The Ukraine War: What happens next?

Summary

Global News Podcast: Episode Summary
Title: The Ukraine War: What Happens Next?
Host/Author: BBC World Service
Release Date: March 7, 2025

---

Introduction

In this special collaborative edition of the Global News Podcast, Jackie Leonard hosts a comprehensive discussion on the evolving Ukraine-Russia conflict. Joined by UkraineCast presenter Vitaly Shevchenko, chief international correspondent Lise Doucet, and correspondent James Waterhouse in Kyiv, the episode delves into the critical issues shaping the war's trajectory as of the 1,108th day since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

---

1. The Impact of U.S. Military Support Withdrawal

Listener Question: Denise from Auckland, New Zealand, raises a concern about the potential consequences if the U.S. ceases military aid to Ukraine, questioning whether Ukraine might be forced to surrender to Russia (00:52).

James Waterhouse's Perspective (01:23): James articulates that Ukrainian resilience is formidable, asserting, "any Ukrainian will tell you on a Kyiv street is that they would never surrender." He emphasizes the pivotal role of U.S. military support, particularly advanced weaponry like HIMARS, in sustaining Ukraine's defense capabilities. Without continued aid, he predicts a possible deterioration, leading to less favorable peace deals where Ukraine might have to concede significant military and political demands from Russia.

Vitaly Shevchenko's Insights (03:16): Vitaly outlines various degrees of possible outcomes, suggesting that while total territorial loss is unlikely, Russia may focus on securing and maintaining control over key southeastern regions such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. He notes, "More realistic, he would be happier with controlling the four regions in Ukraine's southeast that Russia claims as its own."

Lise Doucet on U.S. Support's Uniqueness (04:45): Lise highlights that U.S. military aid stands out not just for its quantity but also for its quality and strategic value. She remarks, "one of the most important things for Ukraine is not just the physical material, but the muscular, moral, political backing." The withdrawal of intelligence sharing and advanced weaponry significantly undermines Ukraine's defensive posture.

---

2. European Allies’ Capacity to Replace U.S. Aid

Listener Questions: Alex from Shanghai and Carol from the UK inquire about Europe's ability to compensate for the halted American support, especially regarding ammunition and rapid manufacturing lead times (05:51; 10:29).

James Waterhouse's Analysis (07:29): James expresses skepticism about Europe's ability to swiftly ramp up military production to fill the void left by the U.S. He cites missed targets, such as the EU's failed promise to manufacture one million artillery shells in a year, compared to Russia's more efficient production rates. "Russia can manufacture shells three times faster than the whole of Ukraine's Western allies combined," he states.

Vitaly Shevchenko on Intelligence Gathering (09:14): Vitaly underscores the irreplaceable nature of U.S. intelligence, which accounts for approximately 80% of Ukraine's actionable intelligence. Replacing this with European capabilities would be "an enormous challenge."

---

3. U.S. Domestic Politics and Public Opinion

Listener Feedback: Views from American listeners, including Michael from Florida (11:27), Carter (12:06), and Lee from Texas (12:33), reflect a divide in support for Ukraine amid shifting U.S. policies.

Anthony Zuerka’s Input (13:27): Anthony reports a "sharp partisan divide" in the U.S., with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting continued aid to Ukraine, while Republicans largely oppose it. He references a CBS poll indicating this split and notes the limited scale of pro-Ukrainian protests in the U.S. Anthony discusses the legal battle over presidential authority to withhold Congress-approved funds, suggesting that "chances are Donald Trump is going to be able to do what he wants here."

Comparisons to the Afghanistan Withdrawal (15:48): Vitaly and Lise draw parallels between Trump’s approach to ending the Ukraine war and the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Lise describes Trump's strategy as seeking "quick deals" and "telegraphic policies," reminiscent of the Afghanistan exit, which lacked comprehensive planning and led to significant instability.

---

4. The Controversial Rare Minerals Deal

Listener Questions: Reno from Portugal and Ash from Scotland inquire about the implications and details of President Trump's proposed deal involving Ukraine's critical minerals (18:05; 28:15).

James Waterhouse's Explanation (18:29): James details Ukraine's 5% share of the world's critical raw materials, including graphite, lithium, and titanium, essential for various industries. He explains President Zelenskyy's initial proposal to exchange these minerals for economic benefits but notes Trump's demand for "complete access to $500 billion worth" without security guarantees. James highlights the complexities, including the potential involvement of American companies in Ukraine's mining sector and the competition from Russia for similar deals.

