Transcript of What did we learn from President Trump and President Macron's meeting? | BBC Newscast

I will be meeting with President Zelenskyy. In fact, he may come in this week or next week to sign the agreement.

If you called Zelenskyy a dictator, would you use the same words regarding Putin? I don't use those words lightly.

I think that we're going to see how it all works out.

Let's see what happens.

That's not what we said. He's a smart customer, I will tell you that.

So that was President Macron and President Trump, who were meeting in the White House, not an official press conference, but just taking lots of questions, and that was all happening on the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

There were lots of interesting answers and also quite a lot of interesting body language to talk about, and we're going to do that on this episode of Newscast.

Hello, it's Alex in the studio.

It's James in the Studio, and we've just finished watching this impromptu press conference between the French President Emmanuel Macron and the American President, Donald Trump. With us to talk about it is our Chief International Correspondent, Lise Douzet. Hello, Lise.

Hello. How fun it was to be sitting here in London and watching this drama, political theater, unfold around the fireside in the White House.

Of course, all of this is happening because it's been a big week, but it's been a big day today as well because it is the third anniversary of the full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Before we even got to the White House, we had this big gathering world leaders who were effectively being hosted by President Zelensky to reiterate their support for Ukraine. But I mean, it's just a monumental day all around, and then you end up with this meeting at the White House later.

The Ukraine war started with what was for many a jaw-dropping, shocking surprise to have Russia bombing. I was there that morning, bombing Ukraine, tanks rumbling across the border, and the feeling, the dread And in Kyiv, that in a matter of days, Russia would be in the center of the city. And here we are three years on from this punishing war, punishing for both sides. It's still grinding on. And there's another jaw-dropping surprise that we're seeing Trump siding with Putin. We'll talk about how he seems to be rolling back a little bit, but basically almost accusing Ukraine of starting the war. And in the UN resolution, siding with Russia, Belarus, Sudan, an extraordinary turn of history.

Just unpacking it a little bit, the reason that it wasn't a press conference, but this first initial meeting between Emmanuel Macron and President Trump was being watched so closely, including by us, was because, of course, what we had, as Lisa alluded to, was this upending of US foreign policy in the past seven days, five days even from President Trump, a complete seeming shift in position when it comes to war in Ukraine. Then Emmanuel Macron was the first European leader to go and meet him since all of that had happened, which was why this felt like such a big moment, because it was about what was Macron going to say, how he's going to represent the European interest, could he exert any influence on President Trump?

Then is going into the White House after 80 years, after the Second World War, 80 years where the United States has been the security guaranteeor for Europe. There is a French President thinking, this man might be on the side of our adversaries. How do I deal with this? Lisa, how did he deal with it?

The world is now trying to figure out who are going to be the most powerful Trump whisperers. We saw in President Trump's first term that it was the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, and I watched him at one NATO summit after another, trying to find a way to play to Let's be honest, President Trump's ego, President Trump's sense of himself, trying to turn around his outrageous remarks. Then it was that NATO is useless. We're going to leave NATO. European nations in Canada are just freeloaders. He did in such a way that a few years on, President Trump was actually declaring NATO to be the best military alliance in the world. Now we have a different parade of people. First of all, we had King Abdulla of Jordan. And I was told by the Jordanians that the theater that we saw, we see every time President Trump meets someone, is that he sits his guests down in the lair of having a fuselade of questions from the press. President Trump holds court. The Jordanians didn't want it. You saw how it was so awkward and embarrassing for King Abdulla. He did his best, but he was basically put on the spot.

President Macron was much smoother. He has a long history dealing with President Trump. In the first term, it was called the romance. He knows how not to embarrass him in public. He knows how to... And I think he's genuine that President Trump has done some good things in putting peace, ending the war on the agenda. But it was a very careful dance of gestures, hand on knee, eyes locked, saying nice things to each other. But it was mainly President Trump answering the questions and what answers they were.

Yeah, it really struck me, actually. And I know we shouldn't It's substance matters as much as body language and all the rest of it, but it is important to see how the relationship between these two is going, especially when we know that it is this delicate diplomatic dance when you've got the European leaders trying to effectively persuade President Trump round to their way of thinking when it comes to Russia, when what he said so far is almost diametrically opposed to what we've heard from most of the European leaders. Russia is the aggressor, which President Trump hasn't said. President Zelensky is a dictator, which President Trump has said. Interestingly, in that press conference, one of the questions that was chucked out was, would you use that word about Putin, that dictator word? President Trump said, Well, let's see how this all works out. I don't use those words lightly.

