Transcript of Could European troops in Ukraine be part of a peace deal? | BBC Newscast

There's a lot going on in the world. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he would be willing to provide British troops to participate in a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, if that's what peace negotiations lead to. The Americans and the Russians are both heading to Saudi Arabia for talks that could potentially include a discussion about what happens in Ukraine. And in Paris on Monday afternoon, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, assembled loads of leaders to talk about Ukraine and how to deal with President Trump. Trump and what Europe should be doing about its own defense. So lots and lots of things to discuss on this episode of the BBC's Daily News podcast, Newscast. Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio and we're recording this episode of newscast just after 7:00 on Monday evening. This meeting of leaders in Paris has finished, but we don't have very much definitive about what they discussed or what they agreed. But the fundamentals of the global situation remain the same, whatever they say after the meeting. But let's discuss those fundamentals because we're joined in the studio by diplomatic correspondent James Landale. Hi, James.

Hello again, Adam.

Joe pike is joining us from Westminster. Hello, Joe. Except he's actually here.

I mean, you're from Westminster normally, but I'm in broadcasting.

Yeah, exactly. So one thing that's stable, we're joined by Lord Derrick, who was the UK Ambassador to Washington when. When Donald Trump was president last time. Hello, Kim.

Hi.

And also joining us from Paris is Katja Adler. Hello, Katja.

Hello.

You've had a long day, haven't you, Katya? By judging by that. Hello.

Oh, really? Did it not send. I'll try again. Hello. Okay.

Right, so we're recording. At 10 past 7 on Monday evening, Katya, we had this big meeting of lots of EU leaders in Paris. Cold at the last minute. It has all felt very last minute. How has it felt there today as we await any kind of outcome from that meeting?

So I have to pick you up on this. First of all, it's not build or seen or supposed to feel like an EU meeting at all. This is a hastily convened meeting of Europe's biggest military powers in and outside of the eu. So obviously the UK is there as one of the two biggest military powers and the two nuclear powers in Europe alongside France and Emmanuel Macron always wanted to have the United Kingdom here. We also had the Secretary General of NATO here as well, as well as countries that are inside the eu, Denmark, Spain, Italy and so on. But the common link was that they are military powers. Denmark was also representing really importantly The Nordic countries and the Baltic countries who were feeling really exposed, Adam, because obviously we're talking about the future of Ukraine. And the fact that these, you know, leaders did scramble here last minute shows that they are really concerned. But it isn't just about the future of Ukraine and that its future could be decided by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin without Kiev or without the rest of Europe. But they also see that the future or the security future of Europe more broadly is at stake here.

Because what they really worry about is that if Vladimir Putin gets an easy ride in peace talks eventually with Donald Trump, he could feel emboldened enough to look at elsewhere. And that is why the Nordics and the Baltics are extremely worried. So today was, you know, how much a leader is going to manage to kind of get down to in a few hours. It was about getting the ball rolling and sending a message to Ukraine. You're not alone. Sending a message to Moscow that Europe isn't giving up on Ukraine or sort of bowing to Moscow and sending a message to Washington that they're listening to Washington, they're listening to Donald Trump, they're taking action, and they want a seat at the negotiating table. They haven't given up.

Katya, always happy to be corrected by you. Most people not. But you definitely, I mean, from what you were saying there, it sounds to me like maybe this is sort of 75% symbolism, 25% practically talking about stuff.

So a lot of symbolism, but. But a lot of talk. I mean, serious talk. Adam. I think, you know, the thing is, and Mark Ritter, who we knew before as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, now the Secretary General of NATO, he's known as a really straight talker. And he pretty rolled his eyes at this international security meeting in Munich at the weekend because he said, guys, it's no surprise how Donald Trump is acting. The fact that Donald Trump doesn't prioritize Europe or his defense seriously cannot come as a surprise. But you do get a feeling that for many countries in Europe, they kept hoping against hope that they were wrong, and now they really feel they might be alone with their own defense in Europe. So on the one hand, they want to take action and get the ball rolling, but in order to show Washington that they're ready, in order to hope not to lose Washington altogether. But if Donald Trump does pivot away, they're going to need to take more responsibility and spend more on their own defense anyway. So this wasn't purely about symbolism. This was real politique. This is Europe realizing that it could be left Alone to fend for itself, possibly, but definitely a lot more so and that they need to hold together to do that.

