272. Is a Genuine Peace Deal Even Possible?
39:18 Share

This episode is brought to you by 20th Century Studios, The Amateur. When his wife is murdered, Charlie Heller, the CIA's most brilliant computer analyst, must trek across the globe and use his only weapon, his intelligence, to hunt down her killers and enact revenge. Starring Academy Award winner Rami Malek and Academy Award nominee Lawrence Fishburne. Rated PG-13. Only in theaters April 11th.

You don't wake up dreaming of McDonald's fries. You wake up dreaming of McDonald's hash browns. McDonald's breakfast comes first. I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto-friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger. So I can get in more squats anywhere I can. One, two, three. Will that be cash or credit? Credit.

Galaxy S25 Ultra, the AI companion that does the heavy lifting so you can do you. Get yours at Samsung.com. Compatible with select after-parts, Google Gemini account results may vary based on input check responses for accuracy. Hello and welcome to the Battleground podcast with me, Saul David, and Roger Morehouse. Well, the latest news, as predicted last time, is that peace talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between the U.S. and Ukraine on the one hand and the U.S. and Russia on the other, have yielded very little in terms of a concrete ceasefire.

Instead, there were two agreements, the exact terms of which have yet to be explained, for a 30-day pause in attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the Black Sea. Yeah, on the Black Sea agreement, the White House announced that Kiev and Moscow had agreed to ensure safe navigation and eliminate the use of force.

Quite why Zelensky would want this when Ukraine's highly effective use of drones had pretty much neutralized Russia's Black Sea fleet already is, of course, another matter, presumably to mollify Trump. What Zelensky did not want, however, was what the Americans gave the Russians to sweeten the deal. The lifting of Western sanctions on Russian agricultural companies,

and on its biggest bank. He made this clear when he welcomed the agreement as a step in the right direction, but then criticised the White House's willingness to soften sanctions. We believe, he said, that this is a weakening of the West's position and a weakening of sanctions. Ukraine said the truce would start immediately, but that any movement of Russian warships outside the eastern part of the Black Sea will constitute a violation of the deal. Moscow, of course, interpreted things rather differently.

saying that the truce will only come into force after sanctions are lifted against Russian agriculture and fertilizer exports. Yeah, so let's sum all this up, shall we, Roger? Moscow agrees to cease attacks in the Black Sea, which it has been able to carry out for some time, as listeners will know. And in return, it gets to protect the remnants of its Black Sea fleet and, and this is the crucial bit, a partial lifting of sanctions. Now, who do you think is the happier with this arrangement? I'll give you a clue. It's not the Ukrainians.

As for the energy agreement, that was simply a pledge to develop measures to stop attacks on each other's energy infrastructure. Keith said it would start immediately. The Kremlin that it would last 30 days, but be backdated to the 18th of March, as it was announced last week after the infamous call between Trump and Putin. Now, if you go back that far, of course, Roger, as we reported last time, Russia has already infringed this deal. So it seems kind of odd that it would want to be backdated.

The deal, in theory, would cover attacks on pipelines, power stations and refineries, as well as electricity generation and transmission infrastructure. But I doubt either truce is worth the paper it's written on. Yeah, one of the peculiarities of this, of course, is the status of SWIFT, of the International Banking System, out of which Russia was locked out back at the beginning of this conflict.

And it's been one of Russia's sort of great demands is to be allowed back into SWIFT. So I wonder if this demand that, you know, one of Russia's biggest banks is allowed to function again internationally is sort of the wedge issue on that, the way to get that back on the table. Because as I understand it, Saul, I think that's within effectively the EU's gift. I think SWIFT is based in Belgium.

in Brussels. And effectively, I mean, this could potentially give the EU another sort of lever with which to operate. More than that, I think on your point about the sort of how negatively this is going to be seen by Ukraine, I think Zelensky is absolutely on the same page as you are there, Saul. He said on X this week, how Russia behaves in the coming days will reveal a lot, if not everything.

If there are air raid alerts again, if there is renewed military activity in the Black Sea, if Russian manipulations and threats continue, then new measures will need to be taken specifically against Moscow. And he carries on. Now results are needed from Russia.

