Shownotes Transcript
Hey Prime members, are you tired of ads interfering with your favorite podcasts? Good news! With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad-free top podcasts, included with your Prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free. Or, go to amazon.com slash ad-free podcasts. That's amazon.com slash ad-free podcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads.
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment.
Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. I'm Alex Dibble, and I executive produce the podcast. The World in 10 is partnered with Frontline, the interview series from Times Radio, available on YouTube, with expert analysis of the world's conflicts. At the weekend, we bring you Frontline interviews in full. Here's one from this week. I hope you find it interesting.
Hello and welcome to Frontline for Times Radio with me Kate Chabot and this time we're joined by Timothy Ash, Associate Fellow in the Eurasia Programme at London-based think tank Chatham House. He's also an economist with a key focus on Ukraine, Russia and Turkey and a Senior Strategist at RBC Blue Bay Asset Management in London. Good to see you again Timothy, nice to see you on Frontline.
You write substacks as well. And in your recent one, you say that both sides are further apart than ever on the prospects of a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine. Why and how have the negotiations conducted by the US seemingly made things worse?
Yeah, look, I mean, my perspective was that both sides, Russia and Ukraine, could have conduct the long war. They're ready for the long war in many respects. They don't particularly want that. They'd actually like the war to end for different reasons. And I think they were just waiting for the US elections to get out of the way to sit down and negotiate. I think the assumption was that a deal was there to be done in reality. A deal, in my mind, where probably different...
de facto that the lines stay where they are uh ukraine doesn't accept the loss of those territories but there's some negotiation process a long term of future over their future kind of basis uh and that but and security guarantees and all those kind of things well no nato i think that's kind of clear um no bilateral security entities but sufficient security guarantees to the ukraines that they could defend themselves right and i think that was kind of doable for both sides
Interestingly, Trump went into the negotiations with a really strong negotiating position, given the two sides wanted to talk. And in terms of the leverage he had over President Putin, you know, he could have increased military support to Ukraine. He could have increased sanctions. He had lots of things to negotiate around NATO membership, ballot or security guarantees, sanctions, moderation, you know, about territory.
And unfortunately, what happened is Trump gave them all away right at the start. And his team did. They said no NATO, no bilateral security guarantees. In fact, no security guarantees from the Americans at all, not even for this reassurance force from the Europeans. He also said, I mean, we saw with Steve Witkoff essentially accepting the Russian narrative around the five regions in essence. So they gave the territory away. So
From the Russian perspective, it's, you know, we've got this really weak negotiator, Trump.
He's given us everything. We can get more if we play tough. So the Russians, you know, who are willing to kind of deal, suddenly see a very weak negotiating Trump and think, well, let's play hard to get and we can get everything we wanted right from the start. And from the Ukrainian position also, you know, they see this negotiation as getting them nothing.
And they're very nervous about that. You know, no NATO, no security. I mean, Ukraine would, I think, offer or agree to something on the territorial side.
if they had some security guarantee for the rest of the territory remaining within Ukraine's remit. But the fact is, none of that's on the table politically. It's suicide for Zelensky to accept what is currently being suggested, I think, by the Russians and the Americans. So the Ukrainian response also is, you know, we don't like this deal.
There's no way we can accept it, but we're vulnerable because as we're seeing in the Oval Office, in the short term, they need continued supply of U.S. military kits and intelligence. So they're going along with negotiations and trying to string the Americans on along as well to ensure the continued supply of the military kit, to build up their defenses as much as possible to the point at which
They know they're going to have to walk away from negotiations because the deal that's on the table is just not doable from a Ukrainian perspective. So kind of both sides have moved away from each other. I guess they've recognized also the Trump administration doesn't really know what it's doing on this negotiation. Right. It's we saw that with Steve Witkoff. Right. In terms of his is his commentary with Tucker Carlson.
