← Ukraine: The Latest
Ukraine: The Latest
UK pledges 'boots on the ground' in Ukraine as European leaders meet for emergency summit
00:57:48
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:04]
Host/Interviewer
The telegraph.
- [00:09]
Jerry Insurance Advertiser
Tired of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over 1,300 doll a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast Today, tires matter.
- [00:40]
Tire Rack Advertiser
They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road. Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy, fast free shipping, free road hazard protection, and convenient installation options. Go to tirerack.com to see Tire test results, tire ratings and consumer reviews and be sure to check out all the special offers. Tirerack.com the way Tire Buying should be.
- [01:11]
Acast Announcer
ACAST Powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [01:18]
Danny Pellegrino
The Real Housewives is a guilty pleasure for most, but if you're looking to not feel guilty about that pleasure, tune in to Everything Iconic with Me, Danny Pellegrino, where I break down all the messy moments and behind the scenes antics of Bravo's popular franchise. And on Everything Iconic I also interview celebrity guests like Kelly Ripa, Keke Palmer, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and more about their guilty pleasures, their past work, and so much more. So if you're pop culture obsessed and find yourself watching way too much reality TV like me, tune in to Everything Iconic with Danny Pellegrino. Wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [01:52]
Acast Announcer
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com Foreign.
- [02:05]
Francis Durnley
I'm Francis Durnley and this is Ukraine. The latest Today, just as the Munich security conference ends, two new summits begin in Saudi Arabia, where the US will enter peace talks with the Russians and in Paris, as European prime ministers and defence secretaries scramble to forge a collective position. Meanwhile, attacks continue in in Ukraine and.
- [02:28]
Host/Interviewer
Russia, bravery takes you through the most.
- [02:33]
James Rothwell
Unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory.
- [02:38]
Host/Interviewer
It's the worst carnage that this world has seen since World War II.
- [02:43]
James Rothwell
Absolutely fascinating. We are with you not just today or tomorrow, but for a hundred years.
- [02:54]
Francis Durnley
Nobody's going to break us.
- [02:56]
Dominic Nichols
We're strong. We're Ukrainians.
- [02:59]
Francis Durnley
It's Monday the 17th of February, two years and 353 days since the full scale invasion began. And today I'm joined by our associate editor of Defence, Dominic Nichols, our Berlin correspondent who is at the Munich security conference, James Rothwell. And later you'll hear an interview James did with friend of the podcast, Alexandra Matvechuk, whose organization was awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. First though, over to Dom for the latest on the military situation in Ukraine and Russia, which continues despite the major political developments of the last few days.
- [03:36]
Dominic Nichols
So let's start on the ground. Very little move over the weekend. It's the same pattern as in recent weeks. A very small move west by Russian forces that was in the vicinity of Velika Novosilka down in the Donbass, but nothing elsewhere on the ground really, including in Kursk, although it is still very active, very violent. The events over the weekend included an attempted Russian armoured assault that got bogged down in a minefield and the vehicles and the personnel were then finished off by first person view drones. I think that snapshot is likely a vision of at least the short term future of infantry assaults. Now also continuing recent trends, there was another Ukrainian drone attack on Russian oil production facilities. There was one attack in Krasnodar Krai, that's to the east of the Kirch Bridge and another slightly further east of that. This was last night. Drones operated by Ukraine's Special Operations Forces and the sbu, the security service of Ukraine, we are told, conducted the attack. An SBU source speaking to the Kyiv Independent said the SBU and sso, that's Ukraine's Special Ops forces of the armed forces continued the introduction of drone sanctions against two important Russian enterprises that work for the enemy military industrial complex. And then later, without giving any further details, Russia's regional governor, Vyamin Kondratev said Ukrainian drones had carried out, in his words, a massive attack. Now, elsewhere, I mean, as I say, there's not an awful lot of move on the ground. It's mainly been in the diplomatic sphere at the moment. So I'm not going to go on for too long because that's really where our attention needs to lie today. But there were a few other stories over the weekend. US based online media organization Breaking Defense. They say that Estonia could scrap a plan for a second purchase of HIMARS units if the US government can't provide assurances on lead time and production slots. Now, a decision is likely on this business deal in the coming months. We are told by Estonia's Defense Minister, Hanno Pevka. He was speaking to Breaking Defence on the sidelines of the Munich security Conference. South Korea's arms manufacturer Hanwha Aerospace looks likely to pick up the business if Lockheed Martin or the US DoD can't make the deal work. Hanwha already provide Estonia with 36 or have supplied Estonia with 36 K9 Thunder Self Propelled Howitzers and an in service air defense system, the K239 Chunmoo. Now that is already in service with Poland. Norway's considering buying it too and that may well be the one that Estonia turn to if the Himars deal falls through. Now rather extraordinarily breaking. Defense say that their interview with Hanna Pevka was interrupted by Ukraine's former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba who said Ukrainians appreciate Estonia probably more than anyone else because they gave all the artillery they had to us and they never complained or said how are we going to survive without howitzers like some other much more powerful nations did. Now Estonia currently has six HIMARS unit. That package was worth over $200 million worth of business. It'd be interesting to see whether or not this current one is canned or not. I think the current wait time for himars is around 18 months. So it does look like the business will go outside of the US supply CH military supply chain from what I've been reading around does look a bit constipated at the moment. I think the minimum delay for Patriot is two and a half years and Amraam, that's the advanced medium range air to air missile aim 120 is about 5 years. So interesting stuff on the defence industrial side. Okay, next one. In an interview published today by NBC, President Zelensky said that over 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since the start of the full scale invasion. He very rarely comments on deaths and injuries, although having said that, he did last give such figures on February 4 when he said 45,000 had been killed. So between then and now that's roughly 500 a week. As a conservative estimate, we would be wise to double that for the wounded, thereby giving a rough, very rough overall weekly casualty figure for Ukraine of about 1,500 people. Now that is about the same casualty figure as Russia is suffering each day. At the moment it's down a little to around 1200ish a day for Russia based on the last month or so. But in recent months it has been very, very high indeed. Now it's worth noting President Zelensky said that nearly 380,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been injured as well since the start of the full scale invasion and tens of thousands, in his words, tens of thousands currently missing in action or being held in Russian captivity. Ukraine's general staff today also estimating Russia has lost a total of very nearly 860,000 troops since February 24, 2022. Now, these figures from Ukraine's general staff are seen as credible by Western officials and obviously means that Russia is easily on course to pass the figure of 1 million casualties by Russia's Mayday parade. Now, finally for me, speaking this morning, just as a segue into the diplomatic side worth noting, Steve Rosenberg, the BBC Russia editor, speaking about the mood in Russia after the tumultuous kind of diplomatic events of last week, which are ongoing clearly. But he said the mood in Russia, in his words, are it's ecstatic, mocking and celebratory. He said the phone conversation between Donald Trump and Putin is portrayed and received as a clear diplomatic victory for Russia. He said any sign of cracks in the Western alliance is always welcomed, be that the eu, NATO, the transatlantic relationship which underpins European security, pretty much anything that's got a Western sticker on it, really. And he said that Vice President J.D. vance's comments at Munich that the biggest threat to Europe doesn't come from Russia, it comes from Europe itself, is absolute catnip for Russia, makes them very happy indeed. So with that sort of backdrop of the current ongoing diplomatic stuff, I think I better hand back to you, Francis.
- [10:00]
Francis Durnley
Thanks, Dom. Now, we left you last week, listeners, with James Rothwell's reports from the opening hours of the Munich Security Conference. A lot has happened over the weekend and this morning, James, I imagine you must be pretty shattered. Thanks for taking the time to come on. Can you just summarize first of all, the main developments of Saturday and Sunday, and then I can pick up on where you leave off. Over to you.
- [10:25]
James Rothwell
Hello, Francis. Yes, so I was at Munich Security Conference, which saw, I think it's fair to say, an historic turning point in terms of the United States policy towards Europe. I just want to set the scene a little bit in terms of what European delegates have been expecting from this conference. They were obviously a little bit bruised by the Trump Russia phone call, which gave them the impression that some big concessions were going to be made to Russia before the negotiations on Ukraine had even started. But I think, nevertheless, they were hoping for some reassurance at the Munich Security Conference speech by JD Vance, the vice president, that Ukraine and Europe would be taken at least into account and ideally that they would play a sort of material leading role in these negotiations. And of course, that now infamously, is not what they got at all. They're expecting a speech on security, laying out the Trump administration's plan on Ukraine for that keynote speech at JD Vance. But instead, Mr. Vance launched into a sort of diatribe, really about all of the problems, as he saw it, that are at risk of destroying Europe. He talked about what he characterized as free speech violations in the United Kingdom related to people holding protests outside abortion clinics. He talked about the annulment of the elections in Romania amid concerns that a Kremlin friendly candidate that essentially rigged it. He also called for far right firewalls in Europe, which are designed to keep the far right out of power, to be stepped back. He appeared to be thinking specifically about the far right AfD in Germany, which is polling at second place. And he said very little, almost nothing in fact, about security and the war in Ukraine. And the delegates felt completely ambushed. They were in a state of shock. Afterwards, one delegate said to me, you could hear a pin drop in the conference hall after this. They'd been expecting something big laying out the vision for security, and instead they basically were told, you shouldn't be thinking so much about Russia, Europeans, you should be getting your own house in order in the context of democracy in Europe, in the context of free speech and so on. And the delegates were, I think it's fair to say, absolutely flabbergasted by this. One said to me this was an unprecedented act of interference in particularly European elections, notably Germany, by the United States. They were very, very concerned by it and as I said, a bit shocked, a bit stunned.
- [12:58]
Francis Durnley
Well, thank you very much, James, for that summary of J.D. vance's extraordinary speech, as you say, in terms of then concrete things that came out from Munich. Were there any in the terms of policy announcements, James, or is this really now laying the groundwork for Paris and Saudi Arabia, which I'm going to talk about shortly?
