This episode is brought to you by Amazon Prime. From streaming to shopping, Prime helps you get more out of your passions. So whether you're a fan of true crime or prefer a nail-biting novel from time to time, with services like Prime Video, Amazon Music, and fast, free delivery, Prime makes it easy to get more out of whatever you're into or getting into. Visit Amazon.com slash Prime to learn more.
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com slash special offer.
Hello and welcome to Battleground Ukraine with me, Saul David, and Patrick Bishop. Well, it's good to be back, Patrick. I've had a brief hiatus. You had one before then, but we're now back in tandem. And as for Ukraine, well, a strange calm seems to have settled over diplomatic efforts to end the war there after the drama of recent weeks. All the to-ing and fro-ing by American officials and the much-touted man-to-man phone conversation between Presidents Putin and Trump have produced...
Well, nothing that looks like progress so far. We'll be asking, is the anti-climax an indication that the US is about to abandon its peacemaking project?
And if so, how prepared is Ukraine and Europe for the gap in resources, both military and political, that its withdrawal from the scene will leave as it struggles to contain a Russia whose appetite to keep fighting seems undiminished? Well, it's good to have you back again, Saul. We've had a few different people in the chair, including James last week. I thought he made a pretty good fist of it, Patrick, and I suspect both our jobs are at risk in the longer term, aren't they? Yeah, he's definitely hot on our heels.
So we better be at the top of our game today. But anti-climax is right. So that phone call, two hours long, apparently, which Trump put in to Putin on Monday, produced markedly little of substance damage.
Now, remember, this is the third time since taking office that they've spoken. And all along, Trump's been saying, you know, we're going to sort it out. And we can be pretty sure there's been anything real to shout about. We would have heard it announced in the most public way possible, instead of which Trump decided just to put out a bland post on Truth Social.
And that said that things had gone very well. Now, given Trump's tendency to hyperbole, that doesn't sound too good, does it? He went on to say that Moscow and Kiev will, quote, immediately...
begin ceasefire talks with the aim of bringing an end to the war. And these conditions for the ceasefire would be negotiated between the two parties. This is in quotes, as it can only be because they know details of the negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. Not quite sure what that means. Well, of course, all along, Ukraine has been saying that any negotiations must follow, not precede a ceasefire negotiation.
So, you know, this is a big step back from his previous position, isn't it? So until now, he's placed himself front and center of any peace deal, starting, of course, with his infamous campaign trail boast that he could end the war in 24 hours. And only last week, he was saying that it was only him and Putin who could bring peace to Ukraine. So what do you think's going on here?
Well, I mean, what's clear is that Putin is not playing ball in the sense that, first of all, he's not agreeing to the 30-day ceasefire. That's the kind of minimum that was expected. And then they can talk Turkey. Putin's insisting they need to talk Turkey first and a ceasefire later. Of course, this allows him to fight on. It's at this point, Patrick, that we all expected Trump to finally lose patience and to begin to turn the screw, particularly with those secondary sanctions we've been mentioning. But
He seems to be a long way from doing that. So what on earth is going on? Well, some kind of sense of frustration within the U.S. Foreign Service has come with this extraordinary announcement from Bridget Brink, who's been U.S. ambassador in Kiev since 2022, to resign as
as a matter of principle, and some of the comments she made in her resignation statement are really quite remarkable. I'll just read out a few quotes for you. I respect the president's right and responsibility to determine US foreign policy. It's the role of America's foreign service to execute that policy. Unfortunately, the policy since the beginning of the Trump administration has been to put pressure on the victim, Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia.
As such, I could no longer in good faith carry out the administration's policy and felt it was my duty to step down. But there's much more than that, Patrick. She goes on to say, I cannot stand by while a country is invaded, a democracy bombarded and children killed with impunity. I believe that the only way to secure U.S. interests is to stand up for democracies and to stand against autocrats.
