December 3, 2025 • 18 mins
Russia is apparently ready to go to war with Europe, according to its President.
Vladimir Putin met with the US negotiators this week for about five hours to discuss ending the war in Ukraine.
He has accused European leaders of trying to scupper his peace talks with the US, saying that their tweaks to a plan to end the war were “unacceptable”.
The Kremlin has apparently accepted some proposals to end the war, although latest talks haven’t “yielded a breakthrough”.
Today on The Front Page, University of Waikato international law professor Al Gillespie is with us to run through what could happen next.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Russia is
apparently ready to go to.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
War with Europe. Well, that's according to its president.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Vladimir Putin met with US negotiators this week for about
five hours to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. He's
accused European leaders of trying to scover the peace talks
with the US, saying they're tweaks to a plan to
end the war were unacceptable. The Kremlin has apparently accepted
some proposals to end it, although latest talks.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Haven't yielded a breakthrough.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Today on the Front Page, University of Waikato international law
professor Al Gillespie's with us to run through what could
happen next. Our first, tell me about this twenty eight
point plan that Russia and the US have supposedly agreed
to slash been talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
It's difficult to work out which plan we're talking about
in a sequence right now. It starts out with a
twenty eight point plan that has effectively a broad agreement
between America and Russia. It then turns to a nineteen
point plan which is effectively between America and Ukraine. It
then goes back to Moscow and it's somewhere between the
(01:30):
twenty eight points and the nineteen points. But it's coming
down to a few areas we can't get agreement on,
which primarily are about territory, the security, force, and accountability.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, it includes banning Ukraine from ever joining NATO and
halving the size of the Ukrainian army. First off, what's
the benefit of Ukraine joining NATO.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Ukraine has a difficult relationship with Russia, and this is
now in a full scale war. Well, there is very
little trust or good faith between them. There was an
agreement in nineteen ninety four when Ukraine gave up to
nuclear weapons that its territorial sovereignty and its integrity would
be respected by Russia, America and Britain, and that agreement
(02:15):
was not worth the paper it was printed on, and
so becaurse of the Russian invasion, they now feel that
they need something stronger than just to promise of mister
Putin to defend whatever is remaining of the country. If
they go for a collective agreement, it would mean that
an attack against Ukraine would be an attack against all
members who signed that agreement, and that could either be
European countries or it could be NATO itself. But mister
(02:39):
Putin is clear he doesn't want Ukraine to be linked
in any defensive alliance with any other country, which means
it would be perpetually very weak and vulnerable to another attack.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So the significance of joining NATO would mean that you've
just automatically got the backing of all of its members.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Strictly, an attack against one is an attack against all,
so that means that all twin eight countries would respond
at the same time. So if Britain was hit by Russia,
the other twenty seven countries would come in and respond
against the aggressor. And missus Zelenski would like that same
guarantee given to his country because he feels that if
you've just got a promise without security of other countries,
(03:16):
you're vulnerable to another attank. That vulnerability is increased when
you get demands such as reductions or restrictions on the
size of the military that Ukraine may possess or the
weapons that they can have in their arsenal.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Yeah, well, let's talk about that.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Halving the size of the Ukrainian army. That doesn't really
seem like a fair trade. Why would that be on
the table at all.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
That kind of condition where you restrict the scale of
a country's forces or the weapons that they have, is
what you get normally when a country is defeated in war,
not in a negotiated peace agreement. It's the kind of
thing that you would see after World War One or
World War two. But what we know, of course is
Ukraine has not been defeated, and in many ways it's
told in its ground quite well.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So I also understand it includes handing back most of
Russia's frozen assets, to which the likes of course Frances
Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Georgia Maloney have opposed. How has
the war altered the balance of power between Russia, the
US and of course European leaders as well.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
The question of assets is a curious one because with
the sanctions, we've put penalties on Russia for its illegal act,
and part of the penalties is involved seizing the Russian assets.
There is a serious legal question about freezing the assets
and then disposing of the assets. The risk, and it's uncertain,
is that if you dispose of them, you could become
(04:38):
legally liable for them in the future when peace resumes.