I don't use those words lightly. It was very different. Do you remember after President Trump, again, another jaw-dropping moment when he had a 90-minute telephone conversation with President Putin?

Which came out the blue to most other world leaders.

Yes. But even more, we didn't hear the full account of what actually they spoke about. But we got the first real indications in what the American Defense Secretary said, which is basically it's unrealistic for Ukraine to think about joining NATO, unrealistic toink that they will return to their pre-2014 borders. In other words, before Russia had its first incursions into Ukraine. What did President Trump say today? Well, he was asked whether he believes Ukraine will have to give up territory. We're going to see, he says. It's a negotiation. That's just starting. And the extraordinary thing, Alex, it's that it's not just leaders going in and out, going through this whole charade of, first of all, this is not really the press conference. This is actually the chit chat, which, as James said, it should only last a few minutes. It goes on and on. And then there will be a press conference. It is persuading President Trump to come around their views, but it's also persuading him of the facts, the facts that Russia is attacking energy infrastructure in Ukraine. The fact that it was Russia who carried out the full scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago to the day.

So that's the astonishing challenge that is facing world leaders now. At this moment, as James hinted at, where this transatlantic alliance, the security architecture that has endured since the end of the Second World War, has basically been shattered by President Trump's highly personalized unilateral America first, what are you going to for me, diplomacy.

To what you were saying is substance, Alex, what you might call the news from this event. There were quite a few interesting things, as you say, that question about dictator, where Donald Trump does, again, decline to use the word about President Putin, having used it about President Zelensky, which in itself is striking. He also talked about trying to do economic development deals with Russia relating to minerals, which he's also talked about trying to do deals with Ukraine about minerals. We'll come on to that in a minute, but the one that struck me most forcefully was that Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin had told him directly and personally that he, Putin, will accept European peacemakers in Ukraine as part of any deal. Lise, what did you think of that?

Well, it contradicts what we have heard from the Russians in public. Serge Lavrov, the veteran, no holds barred, Russian foreign minister said they don't want NATO forces on their border. And that is just a question of switching the flags. So it's members of NATO putting up their individual flags. It's the same thing. They will not accept it. And the whole issue that if it's peace They're not peacekeepers. They're there as a deterrent force. And President Macron, French, when he finally got a word in edgewise and decided to speak in French to his own audiences, he used this word dissuasion, which I think was like he means And I was at the Munich Security Conference, and the overwhelming consensus was, and what we heard from Ukraine was, and what we know the reality to be, that if it's to be an effective deterrence, it has to include America's might. Now, it may not have to include, and it won't include, if President Trump keeps to his position, it won't include American boots on the ground, may not even include American money. But they've started using this word backstop, that there's certain equipment, heavy lifting equipment, intelligence, surveillance, that would provide that extra oomf if it came to it, if Russia again tried to invade Ukraine.

This is new. It's another one of those sentences thrown out by President Trump. It doesn't seem to meet the fact checking, but he says that President Putin told him.

It's so interesting because this is obviously going to be a massive point of discussion. I don't know, I certainly wasn't in the room, but I suspect that this came up between or will come up between Emmanuel Macron and President Trump. I suspect it's going to come up when Keir Starmer heads out to the White House on Thursday. I was going to ask you about that, Alex.

How do you think Keir Starmer will cope in the environment that we've just seen Emmanuel Macron in today?

Well, Emmanuel Macron and President Trump have got a longer relationship than Keir Starmer and President Trump for obvious reasons, because Keir Starmer has only been the Prime Minister since July of last year, so it wasn't around in the same way in President Trump's first term. What was interesting was I thought Emmanuel Macron was very deliberately trying to seem relaxed, that this was an environment that he appeared to feel comfortable in. He did interject a few times, so he wasn't seeding total control to President Trump, even though you're in the White House and you're very firmly on the President's turf. I wonder how Kierstheimer will respond and react in that slightly informal situation.

What about public displays of affection? Can you see Sir Kierstheimer putting his- No. With the real loving air, putting his hand on President Trump to me?

The fascinating thing is also- No, really. No? I'm not going to call him Corkran, and Trump have got this huge, slightly weird history of handshakes, haven't they? Oh, my God. They have this torturous, slightly odd thing where every time they meet, they do some awkward long-lasting grip handshake. Maybe they enjoy it. Who knows? But I don't know that Kierstheimer is going to indulge or go down the same path. I don't think he'll enjoy it.