We do not trust them, and frankly, the world doesn't trust Russia either, he said, casting doubt on whether Moscow is truly ready to end the war, ready to stop lying to the world, end quote, including lying to the US and, of course, lying to Donald Trump. Let's be frank with all of this. The main point...

as I see it, is that President Putin of Russia does not want peace on anything like the terms that would be acceptable to the Ukrainians. In Trump's sort of oddly value-free and morality-free world, it seems that he assumes that Putin is fighting for the cession of those four Ukrainian provinces, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia,

Those four provinces that Russia annexed in 2022 and where it held those fraudulent referenda, if you remember, but it does not yet fully control. And Russian propaganda will be doubtless very happy to encourage the US president to perpetuate this naive idea. But what Trump should be asking himself is this. Putin is already the leader of the largest country on the planet with untold mineral and raw material riches. So why would he be interested in four measly Ukrainian provinces?

What's really at stake, of course, is the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent state. That's what Putin is fighting to extinguish, and that's what Zelensky is fighting to maintain. Of course, the Kremlin's tactic in all of these negotiations will be to drag out the talks for as long as possible, to obfuscate, to lie, and to demand as much as possible in the hope that those negotiating partners will tire or that the situation on the ground will shift in their favour.

On that latter point, successes on the battlefield seem to be fairly even at the moment. This week, Ukraine made gains on the Sumy-Belgarod border and also near Pokrovsk and Toretsk, while the Russians nibbled away at territory in Donetsk and Zaporizhia. On the subject of those talks in Riyadh, I'm reminded of the complaint of the Lithuanian representatives at the negotiations with Moscow in 1940, where they were desperately trying to avoid the looming prospect of annexation.

and they said that trying to negotiate with the Kremlin is like throwing peas against a wall.

As always, Russia's tactics in these situations are to make maximum demands, offer minimum concessions, and wait until the other side offers you what you want. Trump and the helpless Mr. Vitkov would do very well to have a long, hard think about such things before they go into the next round of so-called negotiations. Yeah, I think you're right in all of that, Roger. And if we return to the strikes at the moment, particularly the longer-range strikes, I

I think it's pretty clear that the Ukrainians are still not only in the material ascendant, but also the moral. Moral because their strikes are on legitimate military targets, whereas the Russians continue to strike civilian infrastructure, including the port of Odessa, which, as listeners will know, Patrick, James and I visited in January, and a children's hospital in Sumy on Monday that left empty.

88 injured, including 17 children. The Ukrainians, on the other hand, used missiles and drones to take out four Russian helicopters and troop concentrations in Kursk and also caused a massive explosion at the Engels airbase in Saratov, Russia.

a good 300 miles from the front line, that was probably a combination of ammunition, nuclear bombers and cruise missiles all going up. And the strike was so impressive, it was described by the British Ministry of Defence as Ukraine's most successful on Russian munitions this year. Is this making a difference to American messaging on the conflict, this difference in terms of the targeting? I would say it suggests no, it certainly is not.

Yeah, that's right. So Trump and his inner circle continue to swallow Russian propaganda wholesale, including the suggestion that the Russians want peace and the Ukrainians are an impediment to that ambition.

Trump himself was even guilty of repeating Putin's blatant and barefaced lie that thousands of Ukrainians had been surrounded in Kursk and that their only option was to surrender or die. That was never the case, as Zelensky himself made clear this week when he told Time magazine that it wasn't true, adding tellingly, I believe Russia has managed to influence some people on the White House team. He might have added, via lies, damned lies and disinformation.

Zelensky, whose position seems to be hardening, also told Time that during his stormy Oval Office meeting with Trump last month, he had the feeling that the US was not taking the position of an ally. Well, he certainly got that one right.

He did indeed. And we also had the bizarre and worrying interview that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, gave to Tucker Carlson in which he claimed, among other things, that Putin was, and I quote, super smart and straight up, and also questioned the territorial integrity of Ukraine by suggesting that the root cause of the war was the Kremlin's view that Ukraine was a false country.

He said, there's a sensibility in Russia that Ukraine is a false country, that they've just patched together in this sort of mosaic. That's the root cause, in my opinion, of this war, that Russia regards those five regions. And by that, he's referring, of course, to Crimea and the four disputed provinces as rightfully theirs since World War II. Now, Vykoff, clearly no historian, was probably referring to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1954 to Ukraine, the Ukrainian Socialist Republic. That, of course, was done partly to apologize to Ukraine for the deliberate famine inflicted on it by Stalin in the 1930s, which killed millions.