I think where, you know, rumors are coming out already where there was disunity that they'd rather shield not only from Moscow but from Washington these days, is about the idea of sending troops to Ukraine to safeguard a cease fire that eventually might be agreed there. And you can understand, I mean, you know, for leaders there, it's the cost, you know, do they have the troops available? And also what's the risk? What's the mission statement? If, you know, Russia would suddenly kind of renege on any cease fire agreements, does it mean that these European troops are directly at war with Moscow? Would the United States have their back? So I think what the sense that we're getting is France and the UK are out front there. They've worked together. They've done this before, for example, you know, in the Balkan wars, which I'm old enough to remember covering. And, you know, they are willing. But there are others, like Spain, like Germany, that, well, at least the current German chancellor that are a bit more reticent and say, yes, we would, could send some troops eventually, but we need to know more about the circumstances.

And James, I'll get your take on what we think is developing with this peacekeeping force, which seems to have gone from nothing to people starting to put dots on a map now. But Kim, just your take on this whole. The, the imagery of today. I mean, one thing, getting people together at the last minute looks like action being taken in the face of what could be dramatic events. But the other way of looking at it is like, oh, knee jerk, bit of panic. Which one is it, Adam?

There's a bit of a feel in the media I've been watching today that this is all, as you say, a panic. What I would say is that it all comes from the tone and content of what Donald Trump announced after his phone call with Putin, this hour and a half phone call where he says, the day after we decided to start talking immediately about a ceasefire and a solution on Ukraine. New mentioned what he said then of the substance, what sort of deal he was going to strike. No mention of whether Ukraine would be involved and certainly no mention of Europe. Then you get a bit of briefing afterwards, say, and of course, the Europeans will have to provide the peacekeeping force. And in those circumstances, first of all, this is the security of Europe primarily that is at risk here. And second, if we're going to be expected to stump up the peacekeepers, I mean, lots of questions arising that including the degree of American involvement. But, you know, we would like to know something about the deal. And in those circumstances, it seems to me actually quite sensible that the main European military power should get together quite quickly to see how much they can evolve a common position on the substance, the process, implications for Europe in the future, red lines and this kind of stuff.

So I applaud the fact they're having this meeting. It's also, I would say, quite striking in this Brexit era that the absolutely automatic invitee to this meeting is Kirsten. We've been talking about, you know, how much is there going to be a reality about a reset in Europe in UK EU relations? I mean, this is not the eu, but it is Europe. And there we are at this potentially extraordinarily important summit meeting as a natural and leading invitee.

Well, yeah, because it's the power of events to shape things, which is a real obvious thing to say. But I'm just thinking that for months and years now, we've been talking about Labor would have a security pact with the eu. There'll be years of negotiations. What will your red lines be? Oh, it's happening. Right.

It's all overtaken by real life.

Exactly, James. In terms of. I mean, I am so stunned how quickly the conversation has. Turns to that terrible phrase, because it's a cliche. Boots on the ground and people talking about where troops would be, how many there would be, how many, how long they'd be there, who would provide what. It has happened very, very quickly that people are starting to talk about kind of logistical issues.

Yeah, it all feels a bit previous. Yeah, I mean, I can totally understand.

By previous you mean premature.

Yeah. I think that I can understand why the British government decides to, you know, send a signal like this, because it shows willing, it shows leadership. It says, we're willing to get engaged with and to try and send a message to the Americans that we're prepared to get onto your territory and all that. But I think there are huge sort of risks here as well as, you know, the uncertainties that Kim was talking about. The first is a strategic risk, which is that by rushing into the detail and the weeds of the potential nature of a security guarantee and what role the UK mailman will play. There's a risk that the Europeans paint themselves into a corner, that they are just the security guarantors of a deal over which they have nothing to say, and that all those other issues that Kim was talking about, the real substance, you know, territorial concessions, nature of Ukrainian sovereignty, reparations Reconstruction, all of those kind of things. They are as important as the Social Security guarantees, which is almost the second phase bull. And so there's a strategic risk by diving into this. Secondly, there's then the question of who, what, where, when, how?