Vitaly Shevchenko’s Concerns (21:43): Vitaly expresses uncertainty about the deal's specifics, emphasizing that "most talk about the deal... is about what Ukraine should give." He warns that leveraging mineral assets could compromise Ukraine's sovereignty and future wealth, especially if portions of these minerals are in Russian-controlled territories.

Lise Doucet on Resource Control (22:36): Lise adds that around 40% of Ukraine's critical minerals are located in occupied territories, complicating the deal. She notes, "some of the minerals that President Zelensky wants to talk about with the Americans may actually be under Russian control now."

---

5. Global Economic Implications

Listener Question: Ora from Aotearoa, New Zealand, queries the impact of Trump's "America First" policies and tariffs on the global economy and market volatility (24:31).

James Waterhouse's Analysis (25:04): James explains that global stock markets have tumbled due to investor uncertainty over Trump's fluctuating policies, including tariffs and isolationism. He points out that Germany's increased defense spending and the EU's plan to borrow more than $158 billion for defense have led to surging European shares and government bonds. However, the persistent uncertainty fosters ongoing market volatility, with analysts cautioning against predicting future trends.

---

6. U.S. Policy Towards Iran in the Trump Administration

Listener Question: Caroline from Switzerland asks how a Trump administration can maintain an antagonistic stance toward Iran while appearing supportive of Russia (26:31).

Lise Doucet's Insights (26:31): Lise explores President Trump's complex relationship with Iran, noting his preference for "high-profile, quick deals" and his reluctance to authorize military strikes despite pressures from figures like Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. She highlights Trump's public statements aimed at portraying a desire for peace, such as writing letters to Iran's Supreme Leader and emphasizing his wish for "the people of Iran to be successful."

---

7. Prospects for Peace and UN Involvement

Listener Questions: Lukash from Stockholm, Sweden, and Ashley from Scotland inquire about potential peace terms and the role of the United Nations in enforcing peace (28:15; 28:58).

James Waterhouse's Perspective (28:58): James outlines Kyiv's conditions for peace, including a ceasefire in the Black Sea, aerial halts to prevent further civilian infrastructure targeting, and large-scale prisoner exchanges. He emphasizes the challenges of implementing a 600-mile front line and the logistical nightmares of deploying UN peacekeepers, questioning Russia's willingness to agree to such measures.

Vitaly Shevchenko's Observations (31:17): Vitaly notes Ukraine's desperation for a peace process but underscores Russia's unwavering military ambitions. He states, "Russia is clearly indicating that its appetites are absolutely undiminished," rendering the prospect of peacekeepers or truce heavily contingent on Russia's cooperation, which currently seems unattainable.

Lise Doucet on Peace Scenarios (32:31): Lise discusses the broadening narrative around ending the war, pivoting from purely military assistance to exploring sustainable ceasefires and potential territorial compromises. She acknowledges the difficulty of securing UN authorization without Russian and U.S. concurrence and reiterates Ukraine's non-negotiable stance on sovereignty and territorial integrity.

---

8. Conclusion

Jackie Leonard wraps up the episode by acknowledging the in-depth analyses and perspectives provided by Vitaly Shevchenko, Lise Doucet, and James Waterhouse. She encourages listeners to subscribe to UkraineCast and engage with the BBC Global News Podcast for ongoing coverage of this critical global issue.

Notable Production Credits:

• Mixer: Dafyd Evans
• Producers: Ella Bicknell, Ben Carter, Ryan Johnson, Tim Walklate
• Editor: Karen Martin

---

This episode of the Global News Podcast offers a profound exploration of the multifaceted challenges facing Ukraine amidst shifting international support, internal political dynamics within the United States, and the broader implications for global stability and the economy. Through expert insights and listener engagement, the podcast provides a nuanced understanding of what lies ahead in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Transcript

[Jackie Leonard]

From the BBC World Service, this is a special collaborative edition of the Global News podcast. With our colleagues from UkraineCast, I'm Jackie Leonard and in the studio we have Ukraine cast presenter Vitaly Shevchenko and our chief international correspondent Lise Doucet. And in Kiev we have James Waterhouse. We are recording this edition at 16 hours GMT on Friday 7th March. That's 1,108 days since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Events are moving very fast and we'll be putting your questions to our experts and trying to unpick some of the issues that have come to the fore in the last week. Now, we want to get through as many questions as possible. So let's begin with Denise. Hi, my name is Denise and I'm from Auckland, New Zealand. I'm exploring worst case scenarios and my.

[James Waterhouse]

Question and concern is what happens if US stops supporting Ukraine and eventually they.