But there was never any transfer of the other four provinces. They had been part of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic since its formation in 1922. And even worse, I suppose, than this a historical reading of when these provinces were handed to Ukraine.

ukraine is the fact that wikov couldn't actually even name them he doesn't really know exactly where they are and what they're called i mean it's astonishing these comments so outraged alexander mrozhko chair of ukraine's foreign affairs committee that he suggested wikov should be fired for making such plainly ahistorical and false comments and so he should but will he be roger

Well, no, of course he won't. I don't think so. Like many, I was left open mouthed by the arrant ignorance of Mr. Vitkoff that he displayed in that interview. Of course, one doesn't really expect honesty or even intelligence from anything featuring Tucker Carlson and a former real estate magnate turned special envoy. But still, I think this car crash of an interview demonstrated the depths to which the Trump administration has already stooped. And that's already after barely two months in office.

I have read it suggested that Vykoff's comments were intended primarily for a US audience, to soften them up, to justify the coming American capitulation to Russian demands to jettison Ukraine. And that may well be the case. But the wanton ignorance on show was simply jaw-dropping. Speaking of those American officials that should probably be fired, we must add Mike Waltz, Trump's national security advisor, for mistakenly adding Jeffrey Goldberg,

the editor-in-chief of the liberal Atlantic magazine, to a group chat set up to discuss imminent US strikes on Houthi rebels in the Yemen,

The scandal, which has been given the moniker Signalgate after the messaging platform upon which it took place, is a profound embarrassment for the Trump administration, not least because of the idiotic security breach that it represented, not only including a journalist on a private strategic discussion, but also in Goldberg, including an arch enemy of the MAGA right. But more profoundly, the scandal reveals something very significant about the Trump MAGA mindset to the world.

Pete Hegseth, Trump's defense secretary, railed in the conversation about his loathing of European freeloading, essentially complaining that the Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea were Europe's problem. So why should the U.S. be solving it for them?

And whatever the merits of that argument, and let's be honest, there are some, the tone of the language loathing and freeloading Europeans is really very telling and should be ringing alarm bells in Europe, not least in explaining the very apparent shift that we've seen in the American attitude towards European matters, and in that you can include Ukraine, over the last few months. And it

And it should serve as a wake-up call to all those who are holding out for some grand scheme to be revealed, expecting that Trump's negotiating genius will become clear and he'll box Putin into a corner and the old Atlanticist loyalties will once again reveal themselves and will triumph and save the day. These are all false hopes, I fear. The times, as Bob Dylan might have said, have changed. Indeed they have, Roger. Okay, we'll take a break there. Do join us in a moment for listeners' questions.

Today at T-Mobile, I'm joined by a special co-anchor. What up, everybody? It's your boy, Big Snoop Dio Double G. Snoop, where can people go to find great deals? Head to T-Mobile.com and get four iPhone 16s with Apple Intelligence on us, plus four lines for $25. That's quite a deal, Snoop. And when you switch to T-Mobile, you can save versus the other big guys, comparable plans plus streaming. Respect. When we up out of here...

See how you can save on wireless and streaming versus the other big guys at T-Mobile.com slash switch. Apple intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later. Every day, thousands of Comcast engineers and technologists like Kunle put people at the heart of everything they create. In the average household, there are dozens of connected devices. Here in the Comcast family, we're building an integrated in-home Wi-Fi solution for millions of families like my own.

It brings people together in meaningful ways. Kunle and his team are building a Wi-Fi experience that connects one billion devices every year. Learn more about how Comcast is redefining the future of connectivity at comcastcorporation.com slash Wi-Fi.

Are you still quoting 30-year-old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now. It pays to discover. Learn more at discover.com slash credit card. Based on the February 2024 Nielsen Report.

