Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
In this bonus episode, One Decision's Kate McCann and Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's MI6, discuss the latest news of a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Plus, Sir Richard shares his predictions for the UK's local elections including how the leading Reform party could influence British foreign policy. Be sure to check out the feed this Thursday for the regularly scheduled episode.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: From today, One Decision is gonna be putting out some extra episodes. We're gonna be doing them on Tuesdays, and they are a bit more of a casual chat. I want to say a romp around some of the headlines that are doing the rounds in the UK and beyond too. And so, Richard, of course, we're gonna study the inside of your brain to get the insights on some of these. I'm prepared to study the inside of yours too. Well, let's start, shall we? Because we've got a bit of an update on the Ukraine Russia story. Now we're all across the detail of what happened at the Pope's funeral. There was a meeting between president Trump and president Zelensky. People will have seen the pictures of that. But president Putin has now announced, well, some kind of ceasefire, but how much of a ceasefire really is this?
UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
Dearlove: Well, I don't think there's any evidence at all yet that he's changed his fundamental war plans, and his aim is still the complete disarmament of Ukraine as a significant European player and its return to Russian vassal status. So I think Putin's probably showing a little bit of concern that Trump is not believing him when he says he wants a ceasefire. So you've got a presentational initiative, which frankly probably doesn't mean very much. I mean, we had one supposedly over thirty six hours over Easter. And although there was a reduction in fighting in certain areas like down in the South along the front there, it didn't really change the price of anything, or it didn't change the outlook. So I think this is probably, if you can have a cosmetic gesture, that's a mixed metaphor, it's going in that general direction. I'm still cynical. I mean, I just wonder what's going on in Russia, whether there is actually pressure on Putin from people around him to go further. But I think I've said before on the podcast, there's no apparent evidence that his Ukraine policy has a reverse gear. He's still in a hole and digging.
Mccann: And it's very hard for him to go backwards, isn't it? Do you think that he has been affected by Donald Trump saying, you know, I don't think that Putin is in the market for peace? I mean, this announced, as you say, cosmetic ceasefire, let's call it that. Ceasefire in name only. It's between the eighth and the May 10. It covers Victory Day. Russia celebrates that on May 9, the end of the second world war. I mean, there's quite a lot made recently when there was a meeting of Americans and the Russians of this cooperation between the two sides around that particular date. Do you think this has been done with president Trump in mind?
Dearlove: Probably. But I think what you have to understand, I mean, having lived behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, the ninth of May anniversary is huge. It's much, much bigger, much more important than anything we ever did or celebrated in the West, and it was also accompanied by these massive parades. It has an iconic significance in Moscow in particular. So in a way, it's not particularly surprising that he's picked the May 9 as a special date. And it is, it's the eightieth anniversary of VE Day too, which gives it maybe that extra weight amongst the Russian population. And, of course, the date's very potent in Ukraine as well because of the huge losses that the Ukrainians suffered in World War Two in that period. It's charged with history in a way in Central Europe that it isn't further to the West.
Mccann: I've been really interested in the last couple of days in the shift in tone from the Ukrainian side on the issue of Crimea. And, you know, I know that behind closed doors, you speak to people on Whitehall, when you speak to British politicians, even though they publicly say, of course, Crimea isn't Russian, of course it will never be Russian. The reality is for quite some time, everybody's recognized that that is probably where we are going to end up. At least it will. I mean, the Americans offering to recognize that as Russian territory, Ukraine probably never will. But Vitaly Klitschko over the last couple of days has said, okay, we won't fight it. We won't recognize it, but we won't fight it. Zelensky seems to have changed his tone as well. Is that enough of a shift, do you think?
Dearlove: Well, I'm not sure it's enough of a shift for Putin. It's certainly a concession to Putin and one, I guess, that was largely going to be inevitable. I mean, Crimea historically has been so important to the Russian elite and to the Russian identity that my view always was it was always going to revert to Russian control because we showed very clearly in 2014 in the West that we were not prepared to go to war over Crimea. I mean, that was the invasion of Crimea. The Russians took it. No one in the West objected. So in a way, we had our chance then, or we had our chance to take a firm stand, and we failed to do it. I think we lost the opportunity over Crimea a long time ago. I don't think that Ukraine will ever give de jure recognition to Russian ownership or possession, so it'll be de facto. So technically, as far as international law could be concerned, such that it's applicable, which it isn't, it'll still technically be part of Ukraine. In practice, it won't be, and I think Klitschko has recognized that. I would have thought the Ukrainian leadership probably realized that they're never gonna get it back, or at least not in the foreseeable future. But of course, there may be some crisis in Russia at some point in the future, which is not to be ruled out. I mean, Russia is not in itself in a particularly solid or stable state. So it may revert at some point.