[Jackie Leonard]

Will have no choice but to surrender to Russia. Now, for the last three years of war, America has been Ukraine's largest donor. The decision to freeze military aid follows that very public disagreement in the Oval Office between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. vance. James, if we begin with you, what if the US never restarts its military support? Would a Ukraine surrender be the most likely outcome?

[James Waterhouse]

Well, I mean what any Ukrainian will tell you on a Kyiv street is that they would never surrender. I mean the idea of sticking it, downing weapons and allowing Russia to occupy, take over the country, install a puppet regime is and as always has been a non starter. I think when you speak to those in military circles, it is accepted that Ukraine could probably fight on for months, maybe a little bit longer. But that is the reality, such as the quality and quantity of what America does provide. Now it is true European allies as a whole have donated more military aid collectively than America. But when we're talking about American intelligence, its quality have the broad scope of it, we're talking about sophisticated long range missiles like Himars, which have been pivotal for Ukraine's war effort. I think without that, and we saw this when there was that big disagreement in the US Congress about a military aid package for Ukraine. When that was delayed, Ukraine, Ukraine lost land and lives as a direct result. You know, the eastern town of Avdiivka, it was a fortress at one point. It fell because you had Ukrainians along with their own manpower issues, run out of kit and be forced from their positions. So I think rather than surrender, it may well deteriorate to a point where Ukraine would have to engage in a far less, or an even less arguably favourable peace deal where they would have to, for example, meet Russia's continued demands that it would have a shrunk military, that President Zelensky would be forced from power, that any NATO talk would be paused completely, and that there would be no foreign troops in Ukraine, so things really would deteriorate. And even if Europe got its ducks in a row, increased defence spending channeled more resources to Ukraine, it would likely not happen in time without America, Italy, what's your take?

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Well, there are different degrees of victory and surrender in this war. The extreme version of defeat for Ukraine would of course, be if Russia were to capture all of its territory. However, I don't think this is realistic or even something that Vladimir Putin will be seeking, because controlling that vast territory, that's going to be difficult. More realistic, he would be happier with controlling the four regions in Ukraine's southeast that Russia claims as its own. Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, maybe a bit more. And the rest. It's not inconceivable to imagine a scenario where Putin would be happy for it to be run by a pliable Ukrainian government. After all, if we were to rewind history, this is how it was until, well, 2013ish, 2014ish, when Ukraine was perfectly happy to be in Russia's orbit. The moment Ukraine started looking westwards, Putin cut gas supplies to Ukraine, sent in troops. So that gives us an idea of what Vladimir Putin may realistically be seeking.

[Jackie Leonard]

And Lise, everything's been changing so quickly. Weapons already have been stopped from crossing the Polish border. Intelligence is no longer being shared. What else can the US do to withdraw support?

[Lise Doucet]

I think when you look at US military support to Ukraine, you have to look at it from a number of vantage points. One is the quantity of the weaponry that the United States is providing Ukraine, that the Europe, even though Europe is providing a lot, in some cases more, it cannot double that to provide what the United States is doing. Secondly, it's the quality of what the United States, as the world's mightiest military power, is able to provide. We've already heard about intelligence being discontinued. Discontinued, which creates a huge problem for Ukraine. We've heard also of the HIMARS. Those are multiple launch rocket systems. There's the ATACMS, which are ballistic missiles with a range of 190 miles. And there's howitzers as well. I know this is all military jargon, but I would say, Jackie, one of the most important things for Ukraine is not just the physical material, but the muscular, moral, political backing. That is what they feel. That's all that's going to deter Vladimir Putin. Not British troops, not French. There has to be an American thumbprint of some kind.

[Jackie Leonard]

That brings us to our next question. Let's go to Alex in Shanghai.

[Lise Doucet]

Hi, BBC Global Podcast team.

[James Waterhouse]

Alex, thanks for your excellent work.

[Lise Doucet]

My question to you regarding the war.

[James Waterhouse]

In Ukraine is in light of the US decision to suspend providing military aid.

[Lise Doucet]

Meaning no more ATACMs, I am curious, once the UK, France and Germany can supply Ukraine with sufficient ammunition of such.

[James Waterhouse]

Kind to fill in the gap, could.

[Lise Doucet]

You provide some insight into this?

[James Waterhouse]

Thank you very much.

[Jackie Leonard]

And not just ammunition. Can Europe step in to fill the gap? Lise?