- [13:17]
James Rothwell
I think to some extent it was laying the groundwork for Paris, which is going to be a summit that's reacting to not just the Vance speech, but a few other points that were made by various delegates at the conference, which I'll get into now. I just want to talk briefly about President Zelenskyy and what he said. He made a couple of points that I think are interesting. One, he said that he feels that the United States had never actually been serious about letting Ukraine into NATO, not only under the Trump administration, but also under the Biden administration. And that really chimed with this kind of grow sense of resignation, I think, at Munich that the idea of letting Ukraine join NATO just isn't going to happen under this administration. And so President Zelensky's point was, if Ukraine can't be in NATO, what is the alternative that the Europeans might put forward, which would be better than anything the Americans are going to have on the table? He suggested the idea of a European army with Ukraine now as the largest standing army in Europe, would involve them perhaps not in a diplomatically leading role, but in terms of, of manpower, would be very important and of course would have a lot of input and ultimately would be in place to deter future aggression by Russia, not just in Ukraine, but also on NATO's eastern flank. And that European army idea definitely got some traction at the conference, but it is worth mentioning that it was unfortunately shot down by Poland earlier today. You've got Donald Tusk saying that he doesn't want to see boots on the ground, in contrast with Keir Starmer, of course, who has said that he would. But the European army idea was launched, if you like, by Zelenskyy at that conference. And the other thing I think that's worth talking about is Keith Kellogg. He's the Trump administration's special envoy for Ukraine. He said something that really set the hairs running at this conference. He basically ruled out the idea that Europe is going to be a seat at the table in these negotiations. He said, bring ideas to the table, Europe, if you want to, but you're not going to be directly involved in this. And this was another moment that caused a lot of consternation among the European delegates at this conference. So I think those were some of the other areas of policy. And then the third point that I bring in on policy, David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, he spoke at a panel where he stressed the need for the UK to spend 2.5% of GDP on defense. He said that the British government will lay out in the coming weeks and months some more concrete ideas on how to make that happen. And he had a bit of a warning for Europe. He cited a statistic from the Cold war era when 7% of GDP was being spent on defence. And he basically said, if we don't have these moderate increases in defence spending now, he suggested that further down the road, especially if Ukraine is not properly defended, we may have to increase spending even further. So that was a bit of a sort of, I suppose it was a wake up call, if you like, for the rest of Europe, for European countries that are a bit reluctant to significantly increase defence spending, such as Germany, that Mr. Lammy's view is that you should do it now because in the long term, it's cheaper than having a crisis where Ukraine might be defeated. And then we get an even greater escalation, needing even more defence spending. So that was another factor of the policy announcement, if you like, that came from the conference.
- [16:37]
Francis Durnley
Thanks, James. And I'll come to the announcement by Keir Starmer last night, which also speaks into that in a moment. But just one final question to you before I get into Paris and the Saudi Arabian talks. Kellogg, you mentioned there. Kellogg, of course, for a long time was considered one of the key power players in the talks to come up and gave that scoop to the Telegraph, as it were. I imagine one of his people did, where he said that he would be going around the European capitals and that Europe would have a key role to play in the negotiations. And now he seems to be saying the reverse. Where does Europe stand on Keith Kellogg now? Does he have any power, any influence over this process at all? Or was the man who was once deemed the hawkish side, has he been totally given the cold shoulder by the Trump administration, in your view?
- [17:23]
James Rothwell
Well, Mr. Kellogg did have an interesting remark on that theme, actually, during the panel debate. He was being challenged a lot by the delegates because it was in a Q and A format about what he actually wants to see happen on Ukraine. And towards the end of it, he seemed to almost be walking back his own significance in these talks. He kept saying that it's ultimately up to President Trump what happens. It's his decision. And he characterized himself rather than being a sort of power player, as you put it, but just being one of many voices that kind of leans over and speaks into the President's ear, who doesn't necessarily have much influence on it. So I think some delegates were perhaps a little bit disappointed by that. Maybe they were expecting that this was the guy that they needed to talk to. And the other thing that Mr. Kellogg said, which I think puts some backs up, is he said that Europe needs to bring more ideas to the table. He said, if you want to be consulted on this, if you want to have a bigger role than the one that's currently envisaged for you, which appears to be basically no role whatsoever, you need to bring ideas to the table. And that will irritate some EU leaders who have, for example, David Lammy pretty openly said that what we need, of course Trump doesn't want this, but what he wants is Ukraine to be put into NATO. There's also lots of ongoing discussions about increasing defence spending. Mr. Zelenskyy helpfully introduced this European army question into the debates, perhaps hoping that that would get pick up from other eu, EU leaders. It's now been unfortunately a bit shot down. And so there was this kind of call for Europe to bring ideas to the table. Some European leaders will say, well, that's disingenuous. We've been suggesting things to the Trump administration all the way through. But some might actually argue that Mr. Kellogg has a bit of a point. There has been a lot of division in Europe at the moment, particularly on that question of boots on the ground. And I think in terms of this new summit that we're going to be seeing, perhaps the Europeans will be able to come up with a more unified position on what they actually want to play in these negotiations or indeed whether they want to be involved in them at all and instead want to try and regardless of how realistic this might be, try and launch some kind of European led initiative on peace that Mr. Zelensky would be more willing to sign up to.