Peace at any price is not peace at all. It is appeasement. And history has taught us time and again that appeasement does not lead to safety, security or prosperity. It leads to more and more suffering. And the statement goes on like this, Patrick. It's amazing. It's full of detail about the atrocities the Russians have committed. And she goes on to say, actually, support for Ukraine and Europe is vitally important for America. And she lays down the reasons why.
diplomatically, economically. Most of the US's trade is still done with Europe. It's absolutely vital to America's prosperity. But also it's important, and this is the point we've been making, Patrick, to send a signal to China. If Putin succeeds, she writes, it sends the wrong signal to China that will
undermine the security balance in Asia and throughout the world. That will have profound implications for America's safety, security and prosperity. So pretty strong stuff here, Patrick, and exactly the sort of things we've been saying. But if she felt she could have operated on the inside and ameliorated Trump and his acolytes any longer, she would no doubt have done so. So for her to resign is, I'm afraid, a pretty bad sign.
I think that's right. Yeah, very eloquent stuff, very forceful stuff, but I think unlikely to have any effect on Trump's thinking. I think he's already made his mind up. He's lost interest in the whole Ukraine thing. He was looking for a quick win, wasn't he? I don't know if Trump ever feels regret, but if he does, he must rue the day out of that 24-hour ban.
It must be clear even to him now that Putin's got absolutely zero interest in peace. And Trump was always really in this for his own sake.
actual gain, wasn't it? His own sort of reputational gains to burnish his self-image as the great dealmaker who could succeed by applying business techniques to global politics rather than conventional diplomacy of the sort that the outgoing ambassador to Ukraine represents. Well, he's not entirely wrong about that, his approach, by the way. I mean, look at the relative successes he
He's had in the Gulf on his recent visit and before that, his first presidency with the Abraham Accords, etc. But Ukraine and Russia are very different propositions, aren't they? The conflict's rooted deep in history, and that's territory Trump's never had much interest in. You could say the same goes for the Israel-Palestine conflict.
So my belief is that he's understood that he's on to a loser here. He doesn't want to lose any more face or political capital. And he's already effectively walking away to leave the warring parties to it. And his instinct, I think, will be to blame Ukraine rather than Russia. That's been the case all along. And also probably Europe as well. But he will keep alive. I think they can continue.
still normalize relations with Russia. In that True Social post, he did return to his overarching theme. He said Putin had expressed a desire for large-scale trade in capital letters and
with the US after the war is ended. So I think that strategy is still in play. That's the pursuit of some kind of long-term relationship with Russia, which will wean Moscow away from its partnership with Beijing. I think that's a pretty forlorn hope. But in any case, one way or the other, it leaves Putin free to continue the war without any fear of serious interference from
from Washington, I would say. And I think that's pretty apparent to European leaders now. And after this call with Putin, he then rang around Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, and the European Commission to tell them what transpired. And according to an authoritative report in the FT the other day, the Financial Times,
They were pretty shocked at what they were hearing. And one of the takeaways was that Trump didn't give any indication that there'd be any sanctions imposed upon Russia going forward, despite all his threats previously.
previously. Yeah, so the question then, Patrick, is what Europe does if the US pulls out? We've asked this question before. I mean, there's an interesting indication on Tuesday, not a coincidence, I think just a day after that call with Putin, the announcement that Brussels and London, that's the European Union and the United Kingdom, approved scores of new sanctions against Russia, including the
EU more than doubling the number of oil tankers and other vessels listed as part of the shadow fleet, covertly trading Russian oil and gas. And the EU package, which was the 17th since Russia's war against Ukraine began, also adds new sanctions on individuals and companies. So clearly the
EU and the UK are doubling down. And I think sending a message to America, whatever you do, we are going to keep trying to turn the screw ourselves. Of course, as we know, Patrick, it's going to be nowhere near as effective if the US is not in lockstep with all of this. But there is a growing concern, I think, about a potential divergence in US and EU foreign policy. But this latest
This package is a strong reminder that EU sanctions could remain in place even if, and this is a worst-case scenario, Washington decides to ease its sanctions or opens avenues for trade and finance with Moscow. Now, Saul, do you think there's any chance that US policy could be altered by those around him? I mean, what strikes me is that...
