Episode Info
- Season23
- Episode6
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Ambassador Spiros Lambridis
Ambassador Spiros Lambridis is Greece's Special Envoy to Ukraine who experienced Russian ballistic missile strikes near the location during meetings with Ukrainian leadership and previously served as Greece's Ambassador to Israel.
Episode Summary
Greece's Special Envoy to Ukraine, Ambassador Spiros Lambridis, knows firsthand what Ukrainians have been experiencing since Russia's full-scale invasion of their country. He tells One Decision's resident spymaster Sir Richard Dearlove and guest host, BBC anchor Kasia Madera, how a Russian ballistic missile struck just a few hundred meters from where he and Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis were meeting Ukriane's President Volodymyr Zelensky. In a wide-ranging interview, Ambassador Lambridis shares strong words about Russia. He also speaks of his heartache over the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, a region he knows well, having served as Greece's Ambassador to Israel. Ambassador Lambridis also discusses his government's enthusiasm for building closer relations with China at a time when Western nations are issuing sanctions in attempts to stop widespread Chinese state-sponsored cyber attacks. Plus, Sir Richard discusses coordination and intelligence methods on the ground in Gaza after seven international aid workers from Chef José Andrés World Central Kitchen charity were killed in an Israeli air strike.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Hazarika: You're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices that shape our lives. I'm Kasia Madera, a journalist and broadcaster at the BBC, but for this edition of One Decision I'm your guest host. And I'm Richard Dearlove,
Dearlove: former chief of British intelligence, otherwise known as MI6.
Hazarika: Each week this programme explores some of the biggest choices and issues that have global impact. We hear from the key players and influences who are making, informing and shaping the decisions that affect us all. And Sir Richard, we had such a wide ranging conversation with Greece's special representative for Ukraine, Ambassador Spiros Lambrinidis, who had some rather strong words to say about Russia and also gave an insight into Greece's decision to enhance its relations with China. But before we hear that, Sir Richard, we have to mark the latest tragedy in Gaza where since the October 7 over thirty thousand people have died, that's according to Gaza's Hamas run health ministry. Now seven aid workers from the food distribution charity World Central Kitchen have been killed in an Israeli airstrike. The charity says the movement of the convoy of cars in which the aid workers were travelling in had been coordinated with the Israel Defense Forces. So can you just talk us through the kinds of details that the IDF would need from such a charity?
Dearlove: Yeah, I think the first thing I'd say is this is the chaos of conflict, the chaos of war, and there are probably quite a lot of movements being reported and coordinated at the same time. Then you have the complexity of the command structure of the IDF coordinating amongst themselves, and you also have the complexity added by Hamas's use of what I would describe as cover, both using — we already are aware and know to a certain degree the extent to which they've, you know, used medical centers, and there's also clear evidence that Hamas have infiltrated some of the aid organizations and have apparently, or so we're told, got sympathizers or maybe much more than sympathizers, willing helpers amongst some of the locals who are recruited and working for some of the aid agencies. So the situation is really complex and I think I would draw a parallel with Afghanistan where there were quite a number of incidents, I think mainly drone strikes, where clearly the Americans or the British had faulty intelligence and attacked targets that were not terrorist targets, in fact they were attacking civilian gatherings, and you know there were a number of extraordinary incidents. So somewhere in this complexity there's an explanation that a local commander controlling, let's say drones, armed drones, took a really bad decision, but why and how was that decision taken? Well, we won't really know until we get an explanation from the so called independent examination that the Israelis say that they're going to carry out because of the international outcry about the incident. But, you know, my expectation is — but whether you'll get this from the Israelis in detail, I doubt it — that somewhere along the line the Israelis were seduced by some what they thought was accurate intelligence, that this convoy moving up was not what it purported to be, but was being used by Hamas maybe to transport some of their command personnel to a different part of Gaza. So what I'm suggesting is that they had intelligence from a source who they thought they could trust but perhaps was under Hamas's control. Look, this is purely speculative, this is based on my experience of being in situations which were not dissimilar. Events move very fast, and tactical intelligence at that level on the battlefield can very often be wrong, can be confusing. So there are many reasons why this may have happened. Look, I think we all understand that the Israelis are intransigent, they're not easy to control, they are probably what we would describe as trigger happy, they're not restrained, there's a lack of care in respect of the way that the civilian population has been treated, and you have a framework and a context which I think explains such a tragic and ghastly event. But also bear in mind that, you know, Hamas have influence on the ground. I mean, you created at the beginning of this question you asked me, you know, statistics for death, these do come from Hamas and personally I would question any information coming from Hamas and maybe one day we'll see a more balanced picture, we'll see the other side of the coin. But it's difficult because both sides are hitting us with propaganda.