- [19:33]
Francis Durnley
Well, thank you very much, James, for that overview of Munich. Let's get into Saudi Arabia and Paris then. I'm going to start with the Middle east actually, because that is taking place as we speak with Paris beginning around 4 o' clock London time. So Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, left Israel for Saudi Arabia ahead of the expected talks in Saudi with Russian officials. He's due to meet them alongside Mike Waltz, the US national security adviser, of course, and Steve Witkoff, the White House Middle east envoy. Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that the talks would take place on Tuesday in the Saudi capital of Ria, citing unnamed sources. We've just heard in the past hour or so that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that Russia has no plans to give up territory it has seized in Ukraine ahead of those talks, Lavrov said that there is no thought of Moscow giving away any land to Kyiv. What sort of territorial concessions do you want that we give up Russian speakers or rare earths, he argued. Now the Kremlin said today it had sent Mr. Lavrov and foreign policy adviser to Saudi Arabia for talks with U.S. officials on ending the war and preparing for, in their words, a personal summit between Putin and Trump. Lavrel said if Europe wants to continue the war in Ukraine, then why would they be invited to the negotiating table? Europe has already had several chances to be involved in a settlement. But which I think he means there the Russian overtures to talk earlier on in the war, which of course Europe was not inclined to speak to and many would say quite rightly. Now, tellingly, President Zelenskyy is also in the region for a visit to the United Arab Emirates. He said he has no plans to meet Russian or U.S. officials, but will visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, one day after a meeting between the top Russian and US officials. It would seem he's there to present the Ukrainian perspective to officials in the region. So that's the latest from Saudi. But here in Europe, all eyes are on Paris, where Ukraine's European allies have convened emergency meeting set to begin this afternoon after Washington signalled they would be frozen out of early peace talks. Now, the French Foreign Minister confirmed that emergency meeting on Sunday with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, saying leaders would address the situation in Ukraine and security in Europe. Mr. Macron's office said as a result of what US leaders are saying, there is a need for Europeans to do more better and in a coherent way for our collective security. Leaders from Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark are expected in Paris, as well as Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary General, and Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer announced late last night too that he was ready to send British troops to Ukraine as part of any post war peacekeeping force, stating that any peace in Ukraine cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again. It seems that Sunak's question in the House of Commons, which we played on Friday, was rolling the pitch, as it were. Now the Prime Minister has written an exclusive piece for the Telegraph where he lays out his thinking as he travels to the emergency summit. I'm going to quote most of it because I think it is quite a historic statement, so he says, as we are facing a once in a generation moment for the collective security of our continent. This is not only a question about the future of Ukraine, it is an existential question for Europe as a whole. Securing a lasting peace in Ukraine that safeguards its sovereignty for the long term is essential if we are to deter Putin from further aggression in the future. To achieve it, Europe and the United States must continue to work closely together, and I believe the UK can play a unique role in helping to make this happen. First, Europe must step up further to meet the demands of its own security. So I am heading to Paris with a clear message for our European friends. We've got to show we are truly serious about our own defence and bearing our own burden. We have talked about it for too long and President Trump is right to demand that we get on with it. As European nations, we must increase our defence spending and take on a greater role in NATO. Non U S NATO nations have already increased defence spending by 20% in the past year. But we must go further. Russia is still waging war and Ukraine is still fighting for its freedom. Which is why we must not relent in our efforts to get the kit Ukrainians need for their fighters on the front line. While the fighting continues, we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position ahead of any talks. The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine's military, where the UK has already committed 3 billion pounds a year until at least 2030. But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm's way. But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine's security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent and the security of this country, to end this war when it comes. It cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again. But second, while European nations must step up in this moment, and we will, U.S. support will remain critical. And a U.S. security guarantee is essential for a lasting peace, because only the US can deter Putin from attacking again. So I will be meeting President Trump in the coming days and working with him and all of our G7 partners to help secure the strong deal we need. We must be clear that peace cannot come at any costs. Ukraine must be at the table in these negotiations because anything less would accept Putin's position that Ukraine. Ukraine is not a real nation. President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have shown the most extraordinary resilience and made such great sacrifices in the defence of our nation. While NATO membership may take time, we should continue to support Ukraine's irreversible path to joining the alliance. We should also show greater strength in applying economic pressure. Putin's economy is feeling the strain. He is worried about his energy revenues and his financial sector working together. The US, Europe and all our G7 allies should seek to go further on the oil price cap, the shadow fleet, the sanctioning of oil giants, and going after those banks that are enabling the evasions of sanctions. These crucial days ahead will determine the future security of our continent. As I will say in Paris, peace comes through strength. But the reverse is also true. Weakness leads to war. This is the moment for us to all step up, and the UK will do so because it is the right thing to do for the values and freedoms we hold dear, and because it is fundamental to our national security. So strong words from the British Prime Minister. And interestingly, Sweden has also come out in the past hour or so saying it too would be willing to put boots on the ground as part of any peace settlement. I expect that there will be many more over the course of the day, but there is still great unease among European leaders and experts. Gabrielis Lambergis, the former foreign Minister of Lithuania, now a member of the Munich Security Conference Advisory Council, posted yesterday that things are clearly not good and summarises what many are concerned with, including some interesting thoughts about China. He writes, I think there is a strong possibility that the meeting between Putin and Trump will result in agreement. Putin is in the position to ask for it all. He might demand an election, the occupied territories and Ukrainian neutrality. If Trump agrees, which he might well do, Putin will declare a complete victory. Trump will dump this dead cat deal at Europe's door and say, take it or leave it. Then it's up to Europe to decide whether or not to stick up for Ukraine and support rejection of the deal. People who say that Europe must be at the table should remember that to be invited you have to matter. If Europe commits to money, troops and a European path for Ukraine, we will make our own table. And Ukraine, Putin and Trump can be invited. But time is running out. If Europe is unable to stand up, Ukraine will be forced to rely on itself and a smaller group of allies that continue to give support. Threats to European security will grow immensely. Putin will get braver, meaning more war in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and beyond. I've always felt that China is looking for a way to emerge as the victor, and that is worryingly possible. If the US and Europe don't offer security to Ukraine, China might step into the gap, using its leverage on Russia. They could even offer a better deal than Trump's. Ukraine has a lot to offer to China in return for security. Rebuilding ports, agricultural produce. There will be those in Europe who will support this. This gambit could be called a Kissinger splitting the US and Europe. As Kissinger split the Soviet Union and China, China, as Ukraine's protector, would start replacing the US in the role of keeping Russia out of the eastern flank. EU countries in the east will be dependent on China's protection and the racketeering would spread west. What needs to happen to avoid this all too likely disaster? My hope lies with Europe, with the appearance of a leader, with Churchill's resolve, the spirit to say, we will never surrender. We will defend all of Europe, from Ukraine to Portugal. While I accept that the statements made by the US Vice President were the necessary medicine for a lethargic Europe. I just pray the cure doesn't kill the patient. Gabrielis Lambergis, There we are in truly historic times here, the decisions made or not made over the coming days could well prove critical for the future of European security. Now, if you were busy last week and are looking for a summary in written form of the events that took place, I highly recommend a read by Roland Oliphant, a long piece which summarises the likely proposals being put forward with graphs and images and just many maps as well. So if you're looking for something that does that, I really, really recommend this brilliant piece by Rowland. And we'll have a link in the show notes. But before we start to wrap up, Dom, if I could just come back to you before the final thoughts. We were chatting on air just before we came on air, Sorry about whether Putin would accept the idea of Western coalitions of troops in the ground in Ukraine as part of any peace deal. Most likely he would argue for a UN peacekeeping force instead. But as we've touched on before, the presence of a UN peacekeeping force, as we saw in the Balkans in the 1990s, does not mean that such a force will fight back if fired upon, all witnesses say, to war crimes. So would it even be possible to have a UN peacekeeping force which can act as a deterrent? Interested to hear your thoughts on that, Dom.