But just as a... I remember in President Trump's first term, it was the big issue because everyone who went to see him feared what the handshake would be. I remember when Prime Minister Trudeau went, he arm-rexled with him, The Japanese Prime Minister almost fell to the ground because he was so overpowered by Trump. So then when President Macron did it, he was ready, trying to be a manly man. And I urge all of our listeners and viewers to look at that video the BBC has. It's on the live page about their history of... It's not handshakes. Henshakes, bear hugs.

It is newscasters. It is worth it. It's worth a watch. I remember, conversely, at Checkers, when I was there for the summit, the news conference with Theresa May and President Trump, there was quite a different dynamic because he helped her down the stairs and he held on to her.

Did she help him down the stairs? That was the big question. They helped him, didn't they?

Sorry. Didn't they hold hands?

Yeah, he held her hand. It seemed uncomfortable to me from when I was sitting looking at it in the glorious sunshine at checkers. But you know...

It's It is part of it. It might sound that we're trying to make it trivial when you're talking about how. But it is a part of this. It is really important. It matters this stuff. But I also think the messaging is going to matter, too, because we have already heard Keir Starmer again and again talk about this need, exactly as you said, Lisa, for some American backstop. I think what you're getting right now is this position where you've got European leaders, President Macron, Kierstammer, the new incoming German Chancellor, who are effectively acknowledging what they've heard from President Trump, which is they're going to have to step up. They're going to have to step up in terms of European defense and security, but at the same time trying to keep the US on side, particularly when it comes to the future of Ukraine and what might happen next. I think that's what we're going to hear, that attempting to walk that tight route when Keir Starmer heads to the White House.

Because what I was really struck today by Sir Keir Starmer is leaders, when they know they're going to see President Trump, they have to pave the way because they know everything they say will be picked up by the media, could possibly be picked up by President Trump himself. He doesn't like to be insulted. He will retaliate or Elon Musk will retaliate. But Sarkir has come out very strong, for example, today, saying, if Russia goes into Ukraine, Europe will be next. Not mincing his words at all about what is at stake. So I find this really fascinating because all of us watch diplomacy up close. And we've always said that diplomacy is both symbols, what we've been talking about, and there's also substance. And what's really striking is that in the Trump presidency, there's a lot more of that symbols, the bear hugs, the handshakes, the words, the body language. But we cannot underestimate how important the substance is. We're talking here today on the third anniversary of Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, at a time when the partnership, which has helped, literally helped Ukraine to survive and has meant that fewer soldiers who are dying by the day on the front lines, at least they're able to keep fighting.

Now that Western leaders, at least on this side of the Atlantic plus Canada, are now fighting to preserve this alliance so that Ukraine can keep fighting or at least be in a stronger position for peace talks, and with one... Well, they're not. Actually, that's another question, too. They're not speaking with one voice, but they all recognize that so much is at stake now. It is existential.

We're recording this at three minutes to seven now on Monday evening, UK time. There was another big news event today, and this relates to a question we've had from a newscaster, Peter. Thank you very much, Peter, for getting in touch. Peter says, Does the United Nations still exist? Perhaps I've missed its quiet demise. I've not heard the UN even mentioned in the last newscast and in other public info and comments on the war in Ukraine. Well, today, Alex, the United Nations does exist, at least for today, doesn't it? Because something interesting has happened.

There was a meeting at the United Nations General Assembly when there was this resolution, effectively things put forward that the United Nations attempt to agree on in the most simple terms. There actually was some disagreement about a resolution relating to Russia and Ukraine. The one that was effectively put forward and then adopted, it was calling for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, called for de-escalation, early cessation of hostilities, a peaceful resolution of the war, and it identified Russia as the aggressor. Crucially. Crucially. Now, the US didn't back that.

Well, not only that- Territorial sovereignty. Territorial sovereignty. Basic UN principles. Again, facts.

But what happened, Lisa, that's interesting is, as Alex said, the US didn't back that one. The US had a competing motion, and their competing motion did much of the same things but did not condemn Russian aggression, and that was voted down. Basically, the United States lost the day in the United Nations General Assembly, and the world, by a majority, but no means by all of them came down on the side of Ukraine. What's your... Not all of them, though.

Absolutely stunning that when you look at both sides of the ledger, that the United States sided with Russia, Belarus. Russia, Belarus, Sudan.

China and India abstained, interestingly.

And America could have abstained. They voted against... Yeah, North Korea. North Korea. Unbelievable.