I've been telling colleagues today, don't use the phrase peacekeeping force. Peacekeepers, by and large, are United nations, you know, blue helmets. Now, remember, when that happens, they are impartial, they're neutral, they are there with the consent of both parties, and they only have limited ability to use force primarily to defend themselves, except in exceptional circumstances. This force, whatever it may be, is going to be going to have to have a different name. It is there as a deterrence force. It is there to stop the Russians invading in the future after any potential ceasefire deal. Once you've established that, you've then got to say, right, what are the terms and conditions going to be if the Russians were to invade? What would these troops be able to do? How would those decisions be taken? Who would have the chain of command? What authority would be given in advance? Which parliaments would support this? You know, you're going to have all the usual arguments of, is it going to be a Frenchman, is it going to be a Brit, who's a. Which general's in charge? All of that stuff, although it isn't it.

But isn't it interesting just from a human nature point of view? There's so much uncertainty here. And we'll come on to the uncertainty about what's actually happening in Saudi Arabia between Russia and. And the us who are going to be meeting there this week to talk about. We don't exactly know what. It's kind of comforting to talk about these logistical issues because you can get your head around it. And even though they're big questions of war and peace and resources and money and people's lives at risk, it's like you can ask these questions and they seem like reasonable questions, as opposed to what on earth is going to happen?

Just a couple of things. So amongst the Europeans at Munich, they were beginning to kind of whisper things, definitely saying this is not to be called a peacekeeping force, but to be looked at as a reassurance force, which I think is interesting. But the idea is that it wouldn't be on an eventual ceasefire line, but very much like, very much behind a ceasefire line, with the idea of sending three messages. One to the Ukrainians to say, you're not alone, two to the Americans to say, we're very much doing our bit, and three, to Moscow to say, you Know, if you're thinking of messing with Ukraine again, you're not just dealing with Kiev. So, you know, again, I mean, that doesn't avoid all the other details that would need to follow from that. But, you know, that was the thinking. And I think again, there was a feeling, Ukraine has said 1000-50000, that realistically speaking, that the Europeans could Probably stump up 50,000 and it would be quite difficult to get, to get it all together. They could just about do that and coordinate 50,000. Is the thinking. Is that alone enough to deter Russia? No, but if you put that together with all, with, you know, the Ukrainian armed forces, then Ukraine plus Europe would be seen as enough of a deterrent for Moscow.

I mean, those sort of are the conversations that I'm hearing at the moment.

James, General Petraeus, remember him, used to be in charge of international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, made an interesting point today. He said actually that you don't really need boots on the ground because you've got, you know, Ukraine's army is, you know, 800,000 plus. What you need, he said, was a kind of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance sort of net over the whole of Ukraine. So that if there was any breach of the ceasefire deal by the Russians, you could have an immediate, intelligent information about that with very clear consequences painted out. That wouldn't necessarily I how Russia would be attacked as a result or what other things might happen, non military as well as military, that would then be enforced. In other words, you didn't. You don't just need to have these forces on the ground. And if that was the case, then you could have forces on the ground that were more symbolic, like the, you know, the a thousand British troops we've got in Estonia at the moment, you know, they're there as sort of reassurance they're not there. Going to stop invading Russia. Exactly. What was interesting today was that Sir Lawrence Friedman, you know, the great Panjandrum and the great wisdom and oracle on all things military at King's College in London, said he reckoned to be an effective force to actually deter Russia, you'd need north of a hundred thousand.

Because he said the key point about that is for them to be effective, that it's going to be there a long time. So they need to be trained. They also need to recuperate and rest. So that process of rotation of that numbers means, you know, you're talking big, big numbers.

Right, Joe, no rest for you because you've been reading all this transcript that's come out from Paris because the Prime Minister has been speaking tonight to the media.