- [31:04]
Dominic Nichols
Well, thanks, Francis. I think that the answer is yes, you can. I mean, the UN gets a lot of bashing from me and others, but Gulf one, the effort to eject Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, that was a UN force under UN mandate. So it can have real teeth. It's what. What can be negotiated at the time, what can be passed through the un, what mandate is given to a particular force? So, yeah, we have in the past seen that the UN rules of engagement have been watered down to a certain degree in some areas, such that there Srebrenica, for example, in Bosnia in. Was that 95, 94? You know, that happened under UN mandate because it was poorly written and the decision taken at the time was that the Dutch battalion was not going to move into Srebrenica. But as I say elsewhere, it does have real teeth. And of course, it's not the only show in town. It's very helpful to have an overarching UN mandate, but other forces can then take on the burden. For example, the peace accords were applied to Bosnia in the late 90s, saw NATO move in initially under I4, the Implementation Force, as in implementing the mandate and the accords that had been signed up to, and then S4, which I was part of, the stabilization force, after that initial fairly testy time to stabilize the area and under slightly different tasks and rules to then see the piece through. And it's largely still the force that we see today, the EU force in Kosovo, for example, operating pretty much under the same mandate. But I did have a look back actually, just to have a look at the type of mandate that could be available, an ifor. So that implementation force, the mission at the time was to monitor and enforce compliance with the military aspects of the peace agreement under United nations security council resolution 1031. That provided the mandate for a one year mission which was then passed to NATO to enact. So the North Atlantic Council, the overarching governing body if you like, of NATO, authorised a military force for that period and some of the tasks there just to whiz through them very briefly. So ensuring their own self defence and freedom of movement. Yes, you'd expect that. Supervising the marking of boundaries and zones of separation between the parties. Well, again, you'd expect anyone to want to do that in a post conflict situation. But then other tasks, monitoring and if needed, enforcing the withdrawal of forces to their respective territories and the establishment of zones of separation and assuming control of the airspace over Bosnia Herzegovina in this part, in this example, and of the movement of military traffic over key ground routes. Now those last couple there, the enforcing of the withdrawal of forces and assuming control of the airspace and ground routes over key ground routes, I mean those are very aggressive acts if one side doesn't want you to do that. So you know, you can have an internationally recognised mandate. Now this was NATO, but operating under a UN Security Council resolution, you can have a mandate with real teeth for which you would need the full gamut of fighting power and military capabilities. So it's very easy to say, oh well, it would be utterly toothless if there was a UN organization that just goes in there to try and monitor what was going on, that wouldn't actually be able to step in if there was a breach of the accords, the peace treaty. But actually if you write it correctly and it gets the sufficient Security Council resolution, then these things can have real teeth. And it's not surprising that Russia is now making noises saying, well, they wouldn't want any European nation or any NATO contributing nation putting troops up for this kind of force because they know that it would have teeth and they would insist on it and it'd be Very interesting to see. Let's imagine that, you know, we're at the fag end of some peace process, and we're just waiting for the exact wording of this UN Security Council resolution about what the force can and can't do. That's going into Ukraine, for example, and maybe into Russia as well, because let's not forget Ukraine holds territory inside Russia. So there'll need to be some kind of international force because Russia has shown that they, they can't take their land back. So if Russia were to veto, that would be a very, very strong signal that they're not that serious about peace or actually they want to have a weak force that they'd be able to roll over or test at some point in the near future. So, yes, it all depends on what is written, what can be got through the UN Security Council. But it can, if you do it correctly, and we have seen that in the past, it can have real teeth. And it would be a very interesting diplomatic test for the veto power of Russia on the UN Security Council to see what route they would take.
- [35:40]
Francis Durnley
Thanks, Tom. It is a critical question of the moment, and I imagine that in Paris this afternoon, they will be talking about whether if it does come to the UN it will have teeth to your points there. And it can have teeth, but will it have teeth? Or does Europe need to step in and offer its own defense guarantees? Those nations that are willing to beyond NATO, beyond the UN and there will be many, I would wager, on the more hawkish persuasion who will be arguing very, very strongly that the only way to guarantee European security will be to have Western troops on the ground on their own terms, as opposed to as being dictated to by some kind of Trump Putin.