the immediate inner circle, you've got real grown-ups like Marco Rubio. And his record on Ukraine and indeed on Russia and on China has been pretty tough down the years. And this was highlighted the other day when Rubio was in front of a US congressional committee. This was looking into actually the financial aspects of the State Department. But in the course of it,
He was called out, really, by one of the interrogators who said to him, this was Bill, a Democrat, of course, Bill Keating, who said, let's get down to it. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal? And Rubio ducked and died. But then, of course, he had his feet held to the fire when Keating called that in 2017,
When Rubio was a senator for Florida at that time, he asked the same question of Rex Tillerson, who was then up for nomination as Secretary of State, the job that Rubio now has. He asked him exactly the same question and blasted him when he wouldn't respond. So he's now in the hot seat and is, of course,
weaving and ducking to avoid that crossing himself. You can see why. I mean, he's not, if he actually describes Putin as a war criminal, then it's not going to make his job very easy. But I mean, I'm answering my own question here. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, but it seems to me that Rubio is a smart guy, but he's understood that Trump basically sets the tone for foreign policy. You can push back a wee bit perhaps, but if you stand up to him, you're going to be out your ear. And of course he's got presidential ambitions himself and,
He indeed stood against Trump for the Republican nomination way back in 2015, 16. So, yeah, I mean, he's looking at the long game here. But do you reckon that Trump is under any pressure at all from inside his own party? Will he take any account of any other issues?
interested parties. And is there any possibility at all that his mind could be changed? I wouldn't say he's under pressure, Patrick. He's not the sort of person who responds well to pressure, as we know. I think people like Rubio are hoping on the inside they can get his ear over certain issues. And I think there was an expectation that if, as we indeed felt, that if
Putin really didn't play ball over the ceasefire, then this was going to be an opportunity for Trump to do what he said he would do, which is impose secondary sanctions. Doesn't seem to be happening. I mean, interesting thing about that interrogation of Rubio that you mentioned that happened earlier this week, Patrick, is that actually while he wouldn't say that Putin was a war criminal, he did
except that war crimes have been committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, which is something. I mean, it's, you know, we're clutching at straws here, but it is something. And clearly you can see a kind of glimmer of what Rubio really believes. So he's trying to work from the inside to influence Trump. That's no bad thing. But it's not a great look, in my view, for someone who has presidential aspirations to be seen to be so powerful
poodle-like and contradictory, really, in terms of his previous comments on the issue of Russia. He was very strong on Russia before he took office as Secretary of State. So not a particularly good look. Do we think there's anyone who can really force Trump to change
his mind, no, not really. It has to be Trump himself. And he has to feel at some stage that he's not getting the sort of deal from Putin that he hoped for and might lash out. But, you know, we've been saying this for a few months and we seem as far away from that scenario as ever. Absolutely. It's pretty grim news, really. I don't think it's unexpected. I think the Ukrainians have probably thought this is how it would play out ultimately.
And there's certainly no lack of resolve apparent on the battlefield, is there, Saul? I'm thinking about this latest strike. They're doing some really extraordinary things which aren't really getting properly reported. You've noticed this, haven't you, this story about the strike on the Bolkov semiconductor device plant. So this is another example of the cunning and intelligence of...
overall strategy. So give us a bit of a detail on that. Yeah, I mean, this took place early on Wednesday. It was, as you say, this semiconductor device plant, 55 kilometers from Orel, a key facility in Russia's military industrial complex because it develops and manufactures electronic components for radio, electronic equipment, microchips, semiconductors, indicators, etc.,
And it seems to have been blown to pieces. I mean, it was a huge fire. So clearly a lot of damage has been done there. As you say, Patrick, this is part of the broader strategy of Ukraine to destroy Russia's capability to fight on. There have been some interesting other little hints in the press this week on social media too. One interesting one I saw that basically implied that most of Russia's bases that are not
directly taking part in the war in Ukraine are pretty much empty. They're devoid of equipment. And Russia's become a bit of a shell in terms of its military capability, apart from on its western facing borders. And of course, those include Ukraine. I mean, a comment rather archly made by someone on social media is, well, the Chinese should march in because there's nothing to stop them. But that does give you a sense of Russia putting all its eggs in one basket.