Hazarika: It's an interesting perspective, Sir Richard, you give especially based upon your experiences. Initial findings of an investigation according to the IDF chief of staff say that this was a mistake that followed a misidentification at night during a war in very complex conditions and the chief of staff adds it shouldn't have happened but it's those very complex conditions that you refer to in a state of war, very difficult situation. We are going to turn to our guest now who is known as a career diplomat having joined Greece's diplomatic service in 1983. Among his many postings he served as Greece's ambassador to Israel and more recently was Greece's nominated permanent representative to NATO before retiring last year. That retirement didn't last long because he is back now as Greece's special representative for Ukraine. Ambassador Spiros Lambrinidis, welcome to One Decision.
INTERVIEW
Hazarika: Your role as Greece's special envoy to Ukraine comes with a very real risk. In March you were with Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine's port city of Odessa in the South when your convoy came under attack. A Russian ballistic missile struck just a few 100 meters from where you all were. Now that was a very close call.
Lambrinidis: Well, that might have been a close call by fact, but I'm not sure we were aimed to be hit. Nobody really knows. It was close. Of course, the president was there, my prime minister was there, the whole delegation was there. We actually heard it, we saw it. It was, as you said, several 100 meters away. It hit a hangar in the port area. Might have been a message to the president. It might have been a message to the West. It might have been a target they were targeting. That's what they claim, a hangar with UAVs. The fact remains that Russia is attacking relentlessly Ukraine and especially the area of Odessa. And people are dying, babies are dying. This is totally unacceptable.
Hazarika: Now I was in Lviv and Kyiv towards the end of 2023. I heard air raid sirens. Luckily, I didn't witness any rocket attacks. So, Richard, when you were in Kyiv, however, you weren't so lucky.
Dearlove: Well, I was in Kyiv last May, and it was a very high level security visit with a small group, and we were there at the invitation of their sort of intelligence and security people. And I was staying in a hotel in Central Kyiv. There hadn't been any attacks on Kyiv for fifty one days, but the night we were there, there was a big attack on the city. Actually, there were a number of rockets that got through and caused damage in the street. I don't think it was particularly fatal. And to be honest, I didn't even wake up. I had to be woken up and hustled down into an air raid shelter. But it's extraordinary, you can be in these situations. And there's a sort of normality on the one hand, and an extreme abnormality on the other hand. And I was very struck when I was in Kyiv how life just seemed to be carrying on despite the fact that at the same time you're in a war zone. I think the ambassador probably had a similar experience to that.
Hazarika: Just having had that experience, ambassador, having witnessed such an attack at such a close range, you have firsthand knowledge of what Ukrainians are facing, as Sir Richard said, day in, day out. Are you therefore frustrated that this solidarity and support for Ukraine that we saw at the beginning of Russia's full scale invasion across the West at the moment seems to be somewhat fracturing?
Lambrinidis: Well, Kasia, I wouldn't be so sure that it's fractured. Of course, there's a sense of this thing being prolonged and dragging on for years, but everybody understands and admires the stance of the Ukrainian people that they so bravely resist this totally unacceptable breach of international law and of their sovereignty by Russia. I can tell you from our part in Greece that we are doing what we can to our limited capabilities in supporting and beefing up the anti aircraft and in general the Ukrainian defense. Others are doing the same, both in the framework of the EU and of NATO. And, of course, there's quite an array of clients at this point in those two organizations, plus The United States, to continue supporting Ukraine. It's not an easy task. It's not easy to ask from the taxpayers to continue paying billions of euros and dollars for Ukraine, but this is the right thing to do. As the prime minister had said from day one, we have to be on the right side of history. We as Greeks know what it means to breach the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation. We cannot condone this tendency of autocrats and revisionists of history like president Putin and others, unfortunately, in that day and age that start proliferating across the world and especially in Europe. So we have to stand firm, take the medicine as painful as it can be, but we have to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. It's not only about Ukraine. It's about our way of life, our democracies. If we yield on this, the future of Europe, the future of international order based on rules and principles is at peril.