- [36:34]
Jerry Insurance Advertiser
Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record? You're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast today.
- [37:15]
Francis Durnley
Let's go to our final thoughts then. James, you've been listening very patiently for some time now. I imagine you have a few thoughts on what we've been discussing. Over to you.
- [37:25]
James Rothwell
Yes, thank you, Francis. I think I'll end with this. The speech by J.D. vance caused a lot of, as I said consternation and confusion. Immediately after it came out, lots of delegates were wondering, is this actually what the Trump administration thinks, or has JD Vance sort of slightly gone off on a kind of culture war tangent? In fact, this is exactly what President Trump wanted Mr. Vance to deliver at Munich Security Conference. And we know that because shortly after the speech was delivered, he completely endorsed it. And I, based on where things stand currently, don't think this was just an act of clearing the air with Europe. I think that the United States genuinely believes that it has a duty to, as it sees it, fix cultural problems in Europe and push European leaders to fight those, as we sometimes call them, culture wars. And this brings us to the far Right Edge AfD Alternative for Germany party, which is currently second place in the polls and is ruled out of coalition talks by all the other mainstream traditional parties in Germany at the moment. I think that the J.D. vance speech is a clear sign that if the AFD performs very strongly in next week's election, strongly enough to potentially be part of a coalition government in Germany, I think there's a strong probability now that German leaders will come under intense pressure to break their firewall policy of not cooperating with the AfD and letting them into some kind of coalition. And that is why that delegate I alluded to earlier on was talking about unprecedented election interference in Europe. And that was also very much the flavor of what Olaf Scholz, the chancellor himself said when he gave his sort of retaliatory speech, I suppose, to the conference earlier. So that's definitely something to watch because it does have a security Ukraine element ahead of the German elections next week.
- [39:27]
Francis Durnley
Well, thank you very much, James, and we'll be delighted to have you back on to discuss the results of that election, which are going to prove critical in the equations we've just been discussing today. But, Dom, over to you for the final thoughts now.
- [39:40]
Dominic Nichols
Thanks, Francis. I've also been thinking about what might come next and this idea of NATO troops or contributing nations being a bit too difficult to get over the line initially. I would just ask what's the difference between NATO and Jeff? So, Jeff, the Joint Expeditionary Force, we've talked about it before, the 10 nations, basically the Baltic nations, Scandinavian nations, then Iceland, Britain, Netherlands and Denmark. Not really a force as such in terms of having mounted anything other than some monitoring in the Baltic Sea at the moment. But it's been referred to by some as the kind of spearhead, the lead element of NATO, because all the Jaffas are part of NATO. So what's in between Jeff and the rest of NATO. Well, Jeff doesn't have difficult members like for example Hungary, Slovakia. So in terms of a group, of a coalition of the willing, if you like, Jeff might not be a bad construct to start thinking about building some kind of, of force around in terms of command and control. What headquarters are you going to put in there and who, what will be the organogram, the map, the sort of wire diagram of how this force looks? I mean Geoff, with the UK in there, has a nuclear umbrella, it has very coherent command and control. It's called itself a joint expeditionary force. That might be the wrong term. I think they quite like the name Jeff before they actually really thought about why, what it stood for. You know, expeditionary implies going overseas, going away, going thousands of miles away to do stuff which it's not really capable of doing. And I don't think it would really want to do that anyway. But when you talk about going thousands of miles away to do stuff, power projection, you start talking about strategic enablers, which is taken as shorthand for do you have long range air capability, sea lift, all this kind of stuff to get your forces into a theater to go and invade Iraq or something like that. Well, Jeff doesn't need to do that. Jeff isn't there to be to need those types of strategic enablers. Isr, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. So spy stuff, satellites and all the rest of it. Yeah, okay, it would need that. But the contributing nations are pretty good on some of that stuff. So I'm just wondering if Jeff might actually be quite a nice way of starting to think about a force that's not NATO, that might be more coalition of the willingness. And if we're talking about what is. If you don't worry about or you don't want to take into account Putin's objections, then what's to stop? As we said last week, what's to stop Jeff just acting, just doing stuff inside Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government. What's to stop Jeff just doing stuff and kind of setting the agenda by being there on the ground? I don't know, one to ponder, one to carry on, but I just think Jeff might be an interesting construct for us to keep out eye on.
- [42:28]
Francis Durnley
This all reminds me of when I said to somebody once, I hope we can rely on Jeff. And they replied, who's Jeff? One could say it's a rather unfortunate name in some ways. At Munich, James Rothwell spoke again to Oleksandra Matvetchuk, who heads the human rights organization Centre for Civil Liberties, which was awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. She's appeared on the podcast twice before. Once in the first year or so of the war and second at the event that Dom David and I did for the second anniversary of the full scale invasion. James starts by asking her for her reaction to JD Vance's speech.
- [43:09]
Host/Interviewer
JD Vance here in Munich didn't spoke about Ukraine. JD Vance here in Munich spoke about European Union and problems which he on his opinion see in European Union. So I think it's more important to focus on the issues which are important to us when it's in this frame of Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Especially take into account that this is not just Ukrainian problem. Russia is empire. Empire has a center but has no borders. Inquirer always tries to expand. So even not be able to stop Putin in Ukraine, he will go further and attack next country.