I don't want to trigger you, Adam, from the Brexit negotiation period, but Backstop is the headline coming out of Keir Starmer's interview, presumably a different one from.

The one we were talking about.

Yes, any deal to bring about peace must involve a US Backstop. Seems to be the key message from Keir Starmer in this interview, much delayed interview he's done this evening. After that meeting, Europe needs to step up and put in resources, but it won't work unless the US Are guarantors of that peace. And he says without that, Russia would attack again. He, of course, off to Washington next week to meet Donald Trump to presumably try and get these points across. And also the other point of differentiation the UK has with the US On a path to NATO membership. And he's also suggested a further European leaders meeting once he's back from Washington. As for what the backstop means, he has deferred on that. He will not clarify because, of course, this is at its early stages.

But, Kim, this is Keir Starmer doing what he said he was going to do over the weekend, which is be the bridge between Europe and America. And that's. So this morning he was saying, yep, Britain would provide some troops. Now he's talking about how you bind America in as well.

Yeah, two points for me. First of all, James is right to say to leap ahead now to the nature of the backstop or the nature of any deployment on the ground is to take a huge assumption about what can be negotiated here. And reality is that Putin will think privately and I'm sure will say in negotiations, you know, we're winning this war. We are advancing, not huge distances, but advancing every day. The Ukrainians increasingly exhausted. We may be taking heavy casualties, 1200 a day, so I. I'm told. But we are winning this war and there is no question of us giving up any of the territory that we have gained. And moreover, he will say, because this is the existential point I've always felt for the Russians, we are not going to have a NATO member on our border, which means Ukraine can never join NATO. And those will be his two key. Keep everything I've got, maybe a bit more on that, and then no Ukrainian membership of NATO until the end of time. Right. And it's a really big jump to imagine that that's the basis of a deal that Zelensky can accept.

Okay. The Russian Americans may say to him, well, no weapons from us anymore. So you have no choice in this and then what do the Europeans do? Do we say, oh, well, it's a fair deal, or it's a, you know, it's a fair cop and we just must go along with this or say, no, actually, we will try and support the Ukrainians because this is not acceptable. This gives essentially a victory to Russia. So I can foresee a huge mess in these negotiations long before we get to talk with peacekeepers and whatever. So I say, let's jump in. Second point. I was in the fascinating position of being head of the Balkans department during the Bosnia war. And Katie just triggered for me the memories of the relations between the then major government and the Americans. Clinton before the Americans decided we're going to do the deal and launched what became the Dayton peace agreement when we had unprofom, mainly British and French troopers on the ground and the Americans were the backstop. They were in the air from 30,000ft lecturing us on how badly we were doing this. The toughest conversations ever had with American diplomat were in those days when they were highly critical of the way the British and French were handling the unprofessor remit that we had.

And say, you're basically providing cover for the Serbs to do their ethnic cleansing. So it's profoundly unsatisfactory. That may be where, if everything else goes well, we end up to have the Americans as a backstop and not actually have a presence on the ground. You know, we may, governments, prime ministers may decide that is acceptable, but let me tell you, it's fraught with problems.

It's a structural tension.

Absolutely.

From the beginning. Katja, you wanted to say something.

It was only to say that I think, you know, we media have a tendency to sort of dive in on the juicy bits. And frankly, I mean, for the elysee, the media's been really kept at arm's length even. I mean, Adam, you know what it's like at summits when you're sort of. When leaders are on their way in, you'll sort of shout out questions to them. And we were strategically placed so that cars would pull up well away from our microphone. So however loud you shouted, there wasn't a chance in hell that you were going to get an answ. And as soon as all the leaders were in, we were chucked out. So the meat have been kept very, very far from these talks. And I think, you know, that is because the leaders don't want to show signs of division or, you know, or have us asked awkward questions about things like troops. But the media will tend to focus on troops, because it's the juicy bit. And of course, the Prime Minister talked about it this morning, you know, when he wrote an article in the Telegraph newspaper. But behind closed doors, the intention was also to touch on other things which was generally sort of how to boost defense spending.