President Trump was asked about this in that impromptu fireside chat with Emmanuel Macron. He didn't want to talk about it. He just wouldn't engage in it. He just said, Yeah, I'd rather not explain that now. It's self-evident. But this is the stuff that does matter. At the same time as you had that going on at the UN General Assembly, you had President Macron meeting President Trump in the White House. Then you also had that I mentioned this summit where you had people asserting their support for Ukraine, so lots of world leaders. In Kyiv. In Kyiv. Some joined remotely, like Kirstama gave a speech remotely, but others went in person by train into Kyiv to address this. You had people like the UK who introduced on Monday another package of sanctions against Russia, another iteration of support for Ukraine. There was some, I think, financial aid from the UK as well. It just speaks to what we are discussing, which is how people are seeing this as such a potentially pivotal moment. That moment to try and say, this is where we stand.

Sorry, Lisa, I was going to put you. Also what we saw, I think, in public at that event was these European leaders wrestling with how they plan to cope with their own security and to provide for their own defense in a world which potentially does not have the United States providing that backstop. You saw a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about defense spending and the type of defense spending and security guarantees that they can provide one another, these European, mainly European Union nations, at that. I thought that was fascinating. It's going to be a huge challenge for the new German Chancellor, who we presume to be Friedrich Merz, of the conservative party, the centre-right party in Germany. But where does Europe get this money? When you look around and you talk to go out into the streets and talk to anybody and newscasters don't need me to say, Countries are struggling to fund public services, and there's also this now increasing clamor for European nations to spend much, much more on their militaries. It's going to be a real challenge, isn't it?

That hasn't started today. If you go President Obama gently asked European nations, you have to spend more for your domain. It actually goes back many decades. President Trump, as I mentioned in his first term, said, you got to pay more or else we're getting out. You We feel, again, at the Munich Security Conference, the penny has dropped. They understand it. There's no doubting the will is there, but the numbers are not. We talk about Europe, but it is divided. When the expected Chancellor, the new Chancellor of Germany, came out last night, swinging, saying, We have to accept that this is a world where the United States is not on our side. We have to look at Europe. While there are others, which I think, including Sirkir Stammer, would want to try to work with the United Nations, that even if it's a diminished American financial and military involvement, it is still is better than a NATO or a European force without the Americans involved. So there's still a diversion of view among the Europeans, including Including how much, how fast each other can go. I know the Canadians, for example, are quite far behind. They've always been criticized.

You got to do more. And they say, well, we're doing training, et cetera. Poland, of course, has significantly ramped up its spending. Spending as a percentage of GDP is how they calculated it in NATO. Now, theirs is more than 4 %. So it is a moment of reckoning for Europe. They understand. But in order for Europe to meet, if it was the worst case scenario of the United States, they actually provide about the same money, the two of them, but that they would have to double their money and also develop a military capability which doesn't exist now. That is going to possibly even nuclear. It doesn't exist now.

Also, the other aspect to that, given that we were talking on newscast yesterday about the German elections, is that there's some considerable nervousness in Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, which has been flat and it's been struggling economically for the last couple of years for obvious reasons about the prospect of rearmament, and not just rearmament, but rearmament at a time when the far right is on the rise in Germany. Within Germany, there's this contention and dispute about what direction the country should take as well. The new Chancellor is going to have to contend with that as well.

But it is good. We always have to try to look for the light in the dark. It is good that Europe is finally wrestling with this. It has been on the agenda for so long. Now it's really coming down to brass tax.

So Donald Trump was right about that, wasn't he?

Is that fair? No, he was right. It wasn't just Donald Trump.

He raised it to the point you made, was it? Yes.

I saw the NATO Secretary General at the Munich Security Council, Mark Ritter. He said, Yes, President Trump is right. We have to take care of our own house. We can't simply expect the United States to pay for our defense. But the other thing I would mention, too, is that, and President Macron said it in the press conference, the good thing is this is a very tangled situation right now. President Trump seems to be changing his way of explaining things, and perhaps in that there is some hope that they're moving towards something which can, as they've said, something which can work with all sides. Today, he even said that Europe and Ukraine have to be part of it. Initially, he seemed to suggest he could just do a deal with President Putin over the heads of the Europeans and the Ukrainians, which caused obviously panic, thinking, wow, this is really, really going to be disastrous for us. But what you heard, for example, from President Zelensky this year, I was stunned last year when I was in Ky for the anniversary last year. And the mantra of the first year saying, this is a war we can and will win.

The next year, he said, this is a war we can and will win, and we're going to win it this year. And I remember standing in sub-zero temperatures in Kyiv and thinking, oh, my God, that's just not possible. His message this year is, we want to end the war, not in three years, this year. So it is on the agenda in ain a way that it has not been before. President Trump has pushed it onto the agenda, so everyone is scrambling to try to ensure that what emerges is what President Trump and his people say they want. Right now, they're not approaching it in the right way because they're giving away everything to Russia. They're basically parroting a Russian narrative, but a just peace with security guarantees for Ukraine and a security architecture which also provides security for Europe.