- [43:58]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
And you've been at the conference, I'm sure at lots of panels, speaking and listening to lots of other delegates. And a big theme has been security guarantees for Ukraine. The United Kingdom's position on this is pretty clear, which is that the best option is NATO membership. Do you feel reassured by the discussions you've been having at the conference over the weekend?
- [44:20]
Host/Interviewer
I don't know how historians in future will call this period, but we happen to live in the very turbulent times. We live in a times when the international order which is based on UN Charter in international law is collapsing before our eyes. The work of 16 Security Council is paralyzed. And now it become obvious that such fires like wars will emerge more and more often in different parts of the globe because the international wiring is faulty and sparks are everywhere. And even people who co decades live in peaceful stable communities suddenly started to understand that they live in the illusion that they have security and human rights guarantee, that they have no security and no human rights guarantees. And these turbulent times need true leadership, need true responsibility, need true courage. And I'm glad that among conversations and messages on this Munich security conference, at least I witnessed several examples.
- [45:39]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
I remember during one panel President Zelensky was talking about NATO membership specifically. And he said one of the issues I'm paraphrasing, but one of the issues is that he's never felt that the US even under the Biden administration was serious about offering it. And another discussion that's happening at the moment is, is can you get some kind of security guarantee that is equivalent to NATO protection? Perhaps it's not labeled as NATO or branded as NATO. That's one discussion that's been going on at the conference. What's your perspective on that, I think.
- [46:13]
Host/Interviewer
That Ukrainians deserve to be a part of NATO and we will be not just beneficial. First of all, we will be the strongest contributor to the security of alliance. It's not just words. We prove it on the battle trail. We're the biggest army in Europe with real military experience. How to fight with Russia. No, other countries have nothing similar and this is a value in such a turbulent time. But because people are irrational, not rational, we also have to think about other options. We can be the members of NATO, not the Euro, but de facto democracies, start to understand the threat for themselves realistically and design the complex of prevention and risk reaction measures, collective measures which will have the same impact as Article 5 of Washington Treaty. For example, joint patrol of Ukrainian sky to close the Ukrainian sky from Russian missiles, rockets and Iranian drone.
- [47:33]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
And a lot of the work that you do focuses on Russian war crimes. And we're talking about Russian war crimes that even by the standards of the darkest periods of World War II would make people's hair stand on end. And yet we're in a situation where the US President has made a phone call to the Russian leader. There's talk about Ukrainian territorial concessions. As someone who specifically focuses on war crimes investigation, are you concerned that there is an attempt here to normalize the relationship between America and Russia?
- [48:04]
Host/Interviewer
President Trump, that he care about people who die from the both side and he wants to stop this war because hundreds of thousands Russians and Ukrainians have already died in this war. If it's so, it means that President Trump also has to hear about people dying in a Russian prison. And I think it's a problem that we think just about politics but not about people. We are people. This is our nature. So other questions, what will be with the 20 thousands of Ukrainian children who were illegally deported to Russia? What will be with thousands and thousands illegally detained civilized men and women who daily subjected to tortures? What's going to be with Ukrainian women who are under Russian control in Karasuri where they have no protection? It's sexual abuse and rape. What will be generally with people who live in occupied territories? Russian occupation is not just changing one state flag to another. Russian occupation means enforced disappearances, torture, rape, forcible adoption of your own children, denial of your identity, cadration camps and mass base. If we will normalize these things, they will multiply unpunished evil grows. Just one details. We have 1,600,000 Ukrainian children who live in occupied territories. Russia Erodev Russia started militarization process from the kindergarten in an age of a school time. These children are teached how to carry weapons. Russia is preparing a next generation of soldiers parallel to this. And I know this from people who could provide rehabilitation for children who return from deportation or occupied territories. Russia cultivate unquestioning a video so it will be ideal army in future, just in several years. It's very naive to say that Putin is preferring this army just for the war with Ukraine. While Russia will spend 40% of their budget for military plans. When Putin told publicly several times that borders of Russian state never ends and that most geopolitical catastrophe of a century it was collapse of Soviet Union.
- [50:46]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
You've spoken about what it's like to live under Russian occupation, which a lot of people have had to suffer under most recently since 2014. If there is a peace deal, air floats which allows Russia to keep land that it's seized by force. Can you tell us a bit more about what might await Ukrainians who are living in that occupied territory?
- [51:10]
Host/Interviewer
Let me remind our audience that this war started not in February 2022. This war started with occupation of RNA and part of Ustenbrick in Sokhlete. So we have territories on the Russian occupation for 11 years. And we have territories on the Russian occupation to three years. So we can see dynamic the threat. As I say, Russia started the forcible change of demographic composition of these territories. They deported Ukrainians to other regions of Russia and colonized these territories. Multiple federal programs switching by Russians from different regions to come and to live from these territories. They built a powerful military base in Crimea and increased military presence in these territories. And militarization of children is just a part of the common plan to prepare these territories as a platform for an extra time. And they negated human rights and freedom and erodes Ukrainian identity. And in Crimean first years it takes time. Now, this paybook has worked pretty well and with a scary speedless with a scary speed. So we have no tools how to stop it. The only answer is simple and naive. We have to relate the story, please.
- [52:45]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
In the long term in the context of investigating war crimes. A lot of people would like to put the Russian regime in the ha. Do you feel that this is something that might realistically happen in the near future? And if not, what is the best approach to getting accountability for the people who've committed those war crimes?