Dearlove: One of the side effects of the withholding of the 60,000,000,000 that the US Congress has failed to vote through seems to me, and it's a beneficial side effect, there's been much, much more effort amongst the European nations to get their act together and to sort of consolidate their support. I mean, you're very, you know, involved. What's your sort of observation of the success of the European initiative now? You've had a change of attitude in France. You've had other countries, you know, stepping up, increasing their resources, increasing their armaments industries. I mean is this coordination really going to deliver a beneficial European effect over time?
Lambrinidis: It's already delivered but of course we shouldn't see it from that angle, we should be adding our efforts to the efforts of The United States. The stepping up of the efforts in the European Union or in Europe in general at this point does not mean that The United States can remain complacent and say, okay, our money is not needed anymore. On the contrary, it is crucial that this 60,000,000,000 pass through somehow from the House of Representatives. In my recent visit to Washington, I was assured by a number of sources, bipartisan, by the way, that one way or the other, this is going to pass somehow. I don't know the method. I don't know how they're going to do it, but they understand that this is crucial. Don't forget that several years ago when president Trump was accusing Europe of not doing enough for its own defense, in the framework of NATO, there was a decision of stepping up the efforts of all countries reaching this expenditure of 2% of their GDP and 30% of that in investments of armaments. Many of them, including Greece, is way above that. We are 3.8 at this point. So Europe did understand from that moment onwards, we need to beef up our own initiatives on defense, including the defensive industry. And you are very right in saying that France took the lead in that, all the rest are following. And I think we're on a good road on that.
Hazarika: On that point of defense spending, Greece is spending above that figure, above that 2% figure. But last year, you and actually The UK as well, you did lower your overall defense spending. I wonder why.
Lambrinidis: Well, it's a question of handling. It's a question of logistics, more or less. It depends on the installments of payments on purchases. One year is higher, one year is less. It's the interest rates, it's what you pay upfront, what you pay in the sequence. The general trend over the next ten years is for this to stay way above the 2%, between two point five and three point eight throughout the decade. So one year will be a little less, one a little more. But the let's say the purchases are there, the commands have been placed, and as you know, they are going to be increased by the F 35 very soon. It has been, as you know, a perennial problem of Greece, not linked to Ukraine. But Ukraine can benefit from that because some of the armaments will be superfluous now that we're receiving new systems. And some of them, there is very serious talk of being transferred somehow to the fronts where they're needed at this point.
Dearlove: Spiros, can I just ask you a further question about, let's say, European relations with China? I think one of the frustrating aspects of the EU in particular has been its failure to coordinate that common foreign and security policy, a sort of European attitude to China. So you've got Germany doing one thing thinking very much about its car industry, you've got France which has always sort of been rather syncretic in the way that it's treated China. Italy, again, is in a different place. I'm quite reassured when you tell me about Greece. But this is one of the key foreign policy issues for the EU as a whole. And I mean, personally, I'm quite relieved that The UK isn't any longer trying to coordinate a European line on China because we don't have the authority in Brussels to do that any longer. But can you reflect on how that might be handled in the future? Because it seems to me that one of the keys now for the Western world is how we manage our relations with China, and that's the big international issue as sort of Pax Americana, you know, disappears. That relationship between the West and China is absolutely crucial.