I mean, when Donald Trump conducted the initial peace talks with Vladimir Putin, he talked of an immediate ceasefire and he could have used the leverage, as you say, on both sides. He could have slapped sanctions on Russia, increased military aid to Ukraine, make it happen, as you say. I mean, why did he do exactly the opposite by stopping aid to Ukraine, albeit for a short period, and then now considering lifting sanctions on Russia?
Look, I think we have to kind of realize, you know, what is Trump's motivation? Trump, you know, wants to deal with the Russians at all cost. You know, I mean, he seems to, it's interesting, Fiona Hill, British, former Europe head of the National Security Council. She says that Trump only ever asked her two questions when she was in his administration for two years.
The question is, what is Putin like as a person and will he like me? This is before they went into the remember the Helsinki summit. So Trump's desperate to be liked by Putin. He wants the big deal. Perhaps it's about this reverse Nixonian in terms of the US allying with Russia against China for this future hegemonic battle.
But I think, you know, the way Trump thinks of it is Ukraine's kind of expendable. He can bully Ukraine. He doesn't feel able to bully Putin, even though he has all the leverage, as I mentioned at the start. You know, he can increase sanctions. He can increase military support to the Ukrainians, which would hurt the Russians. But he just seems unwilling to do it. And that's the reality. The problem for Ukraine is that Ukraine,
that this negotiating team with Trump is not looking after Ukrainian or European interests at all. That's the reality. Ukraine and Europe are expendable for this Trump administration. So we have the coalition of the willing. Sorry to use that phrase. It's being quite overused at the moment, isn't it?
If Ukraine is being viewed, as you say, as expendable to the Trump administration, how does Europe step in? Is there a schism evolving here between Europe and the US over Ukraine, which centres and that is the epicentre of the problem? Well, not the problem, but that's showing up the divisions.
Look, absolutely. I think post the Munich Security Council, the reality is our national security interests are quite different from the US. The US number one national security threat is China. Europe's and UK's number one national security threat is Russia.
And that's the problem. And so the Russian, sorry, Freudian slip, the Americans just don't take our interests particularly into account. You could also argue after J.D. Vance's performance also in London, in the Immunosecurity Council, the US doesn't really share the same values as Europe. I mean, that's an extraordinary statement, but it's probably kind of true. Now, so the way Europe is thinking about this is that
You know, Russia is the number one threat. The U.S. security umbrella is no longer there. We have to look after our own security. But it's going to take time because, you know, 30 years of spending this peace dividend means that we can't defend ourselves. We are dependent on U.S. arms supplies to basically to put us in a position to be able to defend ourselves. So we've got to hope the Americans continue to supply us with weaponry.
to be able to rebuild our militaries, to be able to defend ourselves. But there's a stopgap. Now, interestingly, Ukraine does buy us time. The longer the Ukrainians last out against the Russians, the more time we have to re-equip. So our interest should be making sure that whatever the Americans do, we are re-equipping ourselves, rebuilding our military industrial complexes, but helping the Ukrainians to sustain Ukraine.
themselves against Russia as long as possible because the reality is Russia is a malign actor Putin is a bad actor he's not a good guy as Steve Witkoff kind of suggested he's a bad guy a bad actor he will come he will take Ukraine if he can and he will go after the rest of Europe he's we should you know there's a track record here Litvinenko Salisbury uh you name it he's done so many bad things against Europe he has a problem with Europe I mean that's the reality
Just a caveat to some of our American viewers that when you say that the US doesn't share the same values as Europe, I suppose there are a lot of people in the US who you're speaking about the administration as opposed to perhaps the members of the population who are probably seething about what's going on at the moment as well. When you talk about Steve Witkoff in that interview with Tucker Carlson, you
basically siding saying that Putin is a good guy and basically say that he wants to have an understanding, implicating he wants to have an understanding with him, good relations with him. Do you take that at face value? Do you take the line that he is being influenced by Russian propaganda as other members perhaps of the administration are?
Or are they actually just believing and saying and believing what they want to believe and be able to get where they want to with their negotiations? Is it a convenient way to say, get where they want to go?