CHINA AND TAIWAN
Mccann: People often say this about the Russian economy as well and the instability of the Russian operation more generally. Do you think it opens up the question of Taiwan again? I mean, the suggestion is that if you allow Russia to take Crimea by force and then accept it and recognize it, that it sends a signal to other nations who might seek to do the same, that we're not gonna stand in the way of that. We're not gonna act if you seek to do that.
Dearlove: Well, of course. And it's hard, I suppose, if you're facing reality. Is the world gonna go to war with China over Taiwan? I think, you know, this is a Taiwanese China issue, and Taiwan is a very spiky porcupine and very difficult to pick up, if you see what I mean, even with gloved hands. So I'm not sure that the Chinese could very easily take it. The People's Liberation Army is completely untried. It's never done an amphibious invasion. And if you know anything about the geography of the island or the state of the seas and the Taiwan Strait, it is a hugely difficult thing to do. I don't think the Chinese need to invade Taiwan. They just will blockade it, and they can blockade it indefinitely, and the West probably won't be able to do much about it. And they've probably got enough on their hands anyway trying to deal with Donald Trump's tariffs and trade deals and the potential for, they've got a huge amount on their hands, and I think that, okay, it won't slip off the agenda. It'll still be permanently there, but it's not exactly the moment for China. And bear in mind that, I mean, China, look, as a trading nation, what the hell is it gonna do to its reputation as a trading nation if it takes Taiwan by force? So I think the Chinese have some restraints on them politically, which operate permanently, which would prevent them being super aggressive against Taiwan, unless there is a huge political crisis in the leadership and they want to distract China from some internal problem and therefore Taiwan is the answer, a bit like Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands.
UK AND US TRADE DEALS
Mccann: Yeah. One of the interesting things that comes out of the question about China is the issue of trade deals. Now, we know that the UK is seeking a trade deal with the Americans. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was over in the States recently making the case. I've been really interested in the change of tone in Downing Street. And again, you know, among ministers over the last couple of days about the possibility of that trade deal. There's been some huge expectation management going on about now it's not a definite, now it's an if we can and if it's good for us. And the terms of that trade deal, you know, the idea about what it will include really seem to have been slimmed down over the last couple of days, especially. I mean, we haven't heard very much from the Trump administration about how they feel about a UK trade deal, aside from this question about agriculture, which brings all three, America, the UK, and the EU, into a really difficult situation, doesn't it?
Dearlove: Yeah. I'm not sure this is a circle that's gonna be easily squared. I mean, personally, I think the Labour government have got this wrong because they seem to still have this emotional remainer attachment to a European agricultural model. Actually, if you do the sums in the cold light of day, there's much, much more advantage for the UK in a broad general trade deal with the United States. There's no question. I mean, people find that very hard to admit, but certainly in terms of some of the economic analysis that I've seen from real experts, the marginal benefits of going back with the EU are very, very marginal indeed, and the bigger prize would be the US. But, of course, this is where the politics come into it and displace the economics. And I fear we're gonna end up trying to ride two horses and maybe not riding either particularly well or particularly advantageously.
Mccann: Would the American, in that American scenario, because the thinking is often counter to that, that the EU is the bigger, more accessible market for the UK, that we are more closely aligned on standards. In that situation that you described where America is more advantageous, does it require the UK to accept American food standards or accept American imports of meat, chicken, and other things like that?
Dearlove: But it may do. It may do. What's happened post Brexit is that the European market hasn't shrunk in the way that people allege. And if you look at the food aspects of the market in relation to the percentage of GDP for the UK, it's tiny. It's not really that significant. It's not a big deal. It may be, or it may seem like a big deal because of the strength of the farming lobby, and therefore, there are different constituencies to try to satisfy and please. We can end up in a disadvantageous situation in relation to both agreements, is my opinion, at the moment. Because I don't think the Labour government is sufficiently clear minded on the issue. I don't think it knows which way to turn.
Mccann: Would you think it acceptable for the UK to import American agricultural products? Because one of the big questions and the concerns is that it's about the food standards and the things that they use in sort of growing, developing, bringing up their cattle and chicken that we wouldn't want here in the UK.
Dearlove: Well, really, I've lived in the States quite a lot. And you're fine. Absolutely fine. At least my American friends are absolutely fine too. So I go, you know, I just don't believe, you know, this has been so exaggerated. Okay. It's just got out completely out of proportion.
Mccann: I mean, I suppose the farming lobby here argues that it would be a dilution of standards. And also, even if you don't agree with what the farming lobby says, if the UK does do a deal with the European Union and we do end up in a dynamic alignment situation in that we match our standards with theirs in order to import and export more freely, that will put a deal with America on food way out of the question.