Lambrinidis: Well let me put it this way Richard, it's a very complicated million dollar question. Some years ago, when we started discussing China as a subject for the first time in NATO, it came as a surprise. And then we got some lessons from the EU that was a bit more advanced in the holistic approach towards China. The EU has a triptych on this, designating China as a partner, a challenge, and then as a threat. I think NATO is following the same pattern at this point. Certainly, we're not at stage three. We have no reason to be there, and hopefully, we will never get there. A partner, yes. It should be a partner because economic diplomacy cannot exclude one of the biggest economies in the world. On the other hand, being democratic states and being free in their choices, the members of the EU designate so far their own, let's say, financial and commercial policies, not entirely freely, of course, because they have to follow EU regulations and directives naturally and the whole legislation. Provided that this is, let's say, kept and this is done, I have no problem of any of the German, Greek, Italian companies to do business with China. On the contrary, it's beneficial for everyone. But the challenge remains, there's a huge discussion on that. We all know the realities. The United States and Canada have paid dearly for the realities of that, let's say, industrial and financial espionage. Europe, we're not entirely naive also, so we take our precautions. As you see, the Silk Road Belt initiative does not advance that brilliantly anymore because we realized that there was not so much advantage for the West in that. So, yeah, we are trying to cope with the realities of a very complicated world that probably from cooperation and partnership have passed in some cases in the second pillar of challenge, as I said before. But I insist, at least Greece insists, that we should never reach the point of finding China in front of us as a threat. I don't think China wants that either. It's not in her interest, and it's not in the West's interest, at least as long as Russia is behaving so irresponsibly as it behaves at this moment. So let's be realistic. Let's be cynical, and let's not exclude China from our daily business as long as this business is transparent, is beneficial to both sides, and it does not turn into an economic war. It is not an economic war, by the way, and the president Biden has repeatedly stated so. We're not at the duel with China in any form. So let's keep it that way.
Dearlove: Yeah, no. I mean, just look at the business delegation from The United States, which was in China. This looks like a real attempt on the Chinese to sort of relaunch at least their economic relationship with The US investment and financial industry.
Hazarika: So if Greece, Ambassador, wants to see itself as a bridge between the European Union and China, and that's something that was mentioned by the Greek government around the time of November's meeting when Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis went to Beijing. What do you say then to those politicians? I am thinking specifically of the Dutch Foreign Trade Minister who said that making effective EU policy was being hampered by certain EU member states. And she mentioned Greece and she mentioned specifically that Greece was being too dependent on China.
Lambrinidis: I don't know where she gathered her data, but we are not dependent on China at all. The external commerce with China represents I think two or 3% of our overall external trade. So I don't think it's such a huge quantity. And unfortunately, I must say it's been even worse now with the challenges we are facing because of the Houthi situation in the Red Sea and the Gulf there, because a lot of the traffic that used to come through the Suez Canal to Piraeus has been deviated all around through Gibraltar, causing quite a damage to the Port Of Piraeus. Therefore, I wish we could do more instead of less. So I totally disagree with the minister with all respect, of course, the Dutch minister. I don't know where she got her information. But in any case, as you said before, being a bridge between the EU and China, I don't think Greece can, as a bridge, can hold that much of a burden. It's too heavy, and the bridge will collapse. No. We only want a humble role, as I said, an intermediary because of geography, because the Port Of Piraeus is there. And for the last year, it's been the largest commercial port in the Mediterranean. And it can be very useful for the vertical axis from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea through the Aegean, and by land, the vertical axis, both in commodities, good energy to Bulgaria, Romania, and ultimately, Ukraine. Something that is already happening, by the way. The North Port Of Alexandroupolis is becoming a very important hub of logistics, commodities, even military material going up to Ukraine. It's a very safe way either by train or by road. It's passing through two more NATO and EU states, Romania and Bulgaria. Therefore, it bypasses the straits and all the hazards that lie, unfortunately, today in the Black Sea because of mining, and it's more and more important. So if we can facilitate in any way the commerce and the ways of transporting goods and people from the East and the sea to the North and to Ukraine, all the better. If China is included, again, as a partner, again, all the better.
Dearlove: Spiros, one just very practical question about Piraeus and the Chinese investment in the port. I mean, Biden is now removing all the Chinese software from the cranes built by China in American ports. Have you possibly got the same problem in Piraeus or not?
Lambrinidis: Look, Richard, the Port Of Piraeus was open for tender, if I'm not mistaken, in 2010 for the first time, and no European or American firm was present to claim it. So unfortunately, at the peak of our crisis, I think 2011, 2012, somewhere around there, we had, according to the European Union regulations on economic conditions and on competition, we had to give it to the best standard according always to the European regulation. And that was unfortunately — it was Cosco. There was nothing else to do. It was a decaying port. It was losing money. It would have to close down, and it's a vital port for us because most of our transports, not only goods, but people to the wonderful islands of the Aegean where all these millions of tourists go, go through Piraeus. So Piraeus could not afford to close down. We had to find an investor. It's Cosco. So far, we have no complaints. It's not a strategic port from the military point of view. It's got nothing military in it. It's only a commercial port. It's open. It's functioning according to European Union regulations. It's functioning under the Greek law, and it's only part of the port, by the way, that is run by the Chinese Cosco. The civilian part, the part of the passengers is totally owned by the Greek state. So I don't see any danger in that.