Well, I think as President Zelensky rightly commented, I think a lot of the people in the Trump administration are in the Russian information space. Their primary source of information about Ukraine is Russia. So hence, Witkow's narrative that the Russian speaking areas, the four areas that he mentioned in eastern Ukraine are naturally Russian is a comment to him. If you speak Russian...
That's a Russian region. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Zelensky's mother tongue is Russian.
He's a Russian speaker, right? I mean, does the fact that the people in Ireland speak English, I mean, does that mean, you know, we should go back to, you know, is by the same, you know, Americans, I think, speak English. I mean, is the US really? Do we still, the UK still have some kind of right to the US? It's a ridiculous comment. I mean, Wyckoff himself showed a lack of just basic understanding.
of the situation. You know, the referendums in the East, I mean, they were conducted down the barrel of a gun, you know, and he forgets that in 1991, at the collapse of the Soviet Union, all Ukraine, there was a referendum in Ukraine and all regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted to join the new Ukraine.
Right. The opinion polls in Ukraine. So overwhelming support for Ukrainian sovereignty not to join Russia. Now, Wyckoff, you know, he's getting his narrative from somewhere else. I mean, another one, Rick Gurnell, who is an ambassador for Trump, made an extraordinary statement this week. He said that the Budapest memorandum from 1994, where the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal, the third biggest in the world,
for I think $2.5 billion of money, and this security guarantee that proved not to be worth the paper it was written on. Rick Grinnell said actually those nuclear weapons that Ukraine gave up were not actually Ukrainian, they were always Russian. Actually, they weren't, they were Soviet, right? And they weren't Russian at all.
They were owned by the Soviet Union. Ukraine was one of the 15 republics within the Soviet Union. And, you know, they have the right to own them as much as Russia did, actually. If these negotiations are underpinned by a certain lack of understanding, how do you think Trump is now and his team recalibrating their expectations of what they can achieve with a ceasefire?
Well, they have. Remember, Trump said he could solve this in 24 hours. I think we're two months later and he's kind of downgraded what he's been talking about. I mean, they're not really now talking about a real substantive peace deal. We're talking about a ceasefire covering energy assets and a ceasefire in a sense around the Black Sea and maritime rights. Remember, on the Black Sea, actually...
a deal was already agreed in 2022, brokered by Turkey. Russia left that in July 23 and actually the Ukrainians continued to police that deal and actually it's been very, very effective. Ukraine has been successfully exporting food to international markets and it actually, Ukraine, a country without a navy, defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet
a huge fleet in the Black Sea and Russian vessels had to leave Simferopol and Crimea because they weren't safe there, right? So what Trump has done really is he's defaulted to easy wins from his perspective. You know, he thinks of reconstituting the Black Sea Fleet and Black Sea Agreement is an easy win. A ceasefire covering energy assets again is an easy win. It's not.
I mean, we've seen that. I mean, the Putin approach is a yes, but no, but approach. We saw that with Steve Witkoff's when he went to Moscow. Yes, we want to be still. But there are all these conditions. We saw this with the Black Sea agreement that supposedly was reached by both sides. Right. I mean, Russia said, yes, but we need all these sanctions reduced first before we sign up for it. So, again, that's a difficulty for Trump. Right. Trump, I think, wants easy deals, easy wins.
He can walk away and let other people pick up the pieces. He's not a details person. And I guess we saw that with Gaza, right? I mean, the celebrated Gaza ceasefire, you know, that's disintegrated pretty quickly. So when Russia's saying yes, but over the Black Sea deal at the moment, what the chances do you think of it actually coming into effect? Well, as I said, there is a Black Sea deal that is working, which excludes the Russians already.
Whether the Russians will join this deal depends on sanctions moderation. And interestingly, there was, I think, three White House statements, or actually two White House statements. There's the White House statement referring to negotiations on the Black Sea with the Ukrainians, then one on the Russians. The one on the Russians was interesting because essentially the White House said that agreement has been reached and we'll try and help the Russians improve their agricultural trade and fertilizer trade, all these kind of things.