Welcome back. Well, the first question is from Luke in Forest, Scotland. And this is about the appetite of the European coalition to, as Luke puts it, eventually take matters into its own hands. If Trump disengages in frustration from attempting to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine, and maybe even from NATO, could you foresee some sort of European force being deployed in Ukraine, regardless of any ceasefire deal? For instance, would the Europeans be bold enough to gradually deploy forces in Ukraine?

possibly warning the Russians not to proceed past a certain line on the map. And that's also the suggestion of Paul in Surrey, who wonders if it would be a good idea for a European force to guard the Belarus border while the Ukrainian army takes care of business elsewhere. This is pie in the sky, really, isn't it, Roger? What's your feeling about this? Yeah, I have to agree with the premise of Luke's question, certainly. I do feel

as I've said many times, you know, in speaking to you, Saul, over the months and years, I'm not known for my optimism. It must be true. But I mean, in this case, I just, I can't see Europe. I just see Europe as being sort of almost congenitally incapable of bold action. Certainly the sort of bold action that Luke is talking about there.

like rearming and supporting Ukraine in the way that they're talking about doing now and have begun to move, you know, glacier-like towards doing so. Now, that is a monumental shift in sort of European policy and European outlook and European worldview, right?

So the idea of going that step further and actually having European boots on the ground in Ukraine, I think is, at the moment, I think is kind of inconceivable. I can't really see that happening. I mean, that's not to run down what we've already seen in the last few weeks. I think that's been remarkable, particularly the debt break in Germany being lifted. They're saying all the right things. Of course, that has to be translated into actions and tanks and artillery pieces and all the rest of it. That is already...

you know, a huge shift and it should be welcomed. We should applaud that. But the idea of actually putting boots on the ground, I honestly can't see that in the very near future. Okay, we've got one here from Kian in Singapore. And it's fascinating, actually, because his reason in writing is that he feels that many in the Asia Pacific region do not appreciate the significance of a continued Ukraine resistance as the reason why war has not broken out

in their backyard yet. And this is a point I think you and I, Roger and Patrick, have made many times, which is that it's all interconnected, isn't it? You know, if the bad people, if these authoritarian regimes in any part of the world are making headway, this is going to encourage others. And what Keehan says in particular is he's been hearing grave concerns about the withdrawal of the American security umbrella to Europe

and would like to offer some historical references from Southeast Asia in the 1970s. With the fall of Saigon in 1975, the region was in a far worse state than present-day Europe. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, otherwise known as ASEAN, formed in 1967, was more like a loose patchwork of

unstable post-colonial regimes with homegrown communist insurrections. A then war-weary America could no longer be relied on. Backed by the Soviet Union, the Hanoi government could claim to have defeated the Japanese, French, American and more recently Chinese communist imperialists. And after occupying Cambodia ostensibly to remove the genocidal Khmer regime, Bangkok seemed to be next on its list. That of course is Thailand and it used to be popularly said that it was perhaps the city's

infamous congestion that would delay the Vietnamese army from marching in. But the organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, rose to the occasion and organized together with the Chinese an effective Cambodian resistance that made the kingdom Vietnam's own quagmire. By the 1990s, the war was over. Vietnam withdrew and elections with less than ideal outcomes, it must be said, were organized.

Vietnam joined ASEAN subsequently and is today one of the critical members of state. So it's interesting, all of this, isn't it, Roger? Because Kian's basically giving us, you know, he's saying, look, things were pretty bad and actually Southeast Asia came through it and that the EU and NATO are definitely in better positions than ASEAN.

ASEAN was in 1975. So he's trying to offer some encouragement from his part of the world, whose fate, as he points out, is also tied to the Ukrainian front lines. Yeah, of course it is. I mean, I think that's pretty clear that China will be watching ever more closely precisely what

this geopolitical shift from Trump actually means for them. So they'll be watching events very closely indeed. And I think he just makes the point there that, you know, of course, history doesn't repeat itself. It's always different in every scenario. But there is always hope that out of these, you know, seemingly difficult situations and sort of grand

grand, what looked like grand geopolitical shifts, you know, sometimes some positives can come out of it. So, you know, there's hope there. We've had quite a few messages from Canada, hardly surprising given the events of the last couple of weeks, but this one's particularly alarming from James Skimming.

in Hamilton, Ontario. And he writes that we're now at the point where Canada's national newspaper of note, and that, of course, is the Globe and Mail in Toronto, is publishing opinion articles about Canada developing its own independent nuclear arsenal that are not in jest. Now, in James's view, this is utter madness. However, it goes along with other serious articles about how Canada might be able to defeat the US in a decade-long insurgency,

in the manner of Afghanistan. And that's presumably if the US actually invades Canada. And he gives us another example from a piece in the National Post that basically is talking about this guerrilla resistance, a bit like the resistance we imagine there might have been in the UK, Roger. Yeah.

in 1940, well, in the Second World War, if the Germans had managed to successfully invade. And James goes on to say, this could all be clickbait, but this reflects the spirit of the times here in Canada. I may just buy myself an FPV drone to get some practice just in case. And it's interesting, all of this, isn't it, Roger? Because there has been pushback from the

the Canadians, including the prospective prime ministers. And the country itself seems to be pretty united in its determination to resist any kind of incursion from the United States. Yeah, it's definitely changed the face it shows to the world, as it were. It's shown itself to be much more vehemently patriotic and, yeah, I mean, astonishing. So...