[Lise Doucet]

No, not quickly. I remember last year the EU foreign policy chief telling me with great frustration, our cupboards are bare. Our manufacturing cannot keep up with the volume, the intensity of the warfare. I don't know what it is like now, but in some cases coming down to their last bullet. I'll just tell you one story, one thing which is seared in memory is I was in Ukraine when they were waiting for that more than $60 billion that was held up by the United States. And I was really struck that everyone I spoke to, whether it was the guy serving coffee, the national security advisor, anyone I would meet anywhere, would say to me, that's $60 billion. We need it. It was so had so penetrate the thinking that every delay in American aid means an increase in lives lost and inches of territory that Russia is going to take. That's how consequential it was.

[Jackie Leonard]

And James, we've had questions from listeners, Angela and Wendy about lead times on manufacturing weaponry. How long could this increased support from Europe, especially from Germany, take to get to Ukraine's front line?

[James Waterhouse]

That is just unknown. What we've seen from European leaders, a lot of talk over the past week, a lot of pledges. And I remember the European Union setting a target for manufacturing a million artillery shells in a year and it missed that target. Whereas Russia can manufacture shells three times faster than the whole of Ukraine's Western allies combined. So just how Europe can ramp up its production in this way is the crucial question. But we have to imagine the war that Ukraine is fighting, weathering Russia's full scale invasion. Lyse mentioned that slowing of American aid last year. I mean, when you're on the front lines, the only artillery you could hear was from the Russian side. That's changed in some areas, but it's about suppressing fire, it's about targeting supply routes to hinder the sort of relentless Russian assaults you see on so many parts of the front lines. And if Europe is likely to struggle to fill that gap as America continues to pull the rug as part of this reckless negotiating strategy, there would be a lag. And I think you could see, I mean, the status quo is Ukraine's biggest enemy as well here in that just because the map doesn't change much, just because the front lines move here or there in such a big country. That's not to say there couldn't be a catastrophic collapse at some point and Russia could break through and suddenly entire highways fall into Russian hands and cities start to sit very nerve, sit nervously. So I think there would be a lag, but we just don't know yet what the lead time will be for the likes of Germany and the more hawkish UK and France to step up.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Vitaly, the fact is that America's military machine is the biggest in the world with the furthest outreach when it comes to satellites, intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing. This is just something that European countries would struggle to match, frankly. Ukraine was getting the vast chunk, I believe, 80% of its intelligence that helped it target Russian energy infrastructure, ammunition storage facilities, intercept missiles. 80% of that intelligence came from the United States. Replacing that would be an enormous challenge for Europe when it comes to producing weaponry. As we heard from Keir Starmer, there are plans to produce missiles in Northern Ireland, but that means new jobs, new production facilities. That takes a lot of time.

[Lise Doucet]

Just want to jump in here because James mentioned the word 1 million and, well, both of Italy and James would know that. I heard MPs bitterly telling the story of the 1 million bullets. 20, 23, the EU said, promise Ukraine, in one year we will send you 1 million bullets. And one year on, they had only sent half.

[Jackie Leonard]

Well, we also have many questions about how the events in Ukraine are being seen within the United States and what the American public think of President Trump's decisions and indeed, the pace at which he is making them. Let's go first to James in Oxford in central England.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Dear Ukraine, Cass, I am deeply concerned by the desire of the Trump administration.

[James Waterhouse]

To impose a quick peace deal, seemingly irrespective of the consequences.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

I cannot help but think about the peace deal that was done for Afghanistan by Trump's first administration that we watched unfold chaotically within a year and a half.

[James Waterhouse]

Does the specter of a repeat of such scenes concern the American public?

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

And should supporters of Ukraine be raising the specter in the American media?

[Jackie Leonard]

And we have a Similar question from Pauline.

[Lise Doucet]

Hi, this is Pauline from the Philippines. And I've been following the Ukraine, Russia.

[James Waterhouse]

War and all of President Trump's decisions.

[Lise Doucet]

And was curious about what the American people think of this. Have there been any protests?

[Jackie Leonard]

And before we go to our experts, we thought we'd share some views from our American listeners.

[Lise Doucet]

Hello, BBC. I'm Michael from North Central Florida, usa. From the moment that Russia invaded Ukraine In February of 22, I, as well as my family and the broader community, fully and enthusiastically supported Ukraine's struggle for freedom. And then last Friday happened. Now, I don't know, it's as though I'm wandering through some alternate dimension. I like to think that this is an aberration, that my country will come to its senses eventually. I fear it won't. But for what it's worth, many of us believe in Ukraine and Europe. Hopefully we find our voice. Hi there.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

My name is Carter. And you know, it's been said that Donald Trump is a transactional politician, which leads me to believe, or at least hope that there is some sort of a strategy behind what feels like this complete 180 in the relationship between the US and Ukraine and really what feels like a warming of a relationship between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.