And it does also remind us that it's pretty remarkable that Putin is not able, and I suggest it is because he's not able, the people around him won't accept it, maybe he won't accept it himself, not able to take the win that Putin and a reluctant Zelensky are offering him with the freezing of the front lines as they are at the moment. That's absolutely right, Saul. It does bring us on to the question which we can go into later on, Saul, I'll just...
mention it now, but it's clear that Putin is set on continuing the war, isn't he, for a variety of reasons. But as you say, this is a golden opportunity being handed to him by Trump, which he's spurned. And he's one who wasn't hell-bent on continuing the war, would have seen what a brilliant chance this was to get out of it.
Okay, he's going to have some explaining to do. But yeah, I think historically, this will seem to be a huge opportunity that he's turned down. Now, the Ukrainians are also playing mind games with the Russian population generally, aren't they? With this continuing attacks on airports around Moscow, which carried on this week on Thursday, June
All air traffic around Moscow was heavily disrupted by some drone attacks. I think a lot of the drones or maybe all the drones were shot down. But nonetheless, of course, it meant that planes couldn't take off from the main airports around Moscow.
The capital. So this really sends a signal, doesn't it, that the war is going to go on. Okay, the attacks on the airport may not cause any damage, but they certainly cause a lot of disruption. And I think the psychological impact of that is quite profound.
Yeah. And meanwhile, of course, as you've already hinted at, Patrick, Russia's war aims seem to be expanding, not contracting. I mean, there was an interesting meeting between Putin and various Kursk-Goblask officials on the 20th of May, which was reported by the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, D.C. And at that meeting, Putin basically said, you know, what do you need from us? And the Kursk-Goblask official said, well, it'd be quite nice if you could create a
buffer zone on the Ukrainian side of the border. So how big do you want the buffer zone to be, asked Putin, and the response was, well, at least 35 kilometers. And if they went that deep into Sumy Oblast in Ukraine, that would mean they would seize Sumy City, which has long been a name of the Russians. They tried to do it all the way back in 2022. So that's obviously one of their plans. You'll have remembered, of course, Patrick, that Zelensky was warning that the Russians were massing
on the Kursk Oblast border opposite Sumy Oblast. So, you know, that's a possibility at some point in the near future. Quite how far they'll get is another matter. But it does show you that Putin's thinking war, not peace. Absolutely. Well, we'll go in a little bit in part two.
into why that should be. But I think one way or the other, he's riding the tiger now, isn't he? He's basically committed himself. If he climbs off without something that looks like victory, he stands a pretty good chance of being eaten, I would have thought. And I think that's probably his thinking as well. Okay, that's it for this half. Do join us in part two when we're answering all your questions. Welcome back.
Well, the first question is from Maureen. She writes, Hello, gentlemen. I love the pod, but I must be a little bit stupid. Why doesn't Europe, and by that she means France, Poland, Germany, Austria, and any country able to, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, and Ireland, give every tank, plane, weapon, and ammunition they can spare to Ukraine so we can just get on with it and send Vlad the Mad back into Russia for the rest of our lives?
