Transcript of Can the UK Prime Minister and French President come up with a Ukraine plan for peace? | BBC Newscast

This is moving so, so fast, and it is so, so complicated.

At the weekend, the UK, France, and others in Europe agreed to have a plan to come up with a plan for peace in Ukraine. We will discuss just how many steps there are still to go on this episode of Newscast, UK's Daily News Podcast. Hello, it's Adam back in the Newscast Studio, and we are recording this episode of Newscast just before 07: 00 PM on Monday, the third of March. Just Just a reminder, we think it's a good idea to say where we are when we're recording because the news is moving so fast these days. We're going to start the episode by focusing on the UK, Ukraine, Russia, and the US. In terms of what's been happening on Monday, we had another tit for tat on social media between President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Trump of the US. We'll look at the latest on that. But the main thing that's been happening in the UK is that Kirst Starmer has been updating meeting MPs in the House of Commons about his trip to Washington on Thursday, and then the big meeting he held at Lancaster House in London on Sunday with President Macron of France, the Secretary General of NATO, the big bosses from the EU, some other European leaders.

I'm Prime Minister of Canada for now, Justin Trudeau. Where we left things on the last episode of newscast, which Laura and Paddy recorded quite late on Sunday night, was this emerging idea from President Macron of France for a month long ceasefire of sorts in Ukraine, which was very, very sketchy then. It's become slightly less sketchy in the intervening hours. There's plenty for me to catch up with Chris Mason on. Hello, Chris. Hello, Adam. Welcome back. Well, thank you very much for keeping me informed while I was away.

Well, there was one or two things going on, as you might have noticed.

Yes. We thought we would look at the French angle because Emmanuel Macron, the French President, has been involved in lots of the goings on in the last the last few days. We have called up Politico's editor at large in France, Marion Soleti. Hello, Marion.

Hi.

Thank you for having me. No, thanks for coming on. Now, you're at the National Assembly in Paris, where this stuff is happening right now in the French legislature. Just paint a picture for us.

Absolutely. French MPs are debating as we speak the situation in Ukraine and European security. It's a non-binding discussion, but it's just aimed at taking temperature with the chamber on what's happening.

What's the consensus view about what Emmanuel Macron has been doing in the last week or so?

Well, I think the French are waking up to the painful reality after the Trump, Zelenskyy encounter at the White House. As one prominent minister who I was talking to over lunch, told me today, foreign offers don't really matter here until they do. That's when the French are starting to worry that the images the footage have been broadcast on all the prominent news shows. I think the public opinion is certainly really tuning in to the gravity of the situation here and to Macron's and others' actions.

Marion, on the episode of newscast that Paddy and Laura recorded on Sunday night after Laura had been speaking to President Zelensky just before he got in his plane to fly back to Ukraine from London. She just had enough time to put to him the reports that were emerging at that point that Macron had this idea of a ceasefire in the air and at sea. What more do we know about that proposal, where it came from and what he's trying to achieve?

Yeah, there was a bit of confusion over that, actually, because Macron, when he was just back from London, presented this as something that Kier Starmer and him agreed to present. Then there was some confusion about actually whether that was consensus between London and Paris. The proposal itself is about a one month truce, which will be on air, the sea, and on energy infrastructures, but quite calibrated one, which is, I think, what's new is the duration. This had been floated before in various conversations, but now they want to put that on the table as a way to gain in time for proper negotiations for a peace deal.

Chris, we will talk about the equivalent event in the British legislature because Kier Starmer has been talking to MPs after the Lancaster House conference on Sunday. But just that point we were talking about there about the confusion around Macron's proposal for a ceasefire. That's just more proof that this whole idea of Europe, including the UK, and now it seems Canada, coming up with a peace plan is a real-time thing.