[Lise Doucet]

This is Lee from Houston, Texas. I think it's unreasonable to think that if this war were to go on for three more years that anything would be different other than more dead Ukrainians and Russians. I don't think Donald Trump is forcing Ukraine to surrender. He's forcing them to discuss the future, a future they might not have if this continues. America can't support another endless war. We've had our own issues with that. Ukraine was never going to win the war in the sense that they would get back everything they've lost. Winning for them at this point can only be that they were not defeated and can have the prospect of an independent and sovereign country for their children.

[Jackie Leonard]

We've also had questions on whether the other branches of US Government can curtail President Trump's policies on Ukraine. We called up our North America correspondent, Anthony Zuerka, who is also presenter of another BBC podcast, you should subscribe to AmericasT. And he sent us this voice note.

[Anthony Zuerka]

Hey there, Ukraine cast. It is good as always, to be on with you. I'd say it's a bit too early to have any kind of accurate polling on what Americans think about that Oval Office Trump, Zelensky dust up last week. But there was a recent CBS poll that showed the United States narrowly divided on whether they approved of how Donald Trump has handled the Ukraine war so far in the month he's been president. Americans also are evenly divided on whether the US should continue to send arms to Ukraine. But when you dig down into those numbers, you'll see a very sharp partisan divide over the issue. Democrats, they overwhelmingly support continued US Aid to Ukraine, and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it. And after that tumultuous visit by Zelenskyy to the US we did see some pro Ukrainian protests in the US across the US In a variety of different cities, but the demonstrators numbered in the hundreds, not the thousands at most. Now, as for your question about whether anyone or anybody or anything could be done to stop Trump's decision to suspend aid, it is possible. But all of that is part of what is a larger legal battle. Congress approved continued funding for Ukraine. That's just the bottom line. They assign the money, and it's up to the president to distribute it. It's his obligation. But as with many other areas of government spending, Trump is simply refusing to do so, at least temporarily. It's going to be up to the courts and perhaps ultimately the U.S. supreme Court to decide how much scope, how much freedom the president has to simply ignore the instructions of Congress. So when push comes to shove, US Presidents generally do have broad authority to conduct foreign policy, and that's something that the court is going to take into consideration. And it's not as though Trump wasn't clear in last year's presidential campaign how he felt about the Ukraine war, how he felt about Ukraine and for that matter, Russia. So I would say chances are Donald Trump is going to be able to do what he wants here, as he has with so many other things. And the rest of the world and the American public who would object to it are just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

[Jackie Leonard]

And Liz, both Lee and James made the comparison to Afghanistan. Do you see similarities?

[Lise Doucet]

Yes. And Afghans certainly are mentioning it a lot. You see conversations on social media. I mean, they're very, very different societies, very different wars. Afghanistan became America's longest war. It lasted through two Republican, two Democratic administrations. But the way President Trump is approaching the end of the Ukraine war has a lot of similarity to how he approached the Afghan war. First of all, he had prom at that time, Afghanistan was at the top of the news, not Ukraine. It was before the Ukraine war, before Russia's full scale invasion. And President Trump promised in his election campaign, the first time around, that he would bring all the troops home from Afghanistan. President Biden had spoken about that as well. But when he did it. He gave away the most important thing at the beginning. He said, I'm going to bring all my troops home. Same as the concessions. When we heard from, after President Trump's conversation with President Putin, we heard the US Defense secretary saying, there'll be no Ukrainian membership of NATO. It's unrealistic for Ukraine to get any of its land pre2014 back. And also the way they treated there was notice, I remember at the time how shocked we were that he would treat the Taliban leadership with such respect in the same way he's treating President Biden, Putin with such respect. And he would snipe and dismiss. And jeer. And Pompeo, his Secretary of state at the time, did the same thing, dismissing the government, the Afghan government, which in principle should have been the main partner of the United States, but mostly Afghans, sort of throw it out there and say to the Ukrainians, beware. When someone, an American president, says to you, we are with you for the long run, because we found out how long that run is. And President Trump himself has been saying recently, it wasn't that we ended the war, it was how we ended it. And he blames President Biden, which I think he has to, for a very chaotic pullout. But it was a President Trump policy that President Biden continued.

[Jackie Leonard]

Well, the day of that catastrophic Oval Office meeting, President Zelenskyy had gone to the White House to discuss, among other things, a rare minerals deal. And that's prompted questions.

[Lise Doucet]

Hey, BBC, this is Reno from Portugal. And my question is, what is the deal? What is actually on the table for Russia, US, Ukraine, where is the money coming from? How is Russia relaxed about this? Does she get what she wants in the end? What is happening?

[Jackie Leonard]

And this is Anthony in Thailand.