So even though countries are feeling very angry right now
at Russia and they want to use these frozen assets,
there could be a payback or a penalty laid down
the track. In terms of the cohesiveness of Europe, it's
challenging right now. But as you probably would have noticed
overnight that as the peace talks in Moscow they've grounded
(05:00):
to another deadlock, we're seeing an increase of European country
saying we will now give more money to the Ukraine
with regards to weaponry. And that expansion is not just
with the European countries with a billion dollars, it's with
Australia and New Zealand as well, And so overnight New
Zealand's have said that we will spend an extra fifteen
million dollars to support Ukraine and its military efforts. And
that's on top of the humanitarian assistant and legal assistance
(05:24):
and other types of help that we give. So countries
are digging deeper to support Ukraine. They're not weakening right now.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
When it comes to the frozen assets.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
When talking about international law, is this unprecedented it's not unprecedented.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
It happened in the nineteen eighties when Iran and America
had a difficulty and their assets were then seized and
attempts were made to see quest them. It ended up
in a very large, protracted legal dispute because it's one
thing to freeze the asset. It's another thing to liquidate
it and then use it for another purpose. It's still
someone else's asset, and so there's no clear legal answer
(05:57):
on this, although both sides are saying that they have
an answer, which is probably overstated.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
What should be the answer.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
The answer is that there should be a penalty for
any country which legally invades another country, and there should
be accountability for those crimes and for that act. But
increasingly what you're seeing with international law is that we're
moving away from penalties and accountability just so we can
get peace. And so we're seeing that also with regards
to the regards of peace plant which is a good deal,
(06:25):
but part of the deal is that there we no
accountability for the crimes committed by either the State of
Israel or by hamas alleged crimes. But you're seeing that
same approach with regards to the Ukraine that to get peace,
that you'll push accountability to one side, and potentially the
costs of reconstruction as well. And so everything's got murky,
(06:47):
and we're no longer in a principled world. We're now
in a negotiated outcome.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
He also said this, we are not cleaning to go
to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this
one hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to go
to war with us and starts, we are ready right now.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Well shortly after the meeting ended, a top Russian official
posted a single word on social media productive punctuated by
a dove and an olive branch.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
When it comes to consequences and penalties, though, what do
you think is the right way forward?
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Because we saw and this is.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
A vast generalization I'm thinking of here, but Nazi Germany
obviously was born from the smoldering ashes of World War
One and the Treaty of Versailles and the penalties that
were put upon the German people as a nation.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So what would be a middle ground here?
Speaker 3 (07:57):
A middle ground would have been the International Criminal Court,
at which we created at the end of the nineteen nineties,
and the assumption was was that no one, no matter
how big or small they were, would be held accountable
for the crimes that they committed, including eventually the crime
of aggression. And we all signed up for that, well,
most countries understood that they signed up for that. But
by the time we get to the twenty first century,
(08:19):
you find that these rules only apply to the small players,
not to the large players. And so there's a degree
of impunity in the world right now where countries like Russia,
China and the United States will more or less do
what they want without being held to account and that
is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. And that
makes it difficult for small countries like New Zealand, which
rely on a rules based order, or Australia as well,
(08:41):
because then you find that countries feel if they've put
enough power, they will do what they want to do.
And then we've got the additional risk that if we
make a bad peace steel now with Ukraine, one, you're
only going to make it difficult for the next generation
and they'll be bitter and angry and come back. And
two you've got the precedent problem where other countries will
follow the same sane route. I think that they can
(09:02):
take someone else's country without repercussions.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah, and I mean thinking of that as well.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
And in terms of an international rules based order, do
you think we'll ever be able to see another Nuremberg
trials for example?
Speaker 1 (09:14):
I mean that was or have we since?
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Really we saw some impressive trials with regard to the
former Yugoslavia Serial leone Rwanda. We've had some individual cases
before the International Criminal Court, but they've all been minor
then none of them have involved the superpowers. We had
a very positive period of growth in the nineteen nineties,
but we've seen two decades of going backwards. It will
(09:40):
take a long time to rebuild that kind of confidence
and good faith until you can get to that point
where all countries are accountable right now, where it's about
trying to defeend the architecture that we've got, let alone
trying to build new ones.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
What do you think Russia's stated conditions for peace, you know,
from NATO guarantees to recognition of con over occupied territories.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
What does that reveal about Moscow's endgame?