The Russian government statement was very specific, right? We support the Black Sea Agreement, but we want sanctions moderation. They were very, very specific. Interestingly, that's a difficulty for the Trump administration, right? Are they actually going to reduce sanctions on Russia? And they can't really do it effectively unless the Europeans go along with it. And they say no, it's not. They say now is not the time.
Precisely. Statements of the last few days suggest the Europeans are not going along with it. Now, the reason Putin brought that whole sanctions gig into it, I mean, the reality is, you know, sanctions are not really preventing Russia export through the Black Sea.
in any event. Russian grain exports are near record levels. They exported 40 million tons of fertilizer last year. It's not sanctions that are stopping it. I mean, the reason Russia brought sanctions into it, right, is by bringing it up around this Black Sea agreement, they want to sow divisions between the Americans and the Europeans. What they want to do also is bring the whole issue of sanctions up, not just around the Black Sea, not just about agriculture, but everything. They think if this Rossel-Hoss Bank, the Russian Agricultural Bank,
has sanctions lifted and is that is allowed access to swiss the global uh banking uh transactions communications network it's it's the thin end of the wedge right that ultimately it will mean that all sanctions against russia get weakened get moderated and get lifted that's why they're bringing this up if putin wants to sow divisions between the us and europe it's working isn't it
Well, I would say Trump is probably proving more effective at that than Putin. You know, we're in extraordinary times, right? Extraordinary times that Europe doubts the U.S. security guarantee. Article 5 must be in huge doubt. That's a huge win for Putin. Huge win.
And I mean, so far, Europe is hanging together. I think there is finally a realization in Europe that we can't depend on the U.S. security guarantee. We have to be responsible for our own defense. I think the awakening, the reality check that we saw in Germany,
again post the Munich Security Conference that you know and actually action you know we have the German elections we have Mertz basically you know
changing the German constitution to exclude defense spending in terms of the fiscal story in Germany. I mean, that's seismic. I think Germany finally gets it. They are going to spend big because there's 500 billion euro program. I think it's bringing Europe together. I mean, Russia and the US, their actions together are concentrating Europe's minds that it has its own interests
and it shouldn't be dependent on others, and we need to step up in terms of our own security. So, you know, yes, they are exploiting vulnerabilities and weaknesses in Europe, but one of the net effects, perhaps, is that it actually brings Europe closer together. And certainly in terms of the UK-European relationship, I'd argue, it's now closer than it's been post-Brexit, right? Because I guess both the UK and our continental European friends realize we have a common interest.
Russia is our common threat. We need to work together to secure our own defence and only cooperation can ensure that.
Just to return to the current ceasefire negotiations, and when you alluded to the very different readouts from Kyiv, Moscow and Washington after the latest ones over the ceasefire in the Black Sea, and Zelensky is accusing the Kremlin of lying in theirs. Why can't they all just sit down together? Is there not a way to avoid the confusion by conducting talks that involve all parties, including the Europeans?
Look, I think when you solve problems, wars, you have to look at the fundamental problem, right? What's the cause of this war? It's not NATO enlargement to Ukraine. It's not NATO enlargement in Europe.
I would add the fundamental problem is Putin's unwillingness to accept the sovereignty of Ukraine, the mere existence of Ukraine. Putin wants to take over the whole country. It's interesting, again, Steve Witkoff mentioned that it was all about the four regions.
Well, why did Putin try and take Kiev in those first few days? If it was just about these four regions, what was he doing driving his tanks to Kiev? I mean, clearly it wasn't just about the four regions. He wanted the four regions to have...
the land corridor to Crimea, but he wanted the whole country. I mean, it's difficult for Zelensky to negotiate with Putin when the guy on the other side doesn't accept your very existence. That's the fundamental problem. He doesn't accept Ukraine's right to exist. He doesn't accept that Ukrainians have a separate identity. He hates Europe. He hates European values of liberalism. He sees that as a threat. He sees...