[James Waterhouse]

Let's just stop a moment and consider what Trump has said about American businesses in Ukraine and that the Russians would never dare touch his people. What do you think about this? Can this be analyzed? And has there been any other president in history where an economic entity has provided a military security guarantee? Despite the bravado, could this actually work?

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Thank you.

[Jackie Leonard]

Well, back to James Waterhouse in Kyiv. James, what is it that Ukraine's got that the US wants?

[James Waterhouse]

Well, Ukraine says it's got around sort of 5% of the world's what are called critical raw materials. So we're talking about graphite, granite, lithium, titanium, things that are used to make electric cars, turbines, electronics, weapons. They're worth a lot of money, billions of dollars. President Zelenskyy himself at the end of last year, as Part of a peace proposal, said, look, you know, we could negotiate. We could say to America, you can have a slice of this pie in exchange for some of these critical minerals. What he probably didn't anticipate was Donald Trump saying, okay, great, we want complete access to $500 billion worth, and you'll get no security guarantees in return. There has been some movement. It was thought President Zelensky was going to sign on that trip to the Oval Office. Of course, that did not happen. And I think as a reflection of the political road he has run out of, he is still willing to sign this, this deal without any kind of security guarantee by America in return. Kyiv is saying there'll be a domino effect of agreements. Once you have American companies here drilling, it will give Donald Trump and future presidents a reason to step in and protect their interests. The problem with that is that it wasn't exactly the presence of American companies in Ukraine, which stops Russia from launching its full scale invasion. The other complicator from speaking to people in the industry, we were at a, this enormous graphite quarry close to the central city of Oman. This is a quarry that was built in 1964. It takes a decade just to work out where to dig. It then takes decades to yield any kind of profit. But what was interesting in talking to people there, these hardened workers who work in really difficult conditions, they were saying, look, we need the money. Investors have pulled out because of Russia's invasion. We're not functioning for most of the year. Any money will be gratefully received. Let's worry about the security guarantees down the line. So clearly, against a backdrop of hostility, President Zelensky wants to give Donald Trump some kind of win. Sign the deal, and then it might allow their relationship to grow in some way. But just quickly on that point, about Russia. Russia itself is drawing up its own plans. Its pitches on critical minerals in both Russia and the territory it occupies in Ukraine. So you have this sort of bidding war, these elevator pitches, both from Moscow and Kyiv, in the direction of Washington.

[Jackie Leonard]

Vitaly, though, could the US Deal be beneficial in any way to Ukraine? We also had one listener, Carol, in the uk she asked if Europe could make their own separate deal with Ukraine for rare minerals.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

I wish we knew this moment in time. I don't think anyone outside of the White House and possibly even Kyiv knows what's in the deal. The dictionary definition of the deal is that you get something, we get something. But most, if not all, of the talk about the deal that we've been hearing from Washington is about what Ukraine should give. So when we use the word transactional, this isn't a straightforward business transaction. We're dealing with a country that's fighting for its survival when it comes to American citizens acting as a human shield potentially. Well, they're there now. And just yesterday, Russia targeted a hotel in central Ukraine where American citizens were staying as well as rich citizens as well. That didn't stop Russia from attacking. American companies are still operating in Ukraine. McDonald's it's there. Doesn't stop Russia.

[Jackie Leonard]

Liz, you wanted to come in.

[Lise Doucet]

Maybe it's a question for. I'm allowed to have a question for James, too. I saw an estimate. I don't know if it's the official view that about 40% of the critical minerals are in occupied territory. As soon as President Putin heard that this deal was in the making, he suddenly didn't he interrupt the news to say that he was ready to make a deal as well on critical minerals. So some of the minerals that President Zelensky wants to talk about with the Americans may actually be under Russian control now. Is that what you've heard, James?

[James Waterhouse]

It's blurry. I mean, what I know is that some of Ukraine's more valuable minerals are indeed in occupied territory, but the bulk still appear to be from what I've seen in land Ukraine still controls. But it is, I mean, the only reports if we're trying to sort of string these together. The proposal seems to center around this shared pot of money co owned by America and Ukraine. And 50% of Ukraine's profits from natural resources, including oil and gas, will go into this pot of cash. And then they will be reinvested into Ukraine's recovery. But you're both right. I mean, there's so much we don't know. And I really wonder if we're going to see President Zelensky or his officials in Riyadh next week meeting with American counterparts. You wonder what is he going to sign? What is he going to subject his country too? And you know, Vitaly knows more than most, you know, when it comes to international agreements. This is a country that has been stung time after time with its very future being put at peril because of what are seen as deep betrayals here from either the US or of course, Russia itself. And what Ukrainians do not want is for this mineral deal to amount to a sacrifice of its future wealth and its ultimate capitulation, even against Russia, if America still doesn't want to step in.

