Ukraine negotiations (Part 1) - the US goes alone
10:31 Share

Dear old work platform, it's not you, it's us. Actually, it is you. Endless onboarding? Constant IT bottlenecks? We've had enough. We need a platform that just gets us. And to be honest, we've met someone new.

They're called Monday.com, and it was love at first onboarding. They're beautiful dashboards. They're customizable workflows that is floating on a digital cloud nine. So no hard feelings, but we're moving on. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use. Romance is in the air for Valentine's Day. And when you're ready to pop the question, all you need is the perfect moment to come around. And, of course, the ring.

At BlueNile.com, you can find thousands of natural and lab-grown diamonds, plus legendary service from Blue Nile's jewelry experts who can answer every question, help you design a custom ring, and even plan the proposal. So seize the day today. Right now, you can save up to 50% at BlueNile.com. That's BlueNile.com.

Welcome to the World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Alex Dibble and Stuart Willey. Donald Trump's call with Vladimir Putin waves the starting flag on negotiations for his promise of peace for Ukraine.

As many European diplomats worry that Ukraine has been thrown under the bus with both this announcement and a bombshell speech by the new US Defense Secretary on Wednesday, Pete Hegseth says that's just not true.

There is an awful lot to go into, and we're going to do that with our guest Jim Townsend, the former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for European and NATO policy, someone well-versed in transatlantic security policy after decades at the Pentagon and at NATO. Jim, there's been some criticism of what's been said by Trump and Hegseth. They've been accused of giving up on Ukraine. Do you think their announcements are a good thing?

Well, it's a good thing that a lot of things that have been happening behind the scenes are now maybe will be a bit more public. It's obvious that they've been talking, both the Washington and the Moscow teams, and also with Zelensky. There's been some conversation with him. We know now that, in fact, Putin and Trump have been talking.

So now that they've come public, if you will, it's good that we're going to start seeing what the outlines of an agreement could look like. And is it a ceasefire? Is it a peace agreement? We don't even know that. So let's get this thing going.

Between Mr. Trump's announcement and what's being seen as a huge speech by the new U.S. Defense Secretary, it was a big day for people worried about the future of Ukraine. What do Pete Hegseth's comments mean, do you think, for NATO?

Well, I think for NATO, it means that NATO is not going to be part of this situation up there in Ukraine one way or another. I mean, according to Headseth, the U.S. will not support Ukraine joining NATO. The U.S. will not send troops to Ukraine to take part in any security guarantee that might be part of a force, a NATO force up there or a

Coalition of Willing. Obviously, the White House says it's not going to be a NATO force. We're not going to take part in that. It's going to be a Coalition of Willing, and the U.S. will not have boots on the ground there. And if this force is attacked by the Russians, if they were to re-attack Ukraine, this will not come under Article 5 as far as the U.S. is concerned. So for NATO, it means that NATO is not going to be a player in this. For Europe, it means that Ukraine is now squarely on their lap.

to deal with. Jim, it's long been a demand by Putin, you know, no NATO membership for Ukraine. Why do you think the US would rule that out so explicitly? What is the game here?

Well, I mean, that's a good question. What do we get from Putin by being so upfront and confident in state and saying that this is something that in the past administrations of the Biden administration, particularly the idea of pulling Ukraine in was a matter of time.

But now the Trump people have taken that off the table. So the question becomes, so in a sense, these are concessions to the Russians. I'm sure Putin said, look, I'm not going to even talk if Ukraine is going to get into NATO or if NATO is going to have troops in it. And so I think the president must have agreed to all those things. The U.S. is not going to be involved in it now.

So what did in return for that, what did Putin say they would do? Come to the table, maybe? Or what? I don't know. But we need to find out. Was this something with these concessions given away for free or did we get something in return? Does this weaken the Western position, Jim, unnecessarily by giving away these things, offering up concessions even before talks with Mr. Putin have even begun?

Well, to me, if I were the negotiator, I would say yes. That took some of the chits that you put on the table to negotiate negotiations.

It's taking some of those and put them in the Russian pocket. And so I would say that certainly weakens your negotiating hand. But we'll have to see. We've only gotten a little pieces of the story. J.D. Vance is going to give a speech at the Munich Security Conference. Let's see what he says. I would imagine he'll fill it out, fill out a bit what the plan is. And so we'll have to wait and see to hear that speech.

Pete Hegseth was very firm, wasn't he, in saying that there will be no U.S. troops in Ukraine. He also set out that the European troops that he says would be needed to guarantee security in Ukraine, that if they were attacked, NATO's Article 5 policy would not come into play. So there would be no obligation on the U.S. to respond and to help.