I mean, honestly, I would be astonished if anything, if anything actually violent happened in on that particular frontier. They always call it the, you know, the world's longest friendly frontier. I can't imagine that that's actually going to erupt into something or other. This is just this is just Trump sort of shaking the tree and seeing what's going to happen.

um it's insane so uh the idea is the idea of canada you know planning for a decade-long insurgency against an american invasion is well i mean we we absolutely pray is for the birds uh this is this is not realistic this is this this can't happen surely okay um we've had quite a few on china of course too and not least because we mentioned in the last pod as alex uh takes um issue with that china is not yet a threat but

But we've been reminded of a number of things, actually. First of all, the war that China launched on Vietnam in 1979, trying to pretend that that was a defensive war, whereas clearly it was a war of aggression. And also recently, the unveiling of these new barges, which are technically landing barges, which might be used for an invasion strategy.

Taiwan, the recent sailing around Australia with various naval ships, you know, a projection of their naval power. And the question from Alex is, does this change your view on China? And also, what are your thoughts on the Heathrow closure? Any sense that could be Russia? Well, let's deal with China first. China

Not entirely. I think what China is very good at. I mean, I take your point about the invasion of Vietnam. That's a border state. It was trying to project its influence on Vietnam. It felt that, you know, communist Vietnam was kind of slipping away from its influence. So that was very definitely an act of aggression. And I'm not saying for a minute that China would never consider an invasion, but I think it's going to get to a point where it will do everything it can to get what it wants without actually invading.

And of course, the projection of military power is one way of doing that. So no, I haven't entirely changed my view, but I do accept the points that are coming in. What do you think about the Russian, the Heathrow closure, Roger? I did think at first that could be Russian. What about you? Yeah, I mean, it was suggested at the time, wasn't it? And, and,

I mean, I think when you look at that sort of the idea of infrastructural attack, like, you know, talking about the cables out in the Atlantic Ocean that are sort of being hovered over by Russian vessels, probably as we speak, Saul, you know, all of that sort of part and parcel of a hybrid warfare attack. I mean, you can see that this would be, you know, an ideal place to hit.

It struck me as quite surprising when I saw the reports of that, when the fire was actually still raging, that all the news reports were very happy to use Google Maps and show you exactly where this place was. So if it wasn't a Russian hit last time, you can be damn sure that they'll hit it next time because they know exactly where it is now. And it does sort of highlight, and this has been the response from our government, of course, and absolutely rightly, it does highlight that this is a key piece of infrastructure that needs to be made absolutely secure.

So the fact that it was just a sort of six-foot fence around the thing is not really up to the task when you consider its strategic importance. So I'm quite happy to remain unconvinced by that particularly. Let's call it, for the time being, we'll call it conspiracy theory that it was a Russian attack.

and see if it happens again, we'll know that it was. Interesting question from Michael who lives in Finland. And he's asking, could it be possible that Trump administration's pivot to Asia is nothing more than virtue signaling to the MAGA base rather than an actual commitment to protect Taiwan and other allies in the Asia Pacific region? If the US appears to have abandoned Europe in its time of need, what motivation does Trump have to go to war with China over Taiwan when he can just do a backroom deal with

Xi and leave the Chinese to it. And he goes on to say there have been skirmishes between the Chinese and the Philippines over various territories owned by the Philippines, yet Trump hasn't intervened. And furthermore, in the recent Department of Defense plans, there's been doubt cast on building up U.S. troop numbers in Japan. So why is the entire foreign policy community still convinced that U.S. power means anything anymore or that the U.S. won't sell out any ally for a quick buck? And I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

