this kind of sort of

slightly manic energy, kind of. He's virulently National Socialist. He's got this great reputation. He's damned if anyone's going to tarnish it. You know, he's a driver, you know, all those things. He's trying to make the will triumph, isn't he? He's working towards the Fuhrer. He's imbued with, he knows what's expected of him, extreme violence and cruelty and pushing his men on. I mean, he's sort of, he's the Fuhrer Princip writ large, isn't he, as an SS officer? Yeah, yeah.

which is why cruelty and extreme violence are bundled in to wherever he goes, basically.