It is a real-time thing. In other words, it's fluid and there's lots of ideas zipping around. Because it's a collection of human beings, you get not necessarily wild disagreements, although they can exist, but you also get differences of emphasis. When we saw President Macron give the interview that he gave to Le Figaro, and this morning, actually, we heard one of his party talking to our colleagues on the Today program. We were hearing this idea around the truth. What did people in the UK, in government here, think of it? Well, they weren't dismissing it out of hand, nor disputing that it's something that's being talked about. But they were emphasizing that at this point it's something that France has been emphasizing, perhaps to a greater extent than the UK. In essence, this is moving so, so fast, and it is so, so complicated, that there's all sorts of ideas being kicked around. It's so multi-layered this because France and the UK is attempting to assemble this coalition of the willing as as Kyrstam calls it. There's diplomacy going on within Europe and beyond as to who might be willing to join that and in what way.

There's then ideas flowing about how you bring about peace. But then that is a conversation amongst some of Ukraine's allies. Then there's the role that America might play and the argument that some might have about the extent to which America right now is an ally or not of Ukraine. Then, of course, if you're going to get to a peace settlement, you're going to have to involve Russia Russia as well. So, yeah, the fluidity and the complexity of all of this is really quite something.

Chris, have you been able to pick up any more about what the elements that the government is considering for this peace plan?

Not in specific terms, no, because they're being pretty discrete, I think for exactly the reason that we've just been discussing, because what they want to try and do is firstly, broaden the coalition, because that will have an impact. This is the other thing. All of the different moving parts overlap with other moving parts. The nature of the plan that Europe and others might present to Donald Trump and or present to Ukraine, which at some point will be presented to Russia, will vary depending on the number of countries willing to join it and what contribution they might be willing to make and what response various iterations gets from Kyiv and or from Washington. It's clearly very complicated. The big picture key points are these, and these, by the way, have been the big picture points since before that flower up in the White House on Friday night with the two presidents, Zelensky and Trump. That is that Europe to use the prime minister's words, is going to have to do the heavy lifting. That will mean some countries are more willing to do more than others, and the UK and France are, if you like, the front of that queue of willingness.

There's going to have to be, in the view of the British British and other troops on the ground in a peacekeeping role, and the UK government is willing to deploy aircraft as well. But crucially, the line repeated before, during, and after the Prime Minister's trip to Washington is that there'll have to be an American security guarantee, a so-called backstop, too. The White House has said that beyond committing American people to Ukraine to be involved in the mining of these precious rare minerals, they are not publicly, at least, offering any more. In other words, there's a gap.

Marion, are you able to pick up any more chatter about what potential elements could be? Because it seems that President Macron is much more chatty about these things, please see his idea for a one month ceasefire, than some other leaders are.

Yeah, I think he's chatty, but still it's quite scars in details. As you've just laid I think everyone is keeping cards close to their chest to avoid geo-paradising the negotiations. Macron is no exception. He gave several interviews, but he didn't give a lot of detail of what the plan could look like. What is certain, as you said, is that France and the UK will play a very crucial role. I think one thing that would be interesting to watch in the coming days is what the division of labor between Starmer and Emmanuel Macron is and whether that's really done hand in hand or if there is some friendly competition for leadership in that discussion. We've seen the the Maccau's trip to the US that took place shortly before Starmer's. That was an interesting sequence, like how the two behaved in these trips. I think that's something that is going to be interesting to watch in the coming days.

Yeah, not to sound like an Uber nerd, but I just want to know what the plan is for establishing the plan because that's how we'll be able to work out some clues about what the plan might be. Chris, I was really struck by Kier Starmer's statement in the comments today, how many times he gave reasons why British people should care about all of this beyond just, Oh, war and fighting is bad and peace is good. He gave a lot of examples about why things he is doing is directly relevant to British people in their own lives.

I think that's right. In fact, in many senses, it was the most striking thing that we heard, not least because it was a fresher argument in some of the other stuff, certainly for folk like me who've been following this all weekend. We've heard a variation of before. By the way, just picking up on that last point, I think where we are is there is a plan to have a plan, but there isn't yet a plan.

Which is the easiest bit of any plan.