Hazarika: Countries are now trying to become less dependent on China following their concerns over China's treatment of the Muslim Uighur community. And yet you are very much not abandoning this country in your own words. You said Greece is not abandoning China. I just wonder, given the Belt and Roads initiative, given the significance of the Piraeus Port as you were describing, are you not concerned?
Lambrinidis: We would be concerned again, Kasia, if we had given China any of our strategic, let's say, infrastructure, whether it's defense, security, or let's say telecommunications. None of that is in Chinese hands. We're very proud and very confident that we have preferred Finnish and Swedish companies on our 5G. I don't want to name them, but you know who they are. They're very well known. So we're not afraid at all by the Chinese incursion, let's say, in Greece. We do have Chinese investors, private ones. They're buying real estate, a lot of it, by the way. And it's funny to see in the middle of traditional suburbs of Athens or traditional little touristic areas of Greece to find now a very sympathetic, very quiet Chinese community living there with their children. They're not malicious at all. However, when we come to cyber or hybrid warfare, this is a different story. Greece is very, very deeply anchored within the European Union and NATO. So we feel confident on both participations. We're doing what we have to do. We're not severe in our relations with China. There's no reason for doing that. None of the European states is doing so. But we are all, of course, prudent and keep our defenses up against anyone who might be aiming with malicious intents towards our country or our union or our NATO alliance. So we are very alert, nowadays where we had this horrific attack on Russian innocent civilians, and we're very, very disappointed in seeing the effort by the entourage of president Putin trying to pin this on a neighboring country. It's quite an improper thing again, an irresponsible thing without proof, without even indications to try to, let's say, stir up even more the passions against the neighboring country that is already invaded by Russia by erroneously and unjustly blaming them on this horrific attack which is so obviously done by ISIS Khorasan.
Hazarika: We're coming up to the European Parliamentary elections in June. Are you concerned about the polarization and the rise of far right parties, their popularities, and what kind of impact is that having on Greece? Of course, you had the situation with Golden Dawn, not as popular anymore, but what is the situation now in Greece?
Lambrinidis: Of course, I'm worried, Kasia. Every citizen, every conscious citizen should be worried and should go and vote. That is the big problem for the Euro elections next June. I think everyone who is responsible and having a responsible position in all of our societies should take the people that he knows, his friends, his relatives, the people in the street, shake them and say to them, it's your obligation. It's not your right to go and vote for your own freedoms. Because if you don't, the fanatics will go and vote. And the fanatics are on both ends, left and right. And, you know, these ends very often linked together. And, again, I will become a historical monster, and I will remind you of the Ribbentrop–Molotov Accord. Just before the World War, the two extremes of the time had linked their forces to attack Poland. So that is an exaggeration, of course. But what you asked me, Kasia, in the Greek political scene at this point, we see a polarization. Things are much better than other European countries. If you add up the various little extreme right parties or extreme left parties, you've got at least — and as you know, in the Euro elections, people vote a little bit more freely, a little bit more carelessly. They say, okay. Let's forget the traditional parties. Let's vote for an alternative. After all, they're not going to govern me. They're going to send some people in the Euro Parliament. And that is a fear that they might gather on the two extremes a totality of perhaps 25% divided between the two extremes. All the polls show that the extreme right in various little parties is rising, not to the point that we can worry about majorities, of course. Mitsotakis is holding very strongly with his party. The major opposition is, at this point, in a sort of disarray because of its internal problems. But as you said, Kasia, it is a danger that we might see a new Euro parliament in it for the next five years polarized, having a lot of voices that are not in the mainstream of European politics, and that would pose problems also to the European legislation, to the European Commission, to the European Council, and to national parliaments as well. If you have a disproportionate representation in the Euro Parliament from your national parliament, it's bound to affect your national parliament in the next special elections as well.
Dearlove: Greece, Spiros, really is one of those countries that's sitting on the front line of immigration from the South and from the East. But it seems to me recently that Greece has been more successful maybe than other countries in coping with the problem. I mean, what's the state of play at the moment, and what impact is that having on the issues that we're talking about in terms of, you know, politics? Because if you go, for example, to Southern Italy, I mean, the impact of immigration in the urban areas of Southern Italy is just massive at the moment.