[Jackie Leonard]

Well, let's look at the impact on the global economy. We had a question From Bruce Kia.

[Lise Doucet]

Ora from Aotearoa, New Zealand. My question is on President Trump's tariffs and other America first policies and the effect they are having on the global economy. Is it possible that this is an.

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Opportunity for the rich to get richer.

[Lise Doucet]

A manipulation of shares on a global scale? The Ukraine minerals deal is fairly obviously an asset grab, but the other actions seem to be creating a great deal of volatility in the markets. Could this be deliberate? Thank you, Namihi Nui.

[Jackie Leonard]

Well, for this question, we thought we'd go to our Asia business reporter, Suranjana Tiwari.

[James Waterhouse]

Major stock markets tumbled this week as investors around the world are trying to get a handle on Donald Trump's sweeping and shifting policies. Tariffs and the uncertainty over trade are causing the most concern. But the America first policy on Ukraine is having an impact, too. In response to the conflict and increasing US isolationism, Germany has announced plans to increase defense spending. And Europe plans to borrow more than $158 billion to lend to EU governments to bolster defence. The euro and European shares are surging as a result, as are German government bonds, as investors expect more spending to mean more borrowing. Is there an opportunity for some people to benefit? Possibly, but there's still a lot of uncertainty and it's impossible to predict what might come next. And stock markets don't do well with uncertainty. Analysts say that while some investors may be taking profits during the stock market highs, there continues to be a great deal of volatility and fear and concern around the constant chaos.

[Jackie Leonard]

And our thanks to Siranjana Tiwari and our Asia business team in Singapore. Back to you now, Lise, because we've had some questions about how U.S. policy might change towards other adversaries. Caroline in Switzerland asked, how can a Trump administration be against Iran but supportive of Russia?

[Lise Doucet]

That's. You're going through all of world history. I'll just add to our last question. Of course, I'm a Canadian President. Trump talks about the 51st state and having an eye on our, on our society and our economy, too. Iran is very interesting. Let's drill down to what President Trump really wants. He loves the high profile, high publicity, quick deals that he gets credit for. As he said in his inauguration speech, my second term, I'm going to be a peacemaker. Iran is even more complicated, if that's possible, than Ukraine and Gaza. But just before I joined you, Jackie, there was a video by President Trump saying that he's written a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Khamenei. He didn't say what the letter was in what was in the letter and he repeated again, he was very open about it. And we know that there are many on his team who want President Trump to authorize military strikes against Iran to prevent Iran from, they say, acquiring a nuclear weapon. But President Trump keeps saying, I don't want to go for military, I want to do a deal. And he said again today, as he said in this latest video, which he has said before, the Iranians are such nice people, they're such successful people. I want the people of Iran to be successful. It's very strange how he has approached the Iranian far because we do know that Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, who does have very close relations with President Trump, has been pushing him in that direction. We have to deal with Iran. But President Trump has made it very clear that when it comes to Iran, the same as with other things, he doesn't want there to be more death, more killing. He wants the deal.

[Jackie Leonard]

Liz, thank you. Well, we also have this question from Lukash.

[Lise Doucet]

Hi. And I live in Stockholm, in Sweden. Looking beyond the first ceasefire, has the Trump administration commented on what they think a peace should entail in regards to territorial changes and political terms and conditions? Ukraine would not need the US to surrender to Russia, but to me it sounds like the US Believes that Ukraine would recede all the territory they have lost control of, as well as to agree to various other things, such as no NATO and no Zelensky. Thank you very much for a great.

[Jackie Leonard]

Show and we want to hear from all three of you, but we better speak to James first because I think we're going to lose you otherwise. James and Ashley from Scotland also wants to know whether there could be a situation where we see UN Peacekeepers on the ground and how the UN Would be involved. What does a peace look like?