Indeed. Yes. I think what was interesting today, Adam, is you had the Prime Minister, who I think has been really seized by a sense of the occasion, the momentum, the importance of this crisis, really, that's blown up around Ukraine and Washington and Russia and Europe. To try and make an argument today that was at one international, the nature of where we find ourselves right now, but also then tied to the domestic. He was making an argument that military security is economic security. He was making an argument that boosting defense spending can be good for well-paid jobs. You saw the announcement over the weekend about the additional manufacture of these missiles in Belfast. He's trying to make an argument that says that what we've heard from him in the last week or so ties in with his broader domestic agenda. That gets to the classic dilemma that politicians, prime ministers will often face, which is that they come into office, usually on the back of a domestic perspective agenda, and then international stuff can sweep them away. International stuff might be wildly important, but won't necessarily be the thing that people will thank a prime minister or a government for come the next election.

I think a real attempt today, and I think we'll hear more of it, of trying to tie what motivates him domestically with what motivates him internationally.

For Nostalgia fans, the last line of Starmer's statement in the House of Commons, before he then took questions from MPs, was about winning the piece. I did a little quick search through the archives, and that was a Labor election poster in 1945. Yeah, There's always a lot of nostalgia floating around the Labor Party when it comes to these things. Marion, it's interesting here, isn't it? Because this is Starmer, a quite new figure on the international stage, talking about the rearmament of Europe and a new strategic direction for Europe it comes to defense. Actually, Macron has been talking about that stuff almost since day one of his presidency, years ago.

Absolutely. It's a running scene for French leaders. Obviously, he narrated from postwar period and general de Gaulle stance on all of this. Everyone is fighting for that mental now. But I think you made a really interesting point about Starmer, which is when are we going to see the hard work on this? Because right now, politicians, I think across the spectrum are supporting, helping Ukraine. But like Macron typically hasn't really started with making that hard argument to the French that, yes, we need to spend big on defense, on Ukraine support. And why does that matter? Like they're appealing to grand ideals and peace in Europe. But those are fairly general statement. As you might know, we're just out of a big crisis. The covers are quite empty, and it's going to be interesting to see when they are going to start defending that choice, reopening defense budget, how that is going to play out.

Chris, the thing that has stuck in my mind from earlier last week, from watching Kier Starmer's press conference in my hotel room on holiday, was that- Were you really doing that? I know how to have fun. That is dedication. But also, it's It's just back to that point of Kier Starmer is a global figure now. He was on an international news channel. They were taking his press conference live. But the increasing British defense spending is a hard choice in terms of, morally, what you do and politically, what you do with each pound. It's not a hard choice for any British taxpayer in terms of them paying more tax.

Exactly.

It's a cost-neutral thing so far.

What I think is really interesting about the argument about defense spending is, yes, there has Something has been something of a conversation. It probably counts as a row, given it led to the first ministerial resignation on policy principle of this government with Annalise Dodds resigning as international development minister. But yeah, That announcement we had less than a week ago now from the Prime Minister to hike defense spending to 2. 5% of national income by 2027 and pay for it by an equivalent cut in spending on aid. By the way, the Labor Party, as we discussed on Newcast last week, had promised to raise aid spending, and they're doing the exact opposite. Doing that, you could do that without either putting up taxes, borrowing more, or cutting spending domestically where people would notice instantly. What's tricky is that the government has committed, and there's a growing drum beats now that 2. 5% won't be It'll have to get to 3%. The government says it'll do that in the first half of the next decade. That is, conveniently or otherwise, the other side of an election that they may or may not win. You've got the Conservatives saying it should get to 3% by the end of this decade, by the end of this Parliament.

When you get to the next bit of raising defense spending, chances are you're not going to be able to take it from international aid because there's not that much of that left. The bit that is left is going to is going to causes that are perhaps perhaps the least controversial, the most extreme, if you like, for international aid spending. You've then got to think about, do you cut somewhere? Are you willing to borrow more when national debt is sky high? Are you willing to tax more when taxes are sky high? It gets really, really difficult then.