Dearlove: I just don't think it's of sufficient importance to stop us doing a bigger deal with the United States that covers many other advantages and makes us part, you know, of their trading bloc more intimately than we are. I mean, at the moment, we're sort of sitting between the two, but actually, Brexit hasn't damaged the economy, particularly the food economy.
UK LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REFORM
Mccann: I mean, it brings us nicely to, I suppose, the third thing that's preoccupying the UK this week, which is, you know, there are local elections here. They won't change the price of fish more generally in Westminster, but there is a by-election which might. And a lot of people have eyes on Nigel Farage's reform party. Farage of course, quite, says he's got a close relationship with Donald Trump. It doesn't seem to have been as close in recent weeks and months. There's a question about how advantageous that is anyway for the reform leader. But they do seem to be doing pretty well in local polling, and they're definitely, they've got the conservatives worried and Labour too. Where does reform stand on America, on a trade deal, and on Russia, leave them, do you think, more broadly?
Dearlove: Well, I think it stands pretty clearly towards a trade deal with the United States, Reform. So I think that there is a distinction there. On Russia, I think Farage, having in the past expressed some admiration for Putin, has actually been very careful in what he said and done. So I think that that's almost certainly past history, and I don't think he wants particularly to be associated with, let's say, the AfD and Germany's relationship with Russia. So I think he understands that, you know, he needs to have a sort of, between where he sits and where some of the more right wing European parties sit, in the way that they look. I mean, he's not going to be a Serbia or a Hungary. So I think he's been very careful. And obviously, I don't think Russia, well, of course, European and Russian issues won't figure in the council elections at all. It's all about local politics and Reform are going to do reasonably well. But I think the most striking thing about these elections is signs of a disintegration of the two party system, say that you'll have a number of parties. I mean, the Lib Dems think they're gonna do quite well in parts of the country. Reform's certainly gonna take seats off Labour. The conservatives look as though they're in a rather weak position because they're gonna have votes picked off them by those two parties. Labour are definitely gonna suffer in my view. And the Greens, they're good at the local government level. And I mean, for example, I live in a road here in Cambridge where the majority of signs outside people's houses are green. These are not people you would expect to vote green because it's a high income area, if you see what I mean. But they've taken much, much more care over development issues in Cambridge than any other local party.
Mccann: Well, one of the things that people are gonna have to unpick, and certainly, as you say, it is presenting a problem for Keir Starmer and Labour because that party is really disunited on that issue. And it may well be, as you say, that the fragmentation of politics away from the two parties. I mean, the Tories have lost, Conservative party have really lost the confidence, I think, of lots of voters. So we'll see, especially that by-election, how well Reform does. It's a Labour held seat currently.
Dearlove: I think Reform will win it.
Mccann: Do you?
Dearlove: Yeah. I do. And I, well, I think they've got a very good chance of winning it, because I think there'll be a lot of people who either won't want to vote Labour or will want to vote away from Labour just to object to some of the things that have happened since they came into power. And I mean, you know, you've gotta be careful about generalizing from by-election results because there are always occasions for people to object rather than to support, if you see what I mean. There's a sort of negative aspect to them. But I think in the medium term, if the right in the UK wants to get back into power, I just don't think that the conservatives have got any choice but to do some sort of deal with Reform.
Mccann: Well, I mean, Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Tory party has ruled it out, suggested that only if there were local councillors elected in a council at that point, they could work together, but not in order to be elected. But it's a very live issue. I mean, you've got other politicians, the mayor of the Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, the most senior conservative politician in the country saying you can't avoid it. You've got people like Robert Jenrick going to fundraisers. He was recorded, wasn't he, shadow justice secretary saying we're going to need some kind of coalition.
Dearlove: It'll happen for sure. And I mean, if Badenoch doesn't agree, she won't survive as a leader.
Mccann: There you go. Two predictions from you. Reform will win the by-election, and unless Kemi backs the reform pact, she's out.
Dearlove: Well, not out, but she will be out.
Mccann: Quickly, though.
Dearlove: Right. Yeah. It'll take time.
CLOSING
Mccann: But before the next election, she'll be gone. I mean, come on. You know the conservatives are ruthless. Well, look. Two big predictions. Our first extra bonus episode, two big predictions. We've got a lot to live up to next time we do one of these. So Richard, thanks very much for today. Nice to see you.
Dearlove: Great, Katie. Good to see you too.
Mccann: Well, that's it for us. Thank you, Sir Richard. And thank you to our listeners. We'll be back this Thursday with our regular scheduled episode. And of course, be sure to check us out on socials and subscribe to our YouTube if you want more exclusive content such as explainers and interviews with world leaders. I'm Kate McCann. Thanks very much for listening.