[James Waterhouse]

Well, America's kind of left Ukraine and Europe scrambling to come up with their own proposals. But I think what I will always remember is the sight of Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary of America, in an innocuous meeting in Brussels where he said, right, it's Ukraine getting all of its territory back. That is an illusion. Also any kind of NATO membership, that is a non starter. And it was quite something to hear in these parts to hear those concessions that America thinks Ukraine will have to make. As for the practicalities, I mean, we've seen President Zelensky propose an initial ceasefire which could include a naval pausing of hostilities in the Black Sea, aerial ceasefire where civilian infrastructure wouldn't be targeted by Ukraine anymore, as well as large scale Prisoner of war exchanges. But of course, the dangling question is if Russia agrees to do the same, those are the kind of foundations for peace which Ukraine is trying to drum up. As for what would happen on the ground, we're seeing the likes of uk, France, now Turkey saying they would provide troops. America said, you know, we're not up for this. But this is why we're seeing Europe saying, okay, we're willing to do that. We'll have troops there to police a frozen conflict line, but we need you there. If fighting was to break out. But it's still hard to imagine. We're talking about a 600 mile long front line. We're talking about Russia likely keeping hold of a sizable chunk of Ukrainian territory. With all of their military presence and hardware remaining, the country will remain on a war footing. It will look to replenish. There will be sizable troop numbers. You know, what happens if you have 20,000 British troops in one part of Ukraine and then there's a surprise offensive somewhere else? Could they be contained? Would America want to step in? You know, these are really important questions that Kyiv will want answering as this peace process develops. But as of now, you know, it's also hypothetical and, and it's the lack of detail which is creating vacuum, which is causing a lot of concern here.

[Jackie Leonard]

James, thank you. That was James Waterhouse in Kyiv, and we will let you go. Now. Vitaly, though, the same question to you. What will a piece look like? What could a piece look like?

[Vitaly Shevchenko]

Because we've got to be clear that Ukraine is getting really desperate. So any pause in attacks is, is good from that point of view. But as James just pointed out, the, the elephant in the room is what's Russia thinking about it? Because we can spend all, all day talking about various suggestions of a peacekeeping force or a truce. However, Russia is clearly indicating that its appetites are absolutely undiminished. Various officials in Moscow saying that the special military operation will go on, its original objectives will be reached, more land will be captured, peacekeepers, forget it. That's unacceptable. Truce? No, because fighting will rekindle with renewed force. So European allies, whatever countries, are still supporting Ukraine. They will need to answer the question that James just asked. Are they ready to go and fight if Russia says no?

[Jackie Leonard]

And Lise, we know that events are changing, they're changing quickly all the time. Meetings are taking place, talks are being held. When we look back on the events of the past week, does this feel like a pivotal moment?

[Lise Doucet]

It does in the sense of ending the war in Ukraine is now at the top of the agenda in a way that it wasn't before. I don't think you can say they're any closer to ending it, but it certainly is the main focus. That's the narrative now. It is about providing more military assistance to Ukraine so they'll be in a stronger military position once they actually get to the battlefield. But the focus now is how to find a way to end the war. And for Ukraine and the Europeans, that's also about security guarantees. The question was about peace, but of course, we have a whole lexicon now of how to describe it could be a frozen conflict, it could be. There's a new word they're using now, a sustainable ceasefire they talk about in Gaza. In other words, it has to be one that we're pretty sure is going to, going to stick. It could just be the end of the war, the end of the fighting. I think it will be hard to have UN peacekeepers that has to be authorized by the UN Security Council. Would Russia agree with that? Would the United States agree with that? They're sort of on the same side now. Russia would not want UN peacekeepers there. Even in the Biden administration, there were, there were leading figures saying to Ukraine, you're not going to get Crimea back for. Forget about Crimea. We're not going to argue for Crimea. Okay, so maybe they won't get Crimea back, although they still say that they want it every Ukraine. Vitalis looking at me. And also I remember the beginning of the war where President Zelensky entertained the idea there could be some discussions and compromise to say that the east, you know, eastern Ukraine, Donetsk, Nuhansk, where there's predominantly Russian speaking populations and ties to that perhaps we could discuss us them. Right now the official line is, no, we want all of our land back, but in the cut and thrust of making a deal, there's also been a suggestion about that you leave it for later, you kick it down the road. So these will be some of the issues. But at the end of the day, for Ukrainians, peace has to mean control of our land, control of our borders. And we must be sovereign, able to defend ourselves in control of everything that affects us.

[James Waterhouse]

Us.

[Jackie Leonard]

And that's it from us for now. Thanks to Le Doucette, James Waterhouse and of course, Vitaly Shevchenko. And to you for all your questions. If you don't already subscribe to Ukrainecast, you should, and you'll find it wherever you get your BBC podcasts. There will be a regular global news podcast later if you'd like to get in touch Please do. Our email address is globalpodcastbc.co.uk you will also find us on XBCWorldService. Use the hashtag globalnewspod. This edition was mixed by Dafyd Evans. The producers were Ella Bicknell, Ben Carter, Ryan Johnson and Tim Walklate. Our editor is Karen Martin. I'm Jackie Leonard. And until next time, goodbye.