Lambrinidis: Richard, it is a problem. It's no use hiding our heads in the sun like ostriches and say, well, there is no problem. We managed to cope with it. We didn't manage to cope with it. We managed to cope with it partially because we built a tremendous fence, which is a shame in our day and age in twenty first century instead of bringing down fences to build up fences. We built up, unfortunately, after the crisis we've had in 2020 with Turkey, we built up a fence up on the River Evros in the North, and we stopped 90% of the influx of immigrants there. Also, we beefed up enormously, thanks also to the European Union with Frontex assistance, our coast guard patrols with modern systems, modern boats in the Aegean. And because we're running through a very, hopefully, happy and hopefully long period of détente with our Eastern neighbor, we managed with mutual efforts to curb to a substantial degree the trafficking of humans across the Aegean. Because I must be honest with you, naturally, back in 2020 and before, we did have obviously a deliberate tendency from our eastern neighbor to dump on us what they did not desire to host, and it was a challenge. We manage now with mutual efforts to curb the phenomenon that is mainly based on personal interest of traffickers who are criminals. And they're both Greeks, Turks, internationals. So that is being successfully challenged. However, lately, there's a new route because exactly these criminals, they try to make money out of poverty and misery of unfortunate human beings coming from Africa and Asia. They discovered a new route coming from the Extreme West part of Egypt directly to the South Of Crete. So all of a sudden, we received hundreds of refugees from there. Actually, it's not refugees, immigrants, Africans mostly. We are trying with Egypt now to do the same thing we did with Turkey, cooperate to curb that kind of phenomenon. But these things change from one day to the other because of the more general situation that you know better than me. There's a constant pressure from the South and the East. It's going to get worse because of climate change, because of political instability, because of what is going on in Africa and The Middle East. So we have to be prepared as a general European society to cope in a humane but also effective way with something that might completely overturn balances in the next decades in Europe.
Hazarika: Ambassador, you mentioned the Middle East. You were previously ambassador of Greece to Israel between 2013 and 2016. I have to get your thoughts therefore on the situation right now in Gaza.
Lambrinidis: You touched a very sentimental point in my heart because that was the second time I had a tour in Israel. The previous one was in the early nineties. I had witnessed the Gulf War. So I wore with my Israeli brothers at the time, the gas mask on my face. So I know what it means to be frightened, to be scared, and to be brutally beaten and invaded and tortured and raped as it happened in October. I agree with all of that, but the answer to that is not more violence to the extent and to the extreme that we're witnessing now in Gaza with the real suffering of thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands of civilians, among which, of course, the criminal terrorists of Hamas are hiding. There's no doubt about that. So we sympathize with the effort of Israel to annihilate this vulgar and brutal and barbaric organization, but the civilian population have nothing to do with it and they should not suffer this. So in case that we have, let's say, an escalation of violence, I really don't know how much more it can escalate from what we have here. We only hear about one land attack on Rafah, which is the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of civilians. We will have a massacre, which is totally unacceptable. So the international community should do its best to try and convince, cooperating, not accusing the Israeli government, cooperating with it to find an effective way to, let's say, neutralize Hamas without endangering more human suffering. I know it sounds naive. I know it might not be practical, but we cannot condone and Greece does not condone a land attack on Rafah. It could be really a disastrous situation. It is already disastrous because even if this crisis is over soon, we hope and we pray it is over soon, what remains back in Gaza is beyond description. I don't know how people will be able to live in that strip of land if not extensive, massive international aid at the reconstruction as soon as possible. And don't forget, summer is coming in that area very, very soon. By next month, temperatures will be in the high thirties, and there will be no running water, no electricity, no purification of water, no sanitation systems. It's going to be a humanitarian hell. I don't know how these people would survive, literally.
Dearlove: Spiros, I share your view, you know, your nostalgia for your time in Israel, and I dealt extensively, obviously, with the Israelis. The one thing I found was that when it comes to issues that relate, as it were, to what they say the survival of the Israeli state, they are intransigent. They're very, very difficult to deal with. I mean, they are the most reasonable, extraordinary people, you know, highly entrepreneurial, and Israel is an incredible country. But on the other hand, there's this point of intransigence where they become very, very, very difficult to deal with — amongst the most difficult experiences I had professionally. And I think that where we've reached now in Gaza is that point at which, you know, there is this intransigence not to listen to advice, not to compromise even from their closest allies. So you know, is there going to be a way around this problem?