Good. Are these countries expecting an invasion from someone? I would understand why Poland would want to hang on to everything it has, but what about the rest of them? I know there are treaties and laws and NATO, but does anyone really care at this point? And she adds, I'd like to say a word in defense of President Biden. He's been around for a long time and knows how Putin works. Yes, he was frail and failing at the end of his presidency, but I think he deserves the benefit of
of the doubt. Well, we'll deal with the second point, Patrick, later on, because we have another question and comment from a different reader. But as far as all the countries in Europe just handing over all that kit, it's never going to happen, is it? You know, we know that actually what they have handed over is stuff that's mainly in storage, duplicated stuff. Very few countries have actually given frontline kit that their own armed forces would need.
to Ukraine for the very obvious reasons that, you know, that would be denuding their own defence capability. Maureen's point is they're not an immediate threat. Of course, they aren't. But, you know, it'd be irresponsible, frankly, for any European country to just hand over everything it has. I mean, I think that's pretty clear.
Yeah, and it presupposes that, as you say, Saul, no one really takes the threat of another Russian adventure seriously. Well, this is something that's often said by so-called experts. But Ed Lucas, who we had on the show the other day, wrote a very good piece in The Times this morning saying that despite these people who were involved,
saying, okay, this is just alarmist talk. The threat from Russia is felt very keenly by those who are actually right on the front line. He's talking about his recent visits to the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. They've just unveiled an evacuation plan for all 540,000 of its residents. Of course, its border with Belarus is only 22 miles away.
And he also cites a new book published in Russia with an approving foreword by the Russian foreign minister, the veteran Sergei Lavrov, which says that Lithuania is an artificial state led run by Russophobic Nazi clandestine.
And as Ed points out, this is exactly the sort of language that the Russian media use or Russian propaganda used to justify the invasion of Ukraine. Now, we may not be talking about full scale statistics.
attack here, but something like a land grab, some stunt, which is coupled with threats that test and break NATO's resolve. It would basically pose the question, are you really ready to implement, to trigger Article 5 over something which is a border incursion, say? So that's the way they'll go about it. It won't necessarily be
you know, massive operations such as was launched in February 2022. But it will be something that will basically test our results. I think that that's plausible. Don't you, Saul? Yeah, I absolutely do. And as a result, of course, Patrick, as we mentioned before,
Those frontline states are rearming rapidly. They are certainly not going to be handing over their key equipment to Ukraine. And they're also going to be considering the possibility, the kind of nightmare possibility, that if some of their territory is nibbled away at by an incursion from Russia, NATO won't necessarily come to their aid. Personally, I think NATO will, but that's the kind of fear they've got. So it is a fear given the behavior of the U.S. over the last month or two.
that is very real, I think. So yes, there's a lot to play for. This goes back to the point Brink's making, which is, you know, America is in this as well, or at least it should be. But at least as far as the Trump administration is concerned, they can't really see this. And it's pretty scary to consider that. I've got an interesting one here from Peter in Norfolk about the F-16s. This has been an on-off story, hasn't it, from the beginning almost, all about...
These European and American made, of course, aircraft were held by European air forces.
And they've been trickling into Ukraine for some time now. Peter's basic question is, what happened to the F-16s? Are they doing anything? I don't seem to read anything about it anymore. Well, there's got a quick update here. I mean, the F-16s have been deployed, but actually, as far as I can tell, not to any great effect. In fact, three of them have been shot down, as far as I can calculate. One just the other day.
The report said that communication was lost mid-mission as the pilot destroyed three targets before an emergency forced him to eject. He was actually as likely saved.
But yeah, basically, they don't seem to have made much difference one way or the other to this one. Well, they have made a difference, actually. I mean, we reported on this a while ago, a few pods ago, Patrick, maybe a couple of months ago, that actually they were beginning to make a difference, particularly in terms of knocking out missiles coming into Ukraine. And I'm not saying this is down to the F-16s, but it's interesting that
the ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine have been relatively sparing in recent times. And that's not because Russia is changing its mind. It's because it's running out of those missiles. Its main use of attack now is drones, these new jet-powered drones, which are based on the Iranian Shahid design, but are actually being produced in Russia. What about the rest of the F-16s? They definitely have done some good there, Patrick. It's a good bit of kit there.