Marion, just as we're recording this episode of newscast at 6: 40 PM on Monday evening, we've had another tit for tats between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, playing out on social media this time rather than in front of cameras in the oval office. Basically, Trump posted on late afternoon on Monday on Truth Social, his social network. It's a headline from Zelensky where Zelensky says at the end of the war with Russia is, quote, very, very far away. Then Trump then says, This is the worst statement that could have been made, and America will not put up with it for much longer. He says a few more things that are in keeping with what he was saying on Friday in the oval office. But then what is intriguing is quite shortly after that, we got a post on X from Zelenski, where he talks about diplomacy and wanting the war to end really soon, and no one wants peace more than the Ukrainian people because they are the ones whose cities are being destroyed. Now, that is not Zelenski rhetorically fighting back like he did on Friday. That's a Zelenski who's trying to calm things down.

Yes. I cannot really comment on Zelenski's position. I haven't even looked at the social media exchange. What was clear, I think from other leaders after the Trump-Zelensky heated exchange on Friday was that they were very carefully calibrating the statements and comments to avoid escalating the situation further. I think that was the case for Macron, who talked about people having legitimate emotion about this exchange, creating doubts over the relationship. But he was very careful not to, again, escalate the situation. That might be something that Zelenski is trying to do now.

Marion, sorry to ambush you with that because I've got my laptop in front of you and you've got your phone held up because you're talking to us. But Chris, that's a different tone from Zelenski from the one we saw on Friday. Then, of course, for him, the word peace is a hard thing to say because peace is synonymous for him with losing.

Yeah. That's the crux of this, isn't it? Peace at what cost, at what loss to those non-negotiable fundamentals from the perspective of Ukraine, which is about independence and sovereignty, the right to exist. At what point does a peace deal dilute that beyond the tolerable? That's the crux of this from his perspective. The view from the White House is one that says there is far too much killing and the war is at a stalemate and therefore there has to be a solution. That would mean if it's at a stalemate and therefore Ukraine loses territory as a result of illegal Russian aggression. That amounts to something of a victory in the eyes of many Ukrainians as far as Moscow is concerned. But then there's the argument that you hear from the likes Steve Rosenberg, our brilliant Russia editor, who says, Well, you've got to ask the question, given where things are right now, would Russia want to stop? Because if they feel that they're in the ascendency, particularly if you start hearing continuing noises from America that suggests that support for Ukraine in the here and now, i. E. Prior to any cessation of violence, might wind back somewhat.

Then is that a path towards a ceasefire? Who knows? Then there's the UK argument that says a ceasefire is fine, but what really has to happen is a sustainable long term peace, not merely the stopping of fighting, which allows either Russia to redouble its efforts and come back for more or that leaves Ukrainians feeling defeated. Goodness, it's back to our point again about just how difficult this is.

Chris, thank you so much.

Cheers.

Marion, I'll let you get back to reporting on the National Assembly. Thank you very much.

Thank you for having me.

Now, we're going to look at another conflict. It is the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Right at this point, we were supposed to be entering the second phase of that three-part ceasefire deal that was negotiated at the end of last year. That move into phase 2 has not happened. As a result, Israel has stopped all aid getting in to Gaza. We Why is this happening? What does it mean for what could happen next? We can chat now to our colleague Paul Adams, who is our correspondent in Jerusalem. Hi, Paul.

Hello, Adam.

Right. Just remind us the background then. Everyone is talking about phase 2 of the cease fire deal in Gaza. What was phase 2 supposed to look like?

Right. Phase 1 ended on Saturday, and essentially everything that was supposed to happen during phase 1, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestine prisoners went ahead. There were several bumps along the way, and it was a deeply traumatic period for both sides, but we got there. Now, phase 2, which is supposed to last another six weeks, is supposed to see more hostages released, more Palestinian prisoners released, but also the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. Now, at the moment, what the Israelis are saying is that they want an extension of phase 1 and they say that this is actually an American proposal, although we haven't seen any statement from the Americans to confirm that. They say that this is something that the American envoy, Steve Wykow, has proposed, which would see all the remaining Israeli hostages released in two chunks, one at the very beginning of a 50-day period and one at the end of a 50-day period, but no Israeli military withdrawal. Not surprisingly, Hamas is not agreeing to that. They're not going to hand over all of their bargaining chips without some guaranteed prospect that Israel is indeed going to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

That is the impasse that we are currently facing.