Lambrinidis: Richard, I couldn't agree more with you. I'm afraid I don't have an answer. I have seen these intransigence and since I've been twice in Israel, and in the meantime, I have been dealing with Israelis all across the world for so many years, I see this intransigence increasing. This is what worries me. The Israeli society itself, but it's not the time and the place to analyze it, has gone under tremendous changes, alterations, mutations over the last decades because of the influx of large numbers of immigrants that have changed the actual substance and consistence of the society, the fabric, let's say. I mean, you and I are of the decades, let's say, not born after the 2000s. We're not millennials, either of us. So the Israel we remember of Rabin or Peres and all that is gone. There are no more kibbutzniks. I mean, okay, they're kibbutzes, but not the kibbutzes we know. There's no labor party. Those historical and heroic figures of the survival of Israel have gone. The new Israel, as you said, is a very entrepreneurial, very western, very effective state, but it's becoming very intransigent in terms of political position. You know the composition of the current government. You know the positions that they are holding about the West Bank. By all standards, the United Nations resolutions, the statements of our politicians, they're totally unacceptable. We cannot accept this kind of politics. They said simply, Israel has to survive. Absolutely, yes. Nobody denies that. And we don't care about anything else. No. It's not like that. There's another people living there. They have their rights, inherent rights, and they have to be heard. What is the alternative they are proposing? You don't want to discuss it with the Palestinian authority. Who else is there to discuss it with them? I mean, they're discrediting Abbas and the Palestinian authority. Well, the alternative is Islamic Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah. Is that what they want? So really, I'm at a loss. When I talk with my Israeli friends, some of them are at a loss, by the way, too, because Israel remains an active democracy, and probably that's the only thing that's going to save it in the long run. That people, at one certain point, will react to intransigent and extremist positions because they see that they don't pay off. It was a very right wing government when the October incident happened. So if these people think, believe, and advocate that they're increasing the security of Israel, where was the security on October 7? It was the biggest debacle and disaster of Israel since the Yom Kippur War. And no army attacked them, by the way. Some irregulars attacked them, and they overwhelmed them. They overwhelmed the entire South in command. It was incredible. So now the price is being paid by those who are not responsible, unfortunately, by the civilians. And mind me, I'm almost retired now. I can say almost anything I want. Mark my words, the real culprits will not be caught and they will not pay. The civilians will pay. The ones who organize this are already perhaps outside Gaza.
Hazarika: Ambassador, before we end, I just wanted to ask, I thought you were retired and you came out of retirement. Is there ever a time to stop? Do you ever stop working?
Lambrinidis: Well, I think diplomats, especially perverted diplomats like myself serving my country for forty years, are sort of a vampire thing concerning external policies. We come back. Well, I was honored, I was actually recalled a few months after I was in retirement by my government to serve in this very, very difficult, very demanding, but extremely honorary position. And I'm glad I do that. I do my best in my humble capacity to help Ukraine and help my country vis a vis Ukraine because as you know, we did have and we continue to have and we will have in the future a big prosperous community in the South Of Ukraine, in the area of Mariupol that unfortunately is occupied, in Odessa. We don't want to lose that link. There's a team of people working on the reconstruction of Ukraine already and the systems of Ukraine. I'm very proud to work with these people, and I think my role is just helping those people deliver their goals, their political goals, which is, in the words of my prime minister, we're on the right side of history. It will stay there for as long as it takes. Ambassador Spiros Lambrinidis, thank you so much.
Hazarika: Ambassador Spiros Lambrinidis, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and speaking to us here on One Decision.
Lambrinidis: Thank you. Thank you so much, Kasia and Richard. It's been a pleasure and an honor speaking to you. Thank you.
ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE
Dearlove: Well, a very extraordinary, what I would describe as sort of mainline European diplomat, but one also with his own mind. It's very, very interesting discussion. You can see the diplomacy at work and his, you know, careful positioning of Greece on these issues. I don't think I quite agree with the way he described it. It all sounds a bit too perfect. But on the other hand, it's good to get that sort of balanced inside view. I think there's a bit of complacency there about China, but interestingly, a massive expression of commitment to Ukraine, which I thought is really, really important, particularly coming from a country like Greece, which, of course, has the same problems with Turkey, which we didn't discuss.