They were initially promised up to 100, actually. We think that as of now, only about 20 have been delivered. More are on the way. Belgium has promised 30 by 2028. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, they've all promised F-16s. None coming directly from the U.S., of course, but the U.S. has effectively given its permission for these F-16s.
to be passed on. So, yes, they are going to make a difference, but they are still trickling through in relatively small numbers. Yeah, a quick one here from Charles Matosian. He's a regular contributor, is Charles. He says, do you think the Ukrainians who fled abroad, at least the men, will ever be able to return?
return to Ukraine, especially if the country is forced to accept a peace deal which partitions the country. It was seen to me that there would be such animosity between the veterans who fought and the men who safely stayed away. Just a quick response to that. Do you remember that conversation we had in Kharkiv, Saul, with
those guys from the Hathia Brigade, all volunteers, all guys have been doing kind of...
pretty high level civilian jobs before they joined the fight i said to one of them do you think there'll be any discrimination against uh people who stayed away and didn't put on a uniform and uh chap i was talking to you said i hope so so i think that's it a lot of others it's bad it's just only it's only natural it's a natural human response so uh
I think anyone who does return will have their tail between their legs and won't exactly be regarded with any great affection. Moving on to another regular contributor, Therese from Norway. She says, with the recent EU sanctions package, we mentioned that earlier, targeting the Russian shadow fleet, could European countries legally start boarding any and all of those vessels traveling to Europe?
or from Russia, find an infraction and impound the vessel and deport the crew. None of the ships are Russian flagged after all, and any Russian ownership is deeply buried. If this could be done, would European leaders ever have the guts to do this, considering that Russia scrambled the
fight it yet recently in Estonian waters as a show of force, a show of force that had the desired effect as the boarding operation was apparently cancelled. I think there is an intention for them to get a bit tougher. I mean, certainly some ships have been impounded, haven't they, Patrick? And with this new EU sanctions package, they might be prepared to tighten the screw a little bit. But obviously there's a caution there too, not to incite Russia. Got one here from Chris from Aberdeen.
who picks up a point you mentioned earlier. He says, it feels like Western European leaders are still slow-walking aid and sanctions so as not to provoke Russia, while Eastern European, especially Baltic leaders, seem to be more direct in stating the obvious that Russia is already more or less at a room temperature war with us.
And his question is, in your opinion, are Western leaders, i.e. UK, France, Germany, etc., fooling themselves about Russian aggression towards Europe, or are they actually playing 5D chess? Well, we've sort of answered that latter question earlier. But I think on the matter of sanctions, when you were talking earlier about what
actually was in play at the moment, the idea of trying to hit a shadow fleet, really,
There's also this outstanding question of Russian overseas holdings as an estimated 210 billion euros in frozen Russian assets held by European member states. And this debate about whether or not they can be seized, whether it's actually desirable or not, has been going on for quite a long time. And I often ask myself, why is it that the people just don't go for it, act on it?
seize the money, and that would deliver some real pain to Russia. Well, the answer is, of course, that it's tremendously complicated. Legally, I won't go into all the fine detail here, but even though the will might be here, there are certain countries which have actually...
indicated that they're very happy to do it. But of course, they're held up by all sorts of legal constraints. And there is a certain amount of division inside Europe about the desirability of it. So yeah, that's going to be, I think, the situation for some time to come. So we mentioned earlier this issue of Biden, how history will see him.
and our previous contributor suggested he needed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Not so another listener, James, who writes...
Regarding your claim about Biden not being an appeaser, I believe a review of his career suggests otherwise. Biden's history reflects a constant pattern of appeasement, particularly concerning Russia. In 1972, he ran on opposing Vietnam, a stance he later mirrored in Afghanistan, leading to what the author considers America's second clear defeat. As senator, he continues to support Russia by opposing the Gulf War and other efforts against Russian proxies.