It's interesting because just talking back to the point you made about reversing a few steps on the defense spending stuff, nowhere near to the point that you were saying at the moment about the current debate that's happening in Germany. But even in the UK, you can start to see and you hear the consequences of these conversations that they are going to be for people who the government acknowledges that if it wants to ramp up defense spending, and already there's a conversation with the Conservatives and the liberal Democrats suggesting, do you need to go Then the government still just setting out the path to 2. 5% of GDP. Currently, it sits around 2. 3% of GDP in the UK defense spending.

It's about 2% in Germany, I think.

But 2. 5%, again, Mark Ritter, the NATO Secretary General, the I'm going to figure it for you. Trump asked for 5%, even the United States. The US is about 3. 4%. 3. 4%. Rutter told me, when I pressed him on that, he said it would be more than 2% and considerably more than three. So in secure, says 2. 5%, not next year, not the year after, but 2030.

Well, he hasn't even set out the deadline for it. He said we're waiting to the spring for this strategic defense review. I was just going to say that's going to be interesting, isn't it, Lord George Robertson, former Secretary If the general of NATO, is conducting that, that'll be really interesting. I mean, they're making a big thing about the fact that maybe they can spend the money smarter as well as spend more money. But there's also just this acknowledgement in government that that's going to require some choices about where you do spend money.

I have a question on that to that point. We've talked about this a lot. This is a world of... Many of these things are to, I don't want to presume the views of anyone listening or watching newscasters. Everyone has disparate views. But I wonder if many people might think a lot of this is an abstract debate about something a long way away when they're concerned about not being able to get a hospital appointment or their wages not going up. I just wonder to what extent the There's tension in politics between the domestic concerns that need money and these grand geopolitical themes we've been talking about. I don't know what either of you think about whether or not we... Are we obsessing about this too much? That's my question.

Well, the one reflection I would have on that, and I haven't been in Germany throughout the elections that have just been finished, but our esteemed colleagues who spent quite a lot of time on the ground, repeatedly said that what came up in the conversations in the wrap of the elections, immigration, economy, defense and security, because this has heightened people's awareness about it.

There's a link between all of those.

Yeah. I think you've got to have a consideration that there are going to be immediate domestic concerns that really, really matter to people in their day-to-day lives, and that's quite right. But it does feel at the moment, and I'll be corrected by least if you disagree, but it does feel at the moment that the sense you get from the leaders of countries across Europe and elsewhere is that this stuff does really matter because things that have been relied on for so long might not be relied on anymore. That does come down to some really essential things about the security of nations. As a consequence, therefore, it might not feel immediate or real when you are worried about those day-to-day pressures that so many people face, but because of the potential consequences of this moment, that's why it's an issue that people are really focused on.

It's very unwelcome time for it to happen when people are reeling from the cost of living crisis, where there's concerns in Britain about health care, about social care, about the quality of education, where there's not enough money as it is, it seems. We're watching the government struggling to add up the numbers to balance the books, which aren't going to be balanced. Then comes this. Security must seem very abstract, thinking, well, you're sitting at your table, if your price of fuel is going up, your price of bread is going up, and you think, well, what does Ukraine have to do with me? Why should I suffer even more? Why my taxes go up. It's going to be very hard to reconcile this. Radik Sokorsky, who's the Foreign Minister of Poland, he uses his expression about, freedom is not free. And under President Trump's presidency, it's going to cost a lot more because the next NATO meeting, President Trump's people will say, Right, how much are you going to spend and how quickly?

And that is we're also expecting, we don't know, we don't know, love to be in the room, but the next big thing that's happening UK facing was going to be the Keir Starmer visit on Thursday to the White House. Those conversations might well come up.

We will definitely be talking about that on newscast later in the week. But Lise, just say thank you so much. It's always a pleasure.

No, it's really It's extraordinary to be living in this time because we thought the so-called End of History, the End of the Cold War, the Berlin Wall coming down. We all thought we were living in a much freer time. But then we've turned into a moment, even before President Trump came to power, of all these forever wars and British men and women having to go to the front lines in Afghanistan. And now we're in this moment where they call This moment where they call it different people use different for the hinge of history. These are really consequential times, and we're living through them. We have the privilege that we can just talk about them. But these are moments which matter, and it's a privilege, but also a little bit scary to be living in them.

It's a privilege to have you discuss them with us. It really is.

Thank you so much. That's it. That's all from us on this edition of newscast. Bye-bye.

Bye.