The EU itself is going to look at how to have a separate kind of defense budget and to lift fiscal limits on how much EU countries can spend when it comes to defense and security and also, you know, paying for the restructuring of Ukraine. So those were all other less sexy sounding topics, if you like, that, that we're also going to be touched on today. But also just to emphasize, you know, expectations we have of a meeting like this. It's a very headline meeting, you know, the biggest military powers in Europe, but these, you know, are prime ministers and heads of state. These are not defense secretaries, for example. So this really is about, yes, symbolism, but also getting the ball rolling and nitty gritty. Whether on troops, which is much further down the line, or any of the other things will have to follow. This is a limited, short meeting.

Katya, I'm going to let you go, not least to find out what Emmanuel Macron, the host of this meeting, has said about the meeting. So I'll let you go and do that. Thank you very much.

Merci.

And James. Then on our kind of globetrotting, heading to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia because that's where Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, is. What are we describing his meetings with Russia and the Saudis as being about? Are they talks, Are they meetings? Are they tet a tets, the negotiations?

I'm not sure we're quite, we're not at negotiations. No, I think. Well, the talks, the, the discussions, the. Initially the State Department say, well, he was, you know, Rubio was going to Saudi Arabia anyway. And so, you know, this is all part of, part of what was already planned. And the Russians have just decided to come along too. The Russians are looking upon it very much as a kind of, you know, resetting of Russian U. S relations. In other words, it's a bilateral meeting that's there to basically a continuation of.

The phone call that.

Yeah, it's to basically carry on the unthawing of the relationship. You know, ever since, you know, Donald Trump turned the rocket boosters on during that telephone call. You know, since then, Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, have spoken on the phone. They are going to meet. The Russians are sending Putin's foreign policy chief there. And so it's going to Be just sort of, you know, okay, so you're the Americans, are you? And no, you're the Russians, are you? And sort of. And just to sort of see the cut of their jib, you know, I don't think they're going to come out tomorrow and you know, announce sort of, you know, some sort of grand deal, but it is a continuation of that. Crikey. You know, the pariah is no longer a pariah.

But, but Kim, that meeting in Saudi Arabia, is that a more, a more kind of normal version of what happened last week? And okay, everyone was taken by surprise by what happened last week with a phone call. But is this now just like a quite natural product of that?

It sort of feels like that, Adam. But I mean, James again makes a good point.

This is the most today, James, this.

Is the most rapid defrosting in history. I mean, I mean, in one 90 minute phone call, Putin went from international pariah, at least as seen by the west, to suddenly co negotiator with the American President of a peace deal to end this war in Europe. And that's a huge leap. And I mean, no one has talked about all the potential baggage that goes with that, like, what are we going to do about sanctions and this kind of thing. Do we lift them all instantly if there is a deal, or is it gradual to see that the Russians keep coming? There's all sorts of stuff here which could.

All that frozen Russian money around the world.

Exactly, exactly. So this stuff could operate negotiators for months, if not years. So we'll see how that happens. But in terms of what happens in this meeting in Saudi Arabia, I don't, I mean, Rubio and Lavrov won't have met before. Lavrov is quite a piece of work in these meetings. So good luck to Marco Rubio in his first encounter. But he's just one of the most difficult, obstreperous negotiators you can imagine. He will give you long, long lectures of history. He will be contemptuous or dismissive about things you say. He will try and trap you into making mistakes as he manages to trap into. And he can be both obnoxious and charming, you know, in a blink of an eye. So we'll see how he behaves on this. But I think he's going to take any decisions. This is about feeding each other up and about. No doubt the Russians laying out absolutely maximus demands about the minimum for before they could contemplate a ceasefire.

I can attest to his, his swift move between Lavrov Yeah, because I, I've been lab dropped myself having, you know, sort of, you know, had a bit of a bruising experience in a press conference once. But then within a few hours we were in a hotel in Geneva somewhere doing talk, I think on Syria. And we were all, the entire press corps had been summoned to a press conference only to be told that the Americans were delaying. And there was a long, long delay. So hours and hours passed and in the end the Russians took pity on us. The Russian delegation and they went out and bought shed loads of pizza and Lavrov, you know, came into the press room clutching bottles of vodka and pizza and handed it around which was, you know, a very visible demonstration of soft power.

