Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
In this episode of One Decision In Brief, hosts Kate McCann and Sir Richard Dearlove, former MI6 Chief, assess the most recent face-to-face talks between the US and President Zelensky. They examine what we actually know about the framework of a potential agreement, including the NATO membership being taken off the table, what security guarantees for Ukraine would look like in its absence, why Ukraine may be publicly softening its rhetoric, and how that strategy could work in its favor. The discussion continues with a look at Western intelligence and military support, as Sir Richard outlines what he sees as the most serious obstacle to this peace deal. Kate and Sir Richard then raise concerns about the influence of Donald Trump and the risks of questioning Zelensky’s presidential legitimacy while pushing for an election during times of war. And the hosts look at Switzerland’s subtle announcement indicating a change of its security policy.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Situation Room Studios.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: Hello, and welcome to One Decision in Brief. I'm Kate McCann, and I'm joined today by my cohost, Sir Richard Dearlove. Hi, Sir Richard. How are you?
Dearlove: I'm fine, Kate. How are you?
Mccann: I'm good. Thank you. Nice to see you. I'm getting ready for Christmas. Getting excited.
Dearlove: Well, you know, Christmas tree up. Rosalyn, my wife, is just decorating it, so, yeah, we're on our way. Christmas soon.
Mccann: Okay. Good. Well, look, there's still lots of news around. Sometimes it slows down towards the end of the year, but I feel like this year it's really speeding up. We can debate whether or not the Ukraine issue is coming to a head, but there does seem to have been a fair amount of movement over the weekend and over the last couple of days. Should we just catch up to where we are at the moment? Because, you know, there have been talks, I think some of the very first face to face lengthy talks between Steve Witkoff on the American side and President Zelensky on the Ukrainian side, and this is all going towards trying to find some kind of agreement. Where do things stand at the moment in terms of what's actually been written down?
THE STATE OF THE UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS
Dearlove: I think we understand the bones of what's happening. Clearly NATO membership is off the agenda, but there again I think that was always implicitly off the agenda. It was just that the Ukrainians hadn't accepted it, and that seems to be more or less resolved. The next issue of course is security guarantees, and I would imagine that that's quite complicated because you've got to go into the detail of what that actually means and what Ukraine's allies will provide. I guess that it boils down probably from the American point of view to two essentials. One is a continuation of intelligence support and the other probably is aerial cover in some way with of course the aircraft being based outside Ukraine. So, I imagine that that's the complexity of the military detail because it's certainly not going to be boots on the ground. But I still think that the sticking point and the one that doesn't appear to have shifted or changed is the surrender of territory in the Donbas, and I still am of the view at the moment that the agreement, however far it's progressed in other areas, on this one could well still break down. The other issue, of course, which is important and very important in terms of European support for NATO is the release of this money, which is the Russian money which is held in the Euroclear Bank in Brussels or in Belgium generally with additional funds held in France. I mean, what's peculiar about this is that all the Europeans are pressing the Belgians to — well, I mean, it boils down to a violation of banking rules, really, to release the money, but then to do that they need obviously security guarantees. But the irony is that the French, who are holding I think about 20,000,000,000 as well, although they want the Belgians to release, have been very secretive about their own holdings and not agreeing to release the money in France. So, there's a certain amount of, I don't know, let's say hypocrisy about the attitude of some European nations on this issue.
Mccann: I do agree with you about the agreement as it stands, or at least what we understand of the agreement, in that I just don't see a way past this issue of the territory in the Donbas. And, you know, speaking to people who have been close to President Zelensky, you know, I spoke to Yuri Sak, who used to be one of his advisers. You know, they keep coming back to this idea that ultimately the territorial issue is the big issue. And I think it is worth us marking because, you know, we've been talking about Ukraine for a long time now. I mean, it wasn't that long ago that people were saying Zelensky will never give up the NATO membership demand. He can't do that. That's a key demand. And yet in the last sort of twenty four, forty eight hours, actually we have seen the sort of watering down of the language on that. And I do accept what you're saying, which is that it was never going to be realistic for them to join NATO. I do accept that. But I think it is worth us just marking this this moment because what it really is is a willingness to publicly, you know, water some of the edges down, make make things a little bit easier. And a lot of the rhetoric coming out of the Ukrainians at the moment on the Ukrainian side is around this idea that, you know, Ukraine and Europe and America are peace loving, logical, democratic nations. You know, we make decisions that make sense. We do things and we concede points and we can see that they are going to get us to a greater good. And they're setting that against this idea that Russia is illogical. Russia is unpredictable. Russia is undemocratic. What I really think the Ukrainians are doing here, and I think this NATO moment is a key part of it, is demonstrating that they are willing to be amenable. They are willing to negotiate. They are willing to give something up in order to move forward. But they're doing that knowing that Russia never will. And they're doing that knowing that no agreement is likely to be reached because Putin doesn't really want one. And so really what they actually need is the continued support and the continued, you know, strength of their allies, and that that is Europe and America. The other thing that Yuri Sak said to me is, you know, this idea of, okay, what would a security guarantee that isn't NATO look like? And then he said, you know what? We've been here before. You know, we gave over our nuclear weapons and you promised that you'd be there and you weren't. You know, what what would it — it would take something pretty hefty for us to believe you again. And that, I suppose that's the second point here for me, is the real hurt and the real frustration on the Ukrainian side. And it is emotional, I think, at the moment for them, partly because of that issue and partly because, as you rightly highlight, that they're dragging their feet over the money.