I think the core of Putin's problem with Ukraine, and you could go back to the Euromaidan in 2013, 2014, remember the revolution and then that led to Crimea. I mean, what Putin really objects about Ukraine is he doesn't want a successful liberal democratic Ukraine.
that is economically successful because if Ukraine is successful economically and democratic, Russians would want exactly the same. That's his core problem with Ukraine. He wants Ukraine to fail because he actually thinks Russians want exactly the same things that Ukrainians are fighting for: rule of law, democracy, human rights, because Russians don't have that. It's a police state. It's a fascist police state. That's the only way to describe it, you know, an autocracy.
I mean, both Trump and Putin are in these negotiations and wanting to come out looking like they've won. What are the options for each of them? Because Putin has to sell it to Russia, doesn't he, that he's a winner in this? And otherwise, why did all these thousands, tens and thousands of people die? And Trump also wants to be the deal breaker who doesn't lose.
Well, Putin can sell any narrative he wants at home. He controls the media narrative. If anyone who disagrees with him, he puts in jail or kills them. He dominates, you know, so he doesn't really have a problem. He can sell anything as a win. And, you know, even if the deal was the front line stay as they are, Ukraine joins NATO or, you know,
you know security guarantees wherever it is uh he would argue that look we we fought the nato in effect for three years and we survived and we got this territory you know that's a win so i don't think from putin's perspective you know it's a problem right at all
I think the difficulty, you know, I mean, Trump's the problem for Trump is that, you know, he is desperate for Ukraine to accept any deal that he and Putin concocts. The problem is Ukrainians will not accept it. That's the reality. Right. There is going to be a point where Ukraine, Zelensky says, actually, I can't do this. This is impossible.
I will have a revolution at home. We'll have a new government in Ukraine because the opinion polls show a majority of Ukrainians are not prepared to accept a bad deal. I saw one just this week. 80-odd percent of Ukrainians said that if the Americans stop supplying weapons, they would continue to fight because it's about their survival, right? It's about the very survival of the Ukrainian state. I mean, from a British perspective, look, it's about World War II. It's like the Battle for Blitz, right?
It's Churchillian, you know, I mean should we just should we have just surrendered in World War two to fascist Nazi Germany? I mean, that's what it's all about really for Ukrainians and I guess the problem for Trump and Putin is that you know If they try and impose a deal and the Ukrainians don't agree to it and fight on Putin's got to take the victory and
And I don't think he can. I don't think Putin can actually take. It's a huge country, Ukraine. I don't think he can take and hold a significant amount of Ukraine, given his military capability and given the strength of the Russian economy. So in a way, it's a poison chalice, right? If, you know, if the Ukrainians hold out, that's the difficulty for Putin, right? If Trump hands in the win and Putin is not able to deliver on it.
Can you just walk me through the scenario then that Donald Trump tries to impose a ceasefire on Ukraine, which is unacceptable to President Zelensky, and he decides he's not going to stop fighting and he wants to defend his country?
Well, look, I mean, we might see the ceasefire deal covering energy sector assets and the Black Sea agreement kind of been tried out for a while, but ultimately failing because it's very hard to police huge front lines and with lots of different players. Right. So I think they like to collapse. We may see continued negotiations between the two sides about a more substantive deal. Trump, again, may try impose
the fact that, as Steve Witkos suggested, Ukraine accepts the loss of those four regions plus Crimea, no security guarantees and sanctions lifting on the Russians.
I think Zelensky would ultimately just say no, yes, very likely then the Trump administration will again pull military supplies and intelligence to Ukrainians. Maybe by that point in time, Ukraine has built significantly more domestic military capability. They're already producing 40% of their own kit. Maybe Europe could step in a bit. Ukraine fights on, right? And it will continue to be a horrible conflict,
I don't think Russia will be able to significantly impose itself on the battlefield. We probably see another couple of years of terrible warfare, unfortunately, with both sides suffering. But for the Ukrainians, they would argue that that is better than a total loss of their sovereignty, a total loss of their...
their control of their own country, right, and bullying by two great powers. And I presume that those that are on board with this coalition in Europe will be supportive of that. How much and how quickly do you think they can get enough support together to allow Ukraine to continue the fight?