In terms of what people are doing to deal with that impasse, we've got the Israelis putting a halt on aid getting into Gaza related to that.

Yeah. This was something the government decided to do yesterday, a rather stark announcement saying that all aid aid into Gaza would be suspended. Now, that has obviously triggered enormous alarm within the Gaza Strip and among the aid agencies that are involved in trying to keep the people in Gaza together. It is worth pointing out that for about six weeks during the first part of this ceasefire, a lot of aid went in, around 4,200 trucks a week, we think. There is no immediate food crisis in the Gaza Strip. Although what we have seen, literally in the last 24 hours, is a sudden spike in prices of all sorts of goods, and that is going to have, obviously, consequences. There is food in there. The aid agencies have been able to stockpile food. But the longer this goes on, the more inevitably it is going to cause difficulties. The Israelis, some officials are talking about other measures that could be taken, the cutting off of water and electricity. Of course, there's a a lot of talk about how and when Israel might simply go back to waging war, with lots of dire warnings being given by military and political officials, suggesting that it will be a whole lot worse than it was before, which is hard to imagine if you think about it.

But they're really ratcheting up the pressure, trying to persuade Hamas that it will be in their interest and in the interest of the wider Gaza population to go along with this bridging proposal But unless there is some prospect that there is going to be a withdrawal and some better future for Gaza, it's hard to see how Hamas are going to go along with this.

Do Hamas have any other bargaining tools to respond to what Israel has done about the aid, or have Hamas's only tools basically been holding up the phase 2 that we were just talking about?

Their bargaining tools really boil down to 24 living hostages and around 35 dead hostages. That is the sum total of what Hamas really has at its disposal. I mean, it's a horrible, cynical process, and it's grim to describe it in these terms, but that's what this is all about. They are thought to have recruited more manpower, as we've seen in these ceremonies that have marked the handover of Israeli hostages over the past few weeks, they're very keen to show off that they're still well-armed and well-organised. We can't really necessarily learn any very detailed lessons about just what state Hamas is in from those displays, but clearly, they want to be seen as a force on the ground, and they are showing no inclination to lay down their weapons, to leave the Gaza Strip, and to cease being some force, whether a political or a military force in the Gaza Strip. For Israel, that is an absolute red line. The removal of Hamas is absolutely essential.

You mentioned the American angle here, and Donald Trump's envoy, Steve Wytoff, who everyone's becoming quite familiar with, is in the region, and he's shuttling backwards and forwards, even though, as you said, he's remaining quite tight-lipped about actually what the US is proposing or pushing for or trying to control the parties into doing. But this is an interesting test, isn't it, for Trump's power here, because he took lots of credit for the ceasefire in the first place. This is another proof point of actually just how much leverage he has over Hamas and particularly over Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yeah. I mean, this wasn't a deal, let's face it, negotiated by anyone in the Trump team. This was a deal negotiated by the outgoing Biden administration. It was inherited by Donald Trump, and his arrival in the White House was regarded as the spur that finally pushed it over the line. But Mr. Trump himself and some of his officials have made it clear quite early on that they didn't think it was a particularly good deal. They thought it was rather too protracted. Donald Trump has indicated at various times that he's in a bit of a hurry. He doesn't like this spectacle of hostages being released in threes and fours. He would like to see it happen much more quickly. It's peculiar, the role of Steve Whitkoff. He seems to have vanished from the scene somewhat in the last few weeks. I think that's partly because of Ukraine, because he does also seem to be involved in the Ukraine business. The extent to which he is there in the background, exerting control, it's hard to tell. The plan, the bridging proposal that the Israelis announced What? A couple of nights ago saying that this was Steve Wykow's plan.