Dearlove: Yeah. I think you're absolutely right, and I think the problem is that we've done too little too late for Ukraine all the way through. And the characteristic of the Biden administration, although they're prepared to give them weapons and pay for those weapons, it was always done reluctantly and not done to escalate because the nuclear threat was, as it were, taken rather graphically by the Biden administration, and they didn't also want to provoke some sort of political crisis in Russia if Russia lost the war.
Mccann: How should we read the fact that the Americans are even in the room in these meetings in Berlin with, you know, very senior politicians, representatives from Germany, from France, from The UK, you know, Jonathan Powell, our own security representative is there in the room, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner. How do you — are you hopeful, or is that also a bit of a showing of face rather than any real intention?
Dearlove: Well, I was hopeful that we were gonna get a relative change of attitude on the part of the Trump administration, but given that he always seems to be coming back to the same agenda, and that same agenda seems to be supportive of the idea of Ukraine giving up territory, I just wonder what the hell they're talking about in Berlin and what's going to happen next. If that remains a main plank of the agreement, I just think that the war's gonna continue, and I guess Putin is gambling that the size and weight of Russia can outlast Ukraine in the medium to longer term and that they'll get what they want eventually. But on the other hand, I certainly am aware from talking to well informed people that Russia's hurting pretty badly. It's hurting economically, it's hurting militarily, the impact of the war is spreading to every part of Russian society. So the idea that somehow the Russians are winning, and this is where I think Trump is so dangerous in his attitude. He seems to be drinking the Putin Kool-Aid and saying, well, the Russians are winning anyway, so do a deal now before it gets worse for you, if you see what I mean. But the other aspect that worries me, which hasn't really been discussed, although it's come up briefly, is this question of whether there should be a new election and the legitimacy of Zelensky's position because they've annulled or canceled the prospect of holding elections because they're at war. That's constitutionally justified. But on the other hand, Trump seems to be suggesting that Zelensky's position isn't really legitimate because he should be reelected. Well, the problem is I think if they run a reelection, I'm pretty sure that there will be a candidate put up who will look like a loyal Ukrainian opponent, but might well be somebody who's much more amenable to doing a deal with the Russians. And ultimately, we can't really trust that America and Donald Trump would be, you know, would be willing to speak out against that happening. I don't think they would, and I think Trump is quite keen to get rid of Zelensky because he sees Zelensky as a block to his ambition of being able to stand up and say, look, I've secured the end of another war and an extremely bloody one in which thousands of people are being killed.
Mccann: Yeah, I know it's very — it is very hard to see. And, you know, we were at an event the other day and talking about the relationship between Ukraine and Russia and America. And there was an American guy, former military guy, at the end came up and said to me, one of the things that is not really accounted for in all of this is the unpredictability of Trump as he faces domestic problems. He faces down some real concerns about the midterm elections, a lot of domestic issues around inflation and how people feel, a lot of issues around tariffs, particularly farmers and what that's doing to farmers' ability to make enough money to live, and that's going to make him even more unpredictable. And that is something that we have not yet accounted for, even in the normal world of Donald Trump's unpredictability. And it's something that we really need to take into account as we move through the next couple of months. That could coincide with a really dangerous time for Ukraine. Finally, I wanted to talk about European countries because, you know, these meetings are taking place in Europe. European nations have come together over the last week to try and make themselves relevant again in some ways. But Switzerland is interesting. Just explain to people because the Swiss federal government has tweeted, and they posted this on the twelfth, it's now a couple of days ago, but it is relevant to the Ukraine situation. They say, in light of the deteriorating security situation, the Swiss Government is realigning Switzerland's security policy, it's launched a consultation procedure and instructed the relevant departments to start taking measures. Now it doesn't really sound like very much or something very interesting, but explain because I think you do find this interesting.
SWITZERLAND'S SHIFTING SECURITY POSTURE
Dearlove: Yeah, I do because I lived in Switzerland for quite a long time and actually I know the Swiss intelligence organizations pretty well. I think what that means, if you're interpreting Swiss-speak and that's a rather typical Swiss statement, it probably means that they're talking to NATO. I mean, they are neutral of course, but their inclination of being neutral is obviously towards the West. They're quite careful in how they preserve their neutrality, but I think in these circumstances they are worrying about Russia, and obviously given their key strategic position in Europe, the Swiss always play behind the scenes an important role if it's only where, you know, countries come together to negotiate and go and work in the UN representations in Geneva or whatever. So, I think that is a very — well, as far as the Swiss are concerned at least, a very important statement. There'll be a lot of people looking at it and interpreting it, but I think my interpretation is probably correct.
Mccann: Yeah, and I think it's definitely one to watch and the relationship between European nations over the coming weeks and months again will partly determine what happens next on Ukraine. So, Richard, it's been great chatting to you. Even though I think we're both slightly depressed by the lack of any real outcome in those meetings, but maybe we'll be proven wrong. Maybe there'll be a Christmas present in it for Ukraine and for us. Well, that's it for this week's One Decision in Brief. Of course, you can stay tuned to our regularly scheduled episode that'll be out on Thursday, and we love your comments, questions, or any feedback you've got. And for exclusive content with world leaders, you can visit 1decision.com or our page where you'll find plenty more explainers and episodes to keep you busy. I'm Kate McCann and Sir Richard Dearlove joined me today. Thank you so much for listening.