Hazarika: Absolutely fascinating. He briefly touched upon, he was hoping that those relations were a little bit calmer, I guess, very much on message when he was talking about being on the right side of history. And I guess that's the career politician aspect that you picked up on. But I was fascinated to hear how when it comes to Russia, Russia is behaving irresponsibly. But China, China is not behaving irresponsibly and should be seen very much as a partner. He wouldn't back down on that.
Dearlove: Well, I think that is a type of European view. I mean, I think there's a mutation going on at the moment in attitudes to China, and there's been a huge shift in The United States. You know, there's been a huge shift in the Five Eyes Nations, so I think have been up closer to the problem of an aggressive, expansive China than maybe a country like Greece has. And, you know, there is a difference of view. There's no question. And those countries of the Southern Mediterranean, I'm thinking particularly of Italy and Greece, have actually a pretty close and trouble free relationship with China. And in a way, that's one of the problems in the EU taking a more, you know, aggressive attitude.
Hazarika: Do you think there's an aspect of naivety in that case when it comes to Greece and its relationship with China? Because they do describe themselves as a bridge between the EU and China. And if the European Union is taking a more aggressive stance, then where does that leave Greece?
Dearlove: Yeah. It's a good question. And I'm reluctant to call it naivety. I think at the moment, you know — I mean, look. Bear in mind that, you know, Greece is the world's primary shipping nation. A lot of its economy depends on international trade. I can't remember what quantity it is of the world's goods that are moved by ship as opposed to any other means. I mean, they are an important mercantile cog in the international situation. So I think in a way, there's an explanation for the position that Greece is taking. And I agree with the ambassador on one key point, that our economies are intertwined with China. It's not like the Cold War. And, you know, the economies of the West were never intertwined with the Soviet Union. We have a completely different situation now where we have a, you know, strategic competition with China, which is heading towards enmity, but at the same time our economies are totally intertwined. So I mean he has a point in terms of the position he's taking. But I think, you know, he did actually say when I asked him about that issue of, you know, how you handle China, he did say, well, you know, it's the hundred million dollar question, and it is the hundred million dollar question. And I think what's fascinating about this interview that we did with him is you're getting a perspective which is understandable, but which is different from the mainland perspective at the moment, which is being pushed in The UK, in Australia, in The United States, you know, where there's been a huge shift in relations to China.
Hazarika: Greece is not the only European Union country that is taking part in this Belt and Road initiative, this huge infrastructure development strategy. But those critics that suggest perhaps that it's a Trojan horse for China to get into nations, what would you say to that?
Dearlove: It is a Trojan horse because I think a lot of the countries which were enthusiastic participants in Belt and Road have found that it comes at a massive cost, not only indebtedness but the economic benefit to the countries that have indulged in big Chinese investment projects have found them dominated by Chinese employment, Chinese business, you know, where the Chinese ship out their own workers even and you know it's a cause of massive problems. I think it's less of a problem in the West because the proportion of investment in relation to the economy is smaller. But I think even countries like Italy now who've accepted Chinese investment on privileged belt and road terms are having concerns. The fact is it's a hugely politicized program. And I mean, the irony is if you look at it closely, it's not as big as the Chinese purport it to be, if you see what I mean. They've used it to leverage their international influence. I can't remember what the statistics are now. But before Britain cut its aid budget, the British aid budget was a significant proportion of what Belt and Road investment was. It's no longer the case, but it was in the past. And, you know, we didn't use our aid budget as a vehicle for promoting British influence in the way that China was using Belt and Road. And I think now there's a sort of academic and economic reassessment of Belt and Road, which gives it a very, very different sort of a stamp and identity and particularly reputation internationally. And, I mean, I think the Chinese are beginning to play it down. It's not nearly as important for them as it was when Xi Jinping launched it.
Hazarika: It was a brilliant idea. It's a good propaganda idea. Let's face it. Clever propaganda idea. And it's just past ten years as well. Sir Richard, brilliant to speak to you. That is it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday. Also drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you, where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. But from me, from Sir Richard and the team, thank you for listening. Until next time.