The issue with China, of course, is one of economic power and a kind of sense that that's the existential threat to the U.S., economic power equaling military power ultimately. So a feeling that you need to keep China in check. And yet there is no absolute definite commitment on the part of the U.S. It's assumed rather than has actually been stated in any treaties that it will go to war over Taiwan. So it's definitely a big question mark, I would have thought, Roger. Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. And that point that Michael makes when he says that, you know, why should we assume that the US would actually, you know, stand firm over Taiwan when, as he says, they could just do a backroom deal with Xi and leave the Chinese to it. That would have seemed outlandish six months ago. But now it doesn't because you can see, you know, this sort of Trump's view of China.

everything being rather transactional rather than moral in nature, which we've seen played out in the last couple of months. It seems to be operating pretty much a value-free foreign policy. It's all about the deal. There's no sort of morality. There are no red lines in terms of grand strategy, for example. It's all about cutting a deal.

and doing something positive for USA Inc., as it were. So that comment, I kind of agree with that. I think that does cause a... or should cause us to all reassess exactly what role we think America is going to play. The whole thing actually...

strikes me. I was talking to a colleague the other day about Ukraine and this sort of grand shift in American policy. And he gave me this wonderful line, which is apparently a Dutch proverb, which says that trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. And, you know, trust develops gradually and it leaves very, very quickly when its time is up. And I fear that trust in the US, I mean, almost whatever comes in the next few months is rapidly disappearing amongst its allies.

As we said, people like Xi in China are going to be watching very closely because I think Taiwan, it really is going to be on the list of its next targets.

Yeah, and expanding the debate about Taiwan is Dominic from Switzerland. And he, by the way, is the listener who made the point about the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 that I already referred to. Well, he also adds that the notion that China has never started a defensive war is a very powerful discourse that's linked to the 150 years of humiliation, of course, since the arrival of the Europeans in China in the 19th century. And in this sense, getting back Taiwan is of core importance for the historic mission of the

Communist Party to finally end the age of humiliation by 2049. That apparently is one of the dates that's been floating around 100 years after the foundation of the People's Republic. And he adds, there's an idiom I learned in China. It's like a panda bear. It looks very cute and you may want to hug it, but it's a bear after all. Wonderful. That's a good one.

Another couple of questions here from Brendan in Sydney, Australia. The first one is as follows. He says, is there a method to Trump's apparent madness, he asks. You've noted Europe's rearmament and rising defense spending. Does this not stem from his disruptive, tough stance?

Would we see this progress otherwise, he asks. I think up to a point you're right there, Brendan. And we think it is a necessary corrective that's coming with the increase in spending and so on. And that arguably wouldn't have happened without Trump in this kind of bull in the china shop kind of way, throwing everything up in the air and seeing what comes down. I mean, to a large extent, that is part of his method.

But the problem, I think, is, and this is what we're beginning to see, is that Trump's foreign policy is more than just, you know, disruptive, you know, throw the pieces up in the air and see where they land. More than that, it seems to be morality free and value free.

And it's all about the deal. It's about, you know, USA Inc., as I said, doing a deal with the highest bidder. So those two are not the same thing. They might be two parts of the same approach, but, you know, just the disruption element is kind of not the whole story. And I think the wider absence of a wider morality is profoundly quite worrying. So that's how I'd respond to that one. But what about you, Saul?

Yeah, no, I'm with you on that. And let's take the second of his questions, which is, is a Russia-China alliance, plus Iran and North Korea, the greatest threat to global stability? And if it is, could Trump's softer approach to Putin be a clever, real politic move, eyeing a bigger risk to freedom beyond Ukraine's current

I mean, again, I'd love to think that there is, as Brendan says at the end of this, I may be naive, but I'm hopeful Trump and the Republicans bluster hides a deeper strategy. And I'd love to think there was a deeper strategy behind this. But I really, you know, I just cannot give them...

credit for that. I mean, in the end, the only thing that Trump has done that is of good for the West in the longer term is you've already dealt with it. It's Europe rearming itself and realizing that it's got to take care of its own security. But beyond that, no, nothing he's done in terms of his support for Ukraine, in terms of the

question marks over what he'll do in relation to Taiwan in the sense of his cozying up to Russia and the war criminals that are running that country. None of that, frankly, is for the benefit of the West in the longer term, in my view. And the idea that there's going to be a clever attempt to peel Russia away from China, well, we've spoken to a number of experts on this, and they're simply not buying that.