- [53:11]
Host/Interviewer
The answer to this question depends whether or not our political leaders will find historical responsibility and strength to demonstrate justice and to stop the cycle of impunity which Russia enjoyed for decades. Because Russian commit horrible crimes in Chechnya in Moldova, in Georgia, in Mali, in Libya, in Syria, in other countries in the world. They have never been punished. And that is why they believe they can do whatever they want. A year ago, our friends and colleagues Russian Human Rights Center Memorial which was prohibited in Russia, they published report they analyzed Russian tactics in several conflicts and in Ukraine and they told this is the same war crime label and the title of the report the chain of wars, chain of price, chain of unity. War crimes is a technology. It's not just poor Ukrainian for sacred from Russian war crimes. It's technology which Russia bring to Poland if Russia will come to do it. It's a technology which Russia repeat in Estonia if Russia will allow to do. It's a technology which can reach even those people who don't think that they are reachable, who seems themselves untouchable. Once again, there is no security. No, no.
- [54:33]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
When you say technology, we're talking about something that is systematic, that is deliberate, that is not people going crazy on the ground, I think you're saying, but something that is part of the Russian imperialist kind of mindset. And you mentioned Estonia, where you've got towns like Narva on the border where Putin has already said in so many words that he would like to sort of re Russianize it. And you spoke earlier about showing strength. Did you feel that Europe showed strength at this conference?
- [55:04]
Host/Interviewer
No, but I hope that situation will change and hope it's not a confidence that everything will be fine. But this is a deep understanding that all other efforts have a huge meaning.
- [55:20]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
And finally, Alexandra, this feels like a bit of a dark moment for European diplomacy for support of Ukraine this conference. How do you keep optimistic?
- [55:30]
James Rothwell
I mean you're doing a lot of work advocating Ukraine.
- [55:32]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
It must be kind of exhausting sometimes. I mean, I'm interested in what's continuing.
- [55:37]
James Rothwell
To motivate you on this.
- [55:38]
Host/Interviewer
For sure, it's not easy because we work with a human being. We not just document violations of Geneva in park conventions, we document enormous amount of kepi succoring. And and I want not just to document, I want to stop it. I want that people in other countries will never experience something which is now become a daily experience of people in your way. And what makes me optimistic, Let me tell you our example. When Russia started large scale war, not just, but also our international partners were confident that Ukraine will have no potential to resist to such enormous opposing power. But millions of people in Ukraine said we don't care, we don't care that Russia has veto power in UN nuclear weapon oil and gas. Machines, money, 1,400,000 people who find their cot. We don't care, we will talk Flora's freedom and human dignity. And suddenly it became obvious that we are stronger than Russian army, that Putin can't occupy Kiev in three or four days, that we still resist for three years. And you know what I see that we are much more resilient than we think about ourselves. We are under constant bombardment in attack, atmosphere of constant loss with a shortage of electricity when you return home and have no heating, have no light, I wrote my noble speech under candlelight Secret but Berg Sabork in University Coffee pitch beautiful coffee. Welcome to Ukraine and taste it Everything they are, they're much more resilient than the people think about themselves. And that's why I know that when you can't rely on the legal instrument on international mechanism of peace and security, you can always rely on puttle. Because people have much more dream than they can even imagine.
- [58:00]
Interviewer with Alexandra Matvetchuk
More resilient than many of us could even imagine. I think a lot of our listeners would wholeheartedly agree with that and I just want to say thanks for taking some time out of the conference to speak to our listeners about this. Thank you.
- [58:18]
Francis Durnley
Ukraine the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph created by David Knowles to support our work and to stay on top of all of our Ukraine news, analysis and dispatches from the ground. Please subscribe to the Telegraph. You can get your first three months for just £1 at www.telegraph.co.uk Ukraine the latest we are also giving university students globally unlimited access to the Telegraph, completely free of charge. Just visit www.telegraph.co.uk student sub or sign up to Dispatches, our foreign affairs newsletter, bringing stories from our award winning foreign correspondents straight to your inbox. We also have a Ukraine Live blog on our website where you can follow updates as they come in throughout the day, including insights from regular contributors to this podcast. We also do the same for other breaking international stories. You can listen to this conversation live at 1pm London time each weekday on X. Follow the Telegraph on X so that you don't miss it. To our listeners on YouTube, please note that due to issues beyond our control, there is sometimes a delay between broadcast and upload. So if you want to hear Ukraine the Latest as soon as it is released, do please refer to Podcast apps. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Ukraine the Latest on your preferred podcast app and leave us a review as it helps others find the show. Please also share with those who may not be aware we exist. You can also get in touch directly to ask questions or give comments by emailing ukrainepodelegraph.co. we do continue to read every message. You can also contact us directly on X. You can find our handles in the description for this episode. As ever, we're especially interested to hear where you're listening from around the world. Ukraine the latest was Today produced by Rachel Porter. Executive producers are Louisa Wells and David Knowles.
- [60:29]
Acast Announcer
ACAST powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [60:37]
What Went Wrong Podcast Advertiser
Christian Bale was preparing for his role in American Psycho, dressing the part, hitting the gym for the first time in his life, even getting his teeth redone. There was just one problem. He didn't actually have the part. Leonardo DiCaprio did. Listen to our podcast what Went Wrong Every week as we unearth the chaos behind Hollywood's biggest movie flops and most shocking successes. Available wherever you get your podcasts.
- [61:08]
Acast Announcer
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcast cast everywhere. Acast. Com.