Well, we just don't know if it was or whether this was actually something that the Israeli government drew up and showed to the Americans instead of Okay with this, and the Americans said, fine. It's not quite clear the extent to which the Americans either were responsible for drawing it up or whether they're trying to push it. Clearly, there are going to be efforts to try and if you like, the bridging proposal, perhaps with a deal that might see hostages released in, again, in groups, not half right at the beginning and then half at the end, but in groups, because Hamas is not going to over large numbers of hostages without something very tangible in return. Some Israeli commentators have said that essentially what Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to do, and this is, again, a horrible phrase, is shrink the hostage problem. To get as many of the hostages, living and dead, back as possible before he ultimately decides, and many people think this is ultimately what he is going to decide, to go back to war. If there are a handful of hostages still in Gaza at that point, so be it.

Just to end on a slightly philosophical note, this just shows that with this three-phase plan for ending the conflict, each phase is significantly harder than the phase that came before it. This all just proves that phase three which is reaching a new settlement for how Gaza is governed and rebuilding the whole place, that's really hard.

It's just beyond the realms of the possible at the moment. In fact, no one is even talking about it. They weren't even talking about phase 2 until just a few days ago. The whole thing has been so fraught with difficulties, and it's been a really emotional roller coaster. Israelis have gotten used to seeing hostages coming out. There have been moments of joy, but also moments of intense grief as the dead hostages have come out, in particular, the members of the Biba's family. It has been a very, very traumatic experience. Meanwhile, on the other side, you've had Gazan's returning to the absolutely devastating wreckage of their communities, trying to settle down and get on with life and just hoping and praying that the bombs aren't going to start falling again. One other thing that's worth bearing in mind, though, is what's going on in the background in terms of the longer term future of Gaza. You had Donald Trump's Rivera proposal, if I can call it that, which would have seen the entire civilian population of the Gaza Strip removed while the place was taken over by the United and redeveloped. I think Donald Trump, faced with a pretty horrified reaction from Arab leaders and perhaps from many international circles as well, has rather backed away from that.

He has allowed room for the Arabs to come up with their own counter proposal. That is something that the Egyptians are going to unveil tomorrow in Cairo at an Arab League summit. We don't have a particularly clear idea of what it's going to consist of, but it will involve Palestinians staying put while the Gaza is rebuilt around them. It'll also have a lot of information about how rubble is cleared, unexploded ordnance, how bodies are recovered from the rubble, and political reforms, stuff about who is going to rule Gaza when the war is finally over. It will not be Hamas, and it probably won't be in the first instance either, the Palestinian authority based in the West Bank. It'll be some apolitical group of figures. The details will be very interesting to see. The Israelis will be interested to see, are there security provisions here that might just suffice and prevent the return to a military campaign.

Although, Paul, here's the real philosophical question, though. Taking what you just said there about what the Egyptians are going to propose in Cairo at the Arab League summit about the medium to long term, But putting that together with what you said a minute ago about how that medium to long term feels almost impossible, what's a useful way of interpreting what goes on in Cairo over the next few days? If it's a little bit fantastical or very wise people who have observed the region for many years like you think it seems a bit fantastical?

Well, I mean, there's the practical side. Is it feasible to reconstruct Gaza with its civilian population huddled there on the spot. I will guarantee you that when the peace finally comes, huge numbers of Gazans will leave. They'll either leave temporarily or they'll leave for good. I don't think anyone will be surprised if that happens. But most will stay, will try and stay. You've got that business of just putting the rubble back together again, rebuilding people's homes, reconnecting electricity diversity in water and security arrangements, Egyptian troops or police to train a local Indigenous police force and all of that stuff. All of that is within the realms of the possible, enormously expensive but doable. The problem is, what then? Is this the prelude to some Palestinian state? What would the relationship between the Palestinian entity in Gaza and the West Bank be? Is the two-state solution, which has long since faded from view, remotely viable? This, frankly, is where you run up against the adamant opposition of the Israeli government and the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who absolutely has boasted in the past about how he has devoted a big part of his political career to making sure a Palestinian state is never created.

There's the short term, there's the bricks and mortar stuff. But as for the future, the political future, that remains as bleak and uncertain as it has ever been.

So interesting, Paul. Thank you very much.

You're welcome, Adam.