If it's without the U.S., I'm saying. Yeah, look, you know, the key vulnerabilities to the Ukrainians are obviously air defense, so Patriot missile systems that really can only be provided by the Americans. The Germans do produce something quite significant and will hope to backfill some of that U.S. supply. Obviously, the HIMARS, ATAKAMS, these long-range attack missile systems,
that degrade Russia's supply lines. So, without those, Russia will be freer to hit Ukraine, unfortunately. Again, we hope that maybe Taurus missiles could be supplied by the Germans. It's going to get more painful for both sides in that scenario. But again, going back to what I said at the beginning, a deal was possible. Absolutely.
with the Trump administration really understanding the key causes of this war, the drivers and the leverage that they had. They gave a lot of this away already. So, I mean, the Trump administration could possibly get back to a position where they have leverage again, but they would have to be willing to impose costs on Putin.
They would have to be willing to impose more aggressive sanctions on the Russians. They would have to be willing to step up military arms supplies to the Ukrainians. Putin is a bully. He's a mafia-style bully. He respects power and strength. He's afraid of NATO. We've learned that over the three years of the conflict. Putin set lots of red lines about the supply of Western military equipment to the Ukrainians. We continued to supply that equipment, and we crossed his red lines. He did nothing.
Right. So he expects power. Trump has to show Putin that power and force Putin to the negotiating table to deliver a position that gives the Ukrainians something. At the moment, they're beginning giving nothing from the peace deal that Trump is trying to impose with Putin. It's really difficult to see that happening, though, isn't it? And what we've seen the last few weeks. Well, it's a pretty amateurish position.
I mean, obviously, the signals issue with the Yemeni Houthi strikes, et cetera, the messaging act, I think frustrating. I mean, you know, how could you possibly have a chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, who just shows a total Russian bias?
How can the Ukrainians take this guy seriously, right? When he just carte blanche takes the Russian narrative. I mean, you need, you know, a peace negotiator needs to be trusted by both parties. The US team is not trusted by the Ukrainian team. So you're right. I mean, I guess there are major concerns and doubts in European capitals and Ukraine in particular. You know, what is the US agenda here?
And unfortunately, I think they are realizing like me, Ukraine doesn't really figure very highly in this agenda at all. Europe doesn't figure very highly at all. So we have to come up with our own solutions. Ukraine has to come up with some of its own solutions helped by the Europeans. And coming up with our own solutions, it has been said that the only way to secure Ukraine's future, but also that of Europe, is for Ukraine to ultimately become a member of NATO. And if the US rules that out, what's the other way?
Well, there is a solution. You know, I've I argued at the start NATO membership. You know, it would be the it would bring the immediate end to the war. Absolutely. But the political reality is there are too many countries in Europe that are not willing to extend that NATO membership. Hungary, Slovakia, obviously Viktor Orban in Hungary, even the Americans. Right. Even the Germans are very nervous about that. And I think bilateral security guarantees are also not really very, very important.
realistic when also it lacks native support. We've seen that with the reassurance force, right? That we only send Americans to provide backing to that reassurance force. The only solution for me really was offering the Ukrainians the state of Israel style guarantee.
which is basically we, the Western countries, NATO, whatever you want to call it, we agree to supply the Ukrainians with whatever kit they need to defend themselves. Right. We will provide them with F-35s, F-16s, whatever.
And they defend themselves and they prove more than willing to be able to defend themselves with technology. Right. And they can hold they can buy us time in Europe to build our own defenses. And they're more than capable of stopping the Russians. Right. Unfortunately, the Trump administration surrendered most of that straight away. Right. No NATO membership, no bilateral security guarantees. This pulling of military support and intelligence.