Why is this all happening in Saudi Arabia this week? Is this like some move by the Saudis to become like the, the ultimate brokers?

Well, it's because both sides were happy for it to be there. The Saudis are trusted by the Russians at the moment. If you remember earlier on in the war there was a prisoner exchange deal between Ukraine and Russia that was broken in part by the Saudis. We know that mbs, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, you know, is on reasonable terms with Putin. And so at the same time the Americans are courting the Saudis because they want to have a broader Middle east deal that involves normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. So it's, it's the sort of go to sort of neutral space at the moment. The Turks had that role at some point, but not at the moment. So that's why this, I think they're.

There the internally there'll be no vodka this time.

I, I, I, I think there are places in Riyadh where one can get one's hands on.

Okay, whole other podcast.

Adam, just a couple of lines from, from someone in the UK team in Paris. The meeting was leaders only so this person is, they can't give too much insight but that maybe gives a sense of what it may have been like in the room if no sort of advisors, Sherpas ambassadors were in the room overrun by 90 minutes as well. Which really also gives you a sense of the atmosphere. The UK have offered to host the follow up meeting and that'll be the meeting as I said before after Keir Starmer has been to DCT Don Trump.

Is overrunning by 90 minutes. Good because it means that people were really getting into it and agreeing and making progress or bad because it meant were disagreeing and they were what, panicking.

Helping console each other.

I don't know what do you reckon.

It could honestly be either? Yeah, but I don't think. I mean, I would be surprised if there were really big disagreements at this meeting just because everyone is in the way of doing the same. But no one has to take really difficult decisions at this stage, so they ought to be able to find broad agreement on. On some basic points. It's very interesting, by the way, that that Starmer has offered to host the next one straight after he's been there with Donald Trump. It does put him in quite a sort of lead, I hate to use the word leading position because he will be the man who will be bringing back the words from Donald Trump. And that's, in the end, all that. I think that counts most in terms of the American positioning to the rest of Europe. So it's quite a prominent position for him, host and both, you know, lead speaker.

Well, and then the risk is that he ends up being like Blair, who was often described as George W Bush's Secretary of State. And actually does he end up having.

It means some delicate handling so as not to appear like you are tilting towards the American position. But in a way, he said some quite tough things already about Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO and about the nature of any non peacekeeping Israeli backstop operation. He's already, I think, should have started to establish his credentials with the Europeans as basically on their side.

And Joe, just to end at Westminster, then, I mean, is there any kind of genuine politics around this at the moment? Because I've just always been struck that throughout the Russian invasion, kind of everyone's basically said the same thing. At Westminster, there's been a massive consensus and not really much difference of opinion.

And polling suggests that the public don't have a dissimilar position to. So. Well, Parliament's on recess this week, so it's not as if there are loads of MPs talking about this. Certainly there is. There are tensions within government about defense spending and how quickly the path to 2.5% of GDP is, how quick that journey is. It seems like some within the treasury think that should be slow because of economic pressures. And Keir Starmer, from his statements the last couple of days, is maybe hinting at moving a lot quicker. We would expect a vote on the UK playing a role. It doesn't need to happen. But convention is that MPs would vote and of course, the size of the Labor majority and the fact that the Conservatives and the Lib Dem seem likely to back it would mean that that would be an easy vote and also be advantageous politically for Keir Starmer to set out his case and to get the support of Parliament.

Well, thank you, you three, for being here this evening. And that's how the situation looks at 20 to 8 on Monday night. I think the conclusion I'm drawing from what all of you are saying is that, yeah, Donald Trump can say things very quickly that seem quite important, and then people can react to them quite quickly in ways that seem quite important. But that's not the same as things actually changing on the ground or commitments being made, or actually, it feels like history is turning, but actually hasn't quite. History's sort of not moved yet. Is that fair? Fair of assessment. I'll leave it hanging in the air. Right, Joe, thank you very much.

Thanks, Adam.

Kim, thank you. James, thanks to you, too.

Thanks so much.