If anyone's been played in all of this is Trump and he simply can't see it. Yeah, I absolutely agree. I think there's a there's a sort of a wish. This is like, how do I put this? A liberal Western cope. I think you could put this that this is that some grand scheme is about to reveal itself. But I just I can't see it. Honestly, I can't see it. I can't see Trump's foreign policy as it has revealed itself in the last two months.

as anything other than essentially amoral. There's no moral backbone or no moral thought there at all. No deeper principle involved. So, you know, again, like our questioner there, I hope I'm wrong.

because it's a pretty dark world if that's the case and i hope some grand scheme will reveal itself but at the moment i can't see it and i can't see that trump is is you know has the wherewithal to do that we've got a fascinating insight into trump and his mindset from another of our listeners that's tofa and he's in phoenix arizona and first of all he thanks us for uh bringing such quality content every week particularly the interviews we've had with people like joe lindsley baldy

and Katerina Ratyshna. But he goes on to say, I think the background of the conflict in Ukraine with Ukrainians tilting towards becoming more European is a major point against Ukraine in the mind of Trump. So it's not just the personal animus towards Zelensky. It's also almost philosophical, certainly political. The MAGA crowd, Taffer says, views Europe and Canada as limp-wristed and sclerotic populations.

losers that care more about being empathetic and compassionate than taking care of their own people. In other words, they're seen as suckers. I think Trump has an inherent distrust of anyone who wants to be more like Europe. Furthermore, I think Trump equates American support for Europe, whether through American NATO membership or supporting Ukraine, with supporting suckers and losers, which goes against his whole image as a sharkish business tycoon with no patience for weakness. And, you know, that makes a lot of sense to me, I'm afraid, Roger. And it also

rather undermines the argument that there's some grand scheme in all of this rather than, you know, some kind of personal animus towards the Europeans. Yeah, I absolutely agree. That does ring true. And as you say, it does argue against that idea that there's some, you know, grand plot behind this that's going to be revealed. As I said in our earlier piece, I fear that, you know, the times have changed and we have to accept that. Okay.

Okay, and our last question is from Warren Wilson in Lisbon, Northern Ireland. And he notes, with Trump and Putin, I keep being reminded of the Hitler-Stalin pact to divide Poland prior to the invasion and the start of World War II. My concerns are that there may be some kind of deal hatched by Trump and Putin, however naive in Trump's case it might be. Trump's narcissism is blinding him to his potential negative legacies.

It's definitely a moment of history. Well, you've written about this, of course, Roger, in your Devil's Alliance. Could there be a secret pact between the two, do you think?

I mean, I think when I was reading this question, I sort of thought, yes, straight away, absolutely. I think that I think this is, you know, a very sort of parallel situation in a way. It's not, of course, that the U.S. necessarily wants its chunk of Ukraine, although, you know, the recent minerals deals rather rather suggested that might be the case.

But it's more that the US, in a sense, wants to cut and run. So it's a slight, you know, the situation is always different. Circumstances are always different. But this idea of two large powers, you know, dividing up the small powers between them and everyone else can go hang. And, you know, the smaller powers don't matter. The rule of law doesn't matter. The fact that this is a sovereign independent state doesn't matter. Now, all of that stuff rings very true between 39 and now.

And that's partly why I think people like me, and whenever I come and talk about Ukraine with you all, I always feel I have to apologize for being so pessimistic. But I think this is one reason for it, because I sort of see parallels with that history. And we know how that ended up. I mean, anything that started in 1939, we know that was not a good few years for mankind thereafter.

So in a sense, you sort of, certainly with my professional background, you sort of look back to that history and say, oh God, not again. But I think there's a very solid point in here, Warren, in Warren's question, that this does seem to be a very similar situation.

And it will be out of naivety in Trump's case, as he says, and narcissism. And of course, that desire just to sort of, you know, cut Europe loose and leave Europe to sort out its own problems, thereby ending, you know, 80 years of, you know, the cornerstone of Western strategic policy and thinking was, you know, resolutely Atlanticist. And that's gone out the window within two months. That's why those like me are sort of so shocked by what's going on.

Okay, that's all we have time for. Do join us next Wednesday for another episode of Battleground 45 and also on Friday when we'll be hearing the latest from Ukraine. Goodbye.