It took the negotiation east. It enabled the Russians to start the negotiations about Ukraine's military capability. They've argued that Russia should be limited to 85,000 troops and limitations on its long-range straight-coward capability. That means that at the minimum, Ukraine won't be given the tools to defend itself. So it doesn't have that security guarantee. And to be honest, if Ukraine is not secure, if it...
for whatever, however way you do it, whether it's NATO, Baloch or security guarantees or State of Israel style, giving the weapons to defend itself,
Ukraine will not function. The economy will not develop. There will be no investment. Ukrainians will not return to the country. It will suffer huge out migration. And Putin, because of that, will alter and it will be politically and socially unstable and Putin will get what he wants in the end. So this issue of security guarantees or security assurance has to be at the core of the issue. And it's why the Ukrainians, I think, have been very pragmatic
in terms of accepting that they've lost territory. I think they are willing to do a deal where they de facto accept that, but they say, "Yes, but we want the rest of Ukraine to be secure that we can get on with our own business and develop our economy and be successful." Putin knows that. So Putin wants to ensure that Ukraine is not secure because if he knows it's not secure, it economically fails, it politically fails, it socially fails, and ultimately he gets what he wants, the whole of Ukraine,
because of our our you know the idiotic leaders that we have in in some of our capitals that just don't get this or are not willing to accept this how committed do you think the current u.s administration is to the sovereignty of ukraine uh not at all i mean through their actions uh they've shown you know you know russia illegally invaded ukraine
It illegally annexed Crimea against all UN rules and norms and laws. The UN and votes were held in the UN and the votes in favor of Ukraine were enormous, right? Very few countries sided with Russia. So to accept that Russia can invade a European country, a peaceful European country and take territory, that means, and if Steve Witkoff and Trump and these guys accept that,
That is accepting that Ukraine really isn't a very sovereign country. I mean, I guess the bigger narrative here is that Trump, you know, you can see what he's doing with Greenland, with Panama, with Canada. You know, Trump, the Trump view is like it's a big power world. Big powers impose themselves on small powers. And that's a game changer in the post Second World War kind of narrative, you know, and smaller countries have no say.
Actually, the UK is a smaller country, right? Where are we in all that? We have an interest in the UK and European countries in making sure that Putin doesn't get his way in Ukraine. And actually, Trump doesn't get his way in Canada or Greenland or the Panama Canal or wherever it is. Do we want a world where might is right?
big powers invade other countries. I mean, that's like before the first, actually it's pre-First World War kind of colonialization kind of stuff. It's all the interwar period stuff, appeasement of Nazi Germany kind of style stuff. And history tells us that's not going to be a very stable Europe or stable world. That's a recipe for global instability and war, I would suggest.
And, Timothy, I just want to bring to your attention a news line that is actually coming out now as we're talking on Thursday afternoon. It is that President Macron of France is saying that they're going to send teams to Ukraine to set up a reassurance force, which will be different to a peacekeeping force. That sounds like it's quite an interesting development. How would that pan out, do you think?
Well, I mean, this idea of a reassurance force, I mean, I think there's some reality checks for Europe. And the fact that the Americans have not been willing to provide the backstop, you know, we've seen the reality that European countries simply, without the Turks, I should say, Europe without the Turks lack the sheer number of soldiers to police a ceasefire.
you know i think it would be difficult to to get boots on the ground of the force of you know you need 50 000 plus i would imagine to to to field an effective uh ceasefire source so let's talk about this reassurance force which is basically using air and naval assets air defense
uh airstrike capability i mean we have that in europe i mean we we have the ability to so that i guess the the european idea now is that you leverage off ukrainian strengths in that ukraine has 800 000 to a million troops on the ground they've proven able to stop the russian army uh we can use our strengths in our airstrike capability and air defense to help support the ukrainians if
if Russia goes in again right I mean you know we have significant amounts of of of aircraft etc in Europe we can do a job there so I guess that's what they're thinking about um you know it would be interesting how Putin reacts to this uh suggestion of I guess French and uh and other uh European allies putting troops on the ground to to I guess check the reality on the ground and and uh
Yeah, it's exactly that because, you know, as you're even talking now, Tim, there's stuff coming in a bit more information. So, I mean, it's going to be more clear, I think, probably in the coming hours. But it looks like that they're sending some just research teams in to see how this would work. They'll be sent to strategic areas behind the lines. There wouldn't be peacekeeping forces at the moment, but they would be literally teams to look at the different options. And
Moscow is already saying that this is risking a clash with NATO. I suppose you'd expect them to say that kind of thing, wouldn't you? Well, I mean, the question for Putin would be, would he be willing to hit those European troops? You know, fact finding in Ukraine. I mean, we've seen plenty of Europeans and Western allies making the trip to Kiev. I mean, how many European politicians have taken the train journey to Kiev? No one has been injured.