During the Obama administration, both sectors of state reportedly viewed Biden as representing the extreme wing of appeasement spectrum. His advocacy led to Hillary Clinton's reset with Russia, contributing to significant issues in Syria and Iraq, and to John Kerry's Iran deal. In his presidency, Biden immediately ended Nord Stream 2 sanctions and expressed a desire to bring Russia
back into the community. Despite bipartisan congressional support for Ukraine aid, the author argues that the White House, under Biden's authority, caused delays and provided suboptimal gear, often leaving funds unspent. His rhetoric, such as the limited incursion comment, and this man cannot remain in power, is presented as misdirection that empowered isolationism without leading to actual regime change. He also reportedly denied allied nations the right to provide Ukraine
Ukraine with American jets. I mean, all of this is absolutely fascinating, Patrick, isn't it? And, you know, just a little bit to add to this whole point about him basically being a dove on foreign policy was a documentary I saw the other day about the decision to take out Ukraine.
bin Laden once the CIA thought that identified him in that house in Abbottabad. Of course, we know that the decision was ultimately taken, but Biden as vice president was against that decision. So that fits a pattern of him really being very soft on these issues of foreign policy. And it does rather back up the point that James is making that maybe with regard to Ukraine, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, there does seem to be a definite pattern which he's spelt out there in pretty clear detail. So thanks for that, James. I think he was actually taking issue with me saying that Biden was not an appeaser. I don't remember actually using those words. I think what I was trying to say was that he has been actively opposed to it.
to helping Ukraine, but his help was far from full-blooded. What did you make of this Hungarian spy story? There was quite a kerfuffle about it a couple of weeks back, wasn't there, in your absence? This was Saul. There's a question here about it from David in London.
And he says, following the news that two Hungarian spies were arrested in Ukraine, I want to ask you what you think are the potential long-term implications of this spy scandal on the already tense relations between Ukraine and Hungary, that is. He goes on to say, to what extent could the discovery of a Hungarian spy network be exploited by Russia to further its disinformation campaigns? And so discord among Ukrainians
allies, well, of course, they'll be trying to use anything they can to do that. And this is, of course, something else they can make some use of. But having looked at this, at the story myself, I don't know what your thoughts are, Saul. It seems to be a little bit of a storm in a teacup. What's interesting is that these two spies were arrested way over in the west of Ukraine. And the accusation is that they were gathering military intelligence from
to be fed into some sort of plan, possible plan to annex this area because it's well up against the Hungarian border.
Of course, Hungary then responded by arresting a couple of Ukrainians, claiming they were spies to working under diplomatic cover. But it's kind of what you expect, isn't it? Of course, Ukraine's going to have its agents in Hungary and vice versa. So I don't think it's going to materially change what already is. David points out it's quite a fractious relationship. Orbán, of course, has been the
The leading cheerleader, I suppose, for Russian interests inside the EU, his attitude towards Ukraine is pretty hostile largely and pretty neutral towards Russia or indeed positive towards Russia. So I don't think that this is really going to change things that much. You got any thoughts on that?
Yes, definitely a storm in a teacup, Patrick. I mean, we must remember that there are various border issues between Ukraine and other countries to the west. And this is partly because Ukraine expanded in that direction, or at least the USSR did at the end of the Second World War. So, for example, Lviv was Lvov, and there are bits of western Ukraine that
the Hungarians claim. Same with Romania. So there are irredentist issues between various countries and Ukraine that have nothing to do with the Ukrainian war. And it's frankly not surprising that Hungary is looking at the possibility of taking advantage of the destabilization of Ukraine to add a bit of territory, to recover a bit of territory that it would consider to be its own. But you see the
broader issue here, Patrick, is that as soon as you have one country saying it's all right for me to nibble off a bit of territory, then that sets the tone for other countries to do the same. It's also important to make the point that Hungary is not an ally of Ukraine per se. It's a member of NATO, but of course, Ukraine isn't yet. So yeah, I'm not surprised that these Hungarian spies are having a look around and that they're scoping out the possibility. But you know, it's not a good look. But are we surprised? Not really.
Okay, that's it from us for this week. Do join us on Wednesday for another episode of Battleground 45. And of course, we'll be back here on Friday to look at all the latest from Ukraine. Goodbye.