As someone with a long association with NATO, do you think that that is a legally sound position? Yeah, it's legally sound in terms of the United States saying if this even came up in NATO, an attack has happened against European and other forces in Ukraine, and some of the allies come to NATO and say we feel this should be Article 5. The U.S. has already said we would say no.

we would not join consensus on something like that. And so, yeah, I mean, what we're doing is we're signaling ahead of time what the U.S. view would be in terms of allied forces being attacked in Ukraine. But it's not a NATO mission. You know, that's what Hexstef also said, that this would not be a NATO mission. So Article 5 wouldn't apply anyway.

Jim, Ukraine's President Zelensky, as you say, also spoke with Donald Trump, it seems, after Putin's call. How do you think this and Mr. Hegseth's speech will be being looked back at by Ukrainians today?

Well, if I were Zelensky and his team, I think the speech has knocked the props out from under Ukraine and under Zelensky. Essentially, he said, look, this war isn't going to end in favor of Ukraine. This is a lost cause. We need to end this war. We're going to cut a deal with Putin and Ukraine might as well reach an understanding within itself that they won't be able to return back to those borders before 2014.

I think right now I heard Zelensky said we're not ready to give up. We're ready to keep fighting. You know, I certainly understand that's where Ukraine is and where Zelensky is politically. That's where he's got to be, too, by the way. But it doesn't sound like things are going in Zelensky's way. From where you are in Washington, do you think it's fair that Mr. Zelensky, you know, might be thinking that this U.S.-Russia entente comes at his country's expense?

No, but I don't think he's surprised. Donald Trump, in a lot of ways, has said that's, you know, going to be the way it's going to go. It's not going to be the Paris Peace Accords or the Congress of Vienna or surrender on the USS Missouri and Tokyo Harbor. I mean, this is something where he's going to cut this deal. He'll keep Zelensky informed and eventually come up with something probably that's going to be a take it or leave it type of thing, I would imagine.

Same thing with Europe. I'm not sure Europe is going to have much voice in this either, but we'll just have to wait and see. This is the starting gun, as you said, has gone off. And so we're on our way. So let's see where this ends up.

Secretary Hegseth set out his reason for what he was saying is the U.S. needing to counter the threat of China. Is that a fair point? Is it necessary for the U.S. to pivot mostly or completely to Asia toward the Pacific rather than the Atlantic? Well, for us, yes, that is a top priority is China. But that doesn't mean it has to be done at the expense of what's happening in Europe.

I think we can do both. Trying to make China our exclusive focus and saying to Europe, okay, good luck, over to you. I'm not sure how realistic that is either. We're going to have to be a part of the European scene. We're going to have to work with the allies to get them strengthened so they can play more of a role. They're working towards that end now, but they're not there yet in terms of military capability. So

So there's still a lot of work ahead before we can just do a handoff to Europe and say, you do Europe and we'll do Asia. But that's kind of where the administration is going. Does this fit in with the idea of the America first foreign policy, do you think? Or is this a departure from what you expected from the new Trump administration, you know, even just a few weeks in?

No, not really. To him, America first means our interests are first. And our interests right now, according to this administration, is China. And so America first means our interests first. Our interests are China. We're going to do China. Russia is secondary. And we have allies in Europe that will take care of that while we try to handle our top priority, which is China. So that's his thinking. That's the America first approach.

Jim, thank you. That's Jim Townsend, the former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy.

Of course, one potential scenario to come out of any of these negotiations is that the current conflict ends, but both Ukraine and Russia go away unhappy with the settlement, leaving what's called a frozen war. The Times' world affairs editor, Catherine Philp, has looked into previous frozen wars and based on those has predicted what could happen in Ukraine in the future.

That's in our episode called Ukraine's Frozen War Dilemma a few days ago. So do go back and listen to that. There's more to come from us today. Look out for another episode where we will be shifting our focus from the US to how Europe is responding to Trump and Putin's phone call. For now, though, thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times.

We'll be right back.

Money works better here. Go to Wealthfront.com to start today. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC. Wealthfront is not a bank. The APY on cash deposits as of December 27, 2024 is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum. Funds in the cash account are swept to partner banks where they earn the variable APY. Check engine light on? Take the guesswork out of your check engine light with O'Reilly Veriscan. It's free. Ask for O'Reilly Veriscan today. O, O, O, O'Reilly.

Auto Parts.