I mean, interesting that the Czech president was in Odessa recently and left Odessa hours after Russian missile strikes. I mean, imagine if a
a Czech president have been killed in one of those missile strikes or any European policy. It hasn't happened so far. We have seen obviously some European combatants in Ukrainian military divisions or whatever, military deployment, whatever, killed, but we haven't seen actual Western troops killed in Ukraine. So what will Putin do to this? Right. We'll wait and see. And how will the West respond?
if French or British troops get killed in Russian missile strikes on Ukraine as a result of this. Interesting times. Yeah, interesting times. Just to come back to your substack, where can we see it and what kind of things are catching your interest at the moment? What will you be looking out for?
well it's at at tasha khan uh at uh on substack at tash t-a-s-h a con um i said i covered i mean a lot's going on in this space right i mean russia ukraine turkey uh geopolitics lots of moving parts uh you know i try and help people i actually by writing i i try and help myself understand situations and um i always welcome feedback it helps me
improve my own perspectives on different situations, very complex situations at the moment. And specifically on the ceasefire negotiations at the moment, what are you looking out for? What are you going to be looking to assess? Well, I think this issue of sanctions, how Europe plays the sanctions pitch on the Black Sea Agreement, right? What pressure? I mean, will the US administration
Max pressure on Europe for sanctions moderation. I mean, let's face it. You know, Trump wants a deal, a big deal with Russia. Right. He wants an economic deal. You know, all those kind of things. He wants sanctions moderation. I think that's pretty clear.
Europe sees Russia as a long-term existential threat. We have an interest in making sure the Russian economy is weak. We don't want Russia to regenerate its conventional military capability. So our interest is in sanctions remaining in place, right? We need to weaken Russia.
So Europe will try and resist this. Now, what kind of pressure will Trump put on Europe to force us to lift sanctions, which is against our interests? Right. And we're also living in a world of tariffs, all those kind of things. Right. Will sanctions moderation on Russia be part of the tariff negotiation with Europe? Right. How aggressive is Trump willing to be on Europe to force appeasement of Putin?
Interesting times, Timothy Ash. I look forward to speaking to you again. Thank you for your time. My pleasure. Great to speak to you. Hey, this is Paige from Giggly Squad, and this episode is brought to you by Nordstrom. Nordstrom is here to help you dress in a way that feels totally you with the best spring styles. From boho dresses and matching sets to must-have bags and sneakers, discover thousands of items from lots of your favorite brands. Nordstrom is here to help you with the best spring styles.
like Mango, Reformation, Veronica Beard, and Farm Rio. It's easy, too, with free shipping and returns, in-store order pickup, and more. Shop today in stores and at Nordstrom.com. Your time and expertise are valuable. Making focus one of the most important resources to have at work.
These days, professionals spend nearly half the work week on written communication, and it can be difficult to stay on task with all the emails and documents you have to get through. With Grammarly as your AI writing partner, you can stay focused and quickly get through your work with relevant real-time suggestions wherever you write. It works across 500,000 apps and websites, so it can help with everything from brainstorming presentation ideas to sounding more confident and persuasive in emails and reports.
For 15 years, Grammarly has offered best-in-class communication support and enterprise-grade security on a business model that doesn't sell your data. 93% of professionals report that Grammarly helps them get more work done. Download Grammarly for free at grammarly.com slash podcast. That's G-R-A-M-M-A-R-L-Y dot com slash podcast.