Speaker 3 (10:05):
They are looking for a victory that They've been very
clear from the beginning that non membership of NATO is
critical to them where it's expanded, and it's showing an
increasingly strong putin as with regards to the demands of
a territory, because now they demanding territory that they haven't
(10:25):
even conquered, let alone what they've a legally annex. They're
now saying, we actually want the more than what we
even hold, and this would suggest that they're feeling confident
in what they can negotiate for. They're not on a
back foot, and you're seeing that the level of threat
continue to grow, and so the retoric about being prepared
for war with Europe at the same time as making
(10:45):
excessive demands suggests that they are not in a weak position.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
What kind of security guarantees are there left for Ukraine
bar a full NATO membership you could try to go for?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
A to approach is one you have troops which are
non aligned which would be able to be positioned in
Ukraine in a kind of like a buffer zone, and
that would mean non NATO countries of which you might
find that New Zealand could become a potential applicant. The
alternative approach is what we did with Belgium in the
nineteenth century and the whole country is declared neutral and
(11:21):
other countries guarantee its security. But of course, as you
may recall the problem with doing that with Belgium, and
is that led to World War One because another country
just has to go through it eventually in nineteen fourteen,
and so you could declare Ukraine neutral, but whether it
was honored as it was not honored in nineteen ninety
four is a big question mark. And right now very
(11:42):
free countries, especially in Europe, have faith in the word
of mister Putin.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
What do you make of European leader's reactions to Putin's calls,
and you know, the other day he did mention something
along the lines of they're ready to go to war
with Europe steadfast.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I think think Europe is becoming galvanized in a unique
point of history. It's been pushed by two different factors.
On the one hand, you've got the threat of Russia
and on the other hand you've got the uncertainty of America.
And I think for a long time Europe has relied
upon America to do all the lift or the heavy
weight or the heavy carrying. But now they've got to
(12:20):
do it for themselves, and they're showing a greater independence
and willingness to do it.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
And do you think Putin has underestimated their ability to
band together and.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
Do this, Yes, I do, I do, But I think
the Europeans now face what they can see is a
very severe threat on their border, and they are galvanizing
in a way which we haven't seen for many generations.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
That and galvanizing when you say, putting more money towards
Ukraine's sovereignty.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
So yesterday they pledged a further billion dollars in military assistance.
That's on top of the additional money that they've already given.
And then you will find also that they're rapidly developing,
building and reinforcing their own military, and so military budgets
across Europe have all expanded rapidly in recent times, and
so they're much more conscious than they would that they've
(13:10):
got to look after their own defense and they cannot
rely on They want American help, but they're at a
point right now where they're recognizing that mister Trump is
not always the most stable of partners, and so they're
willing to go a step further for themselves. Countries like
New Zealand and Australia are in the same boat, and
we too are increasing our military spend. And this is
a difficult thing to do because every dollar you spend
(13:32):
on a piece of military kit is a dollar you
don't spend on education, or a dollar you don't spend
on housing or on schools, And so that opportunity cost
is hard, but the risk externally is great.
Speaker 6 (13:51):
You don't know what the Kremlin's doing. I can tell
you that they had a reasonably good meeting with President
put We're going to find out. It's a war that
should have never been started, and were if I were president,
we had a rigged election. If I were president, that
war would have never happened. It's a terrible thing. But
I thought they had a very good meeting yesterday with
the President Putin. We'll see what happens. It's you know,
(14:12):
when I was in this office and I talked you
about no cards, I said, you have no cards? That
was the time to settle. I thought that would have
been a much better time to settle, But their wisdom
decided to do that. They have a lot of things
against them right now.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
I read a piece in the New York Times analyzing
the Ukrainian recruitment ads and.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
How they have evolved over the course of the war.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Right, so the beginning saw wars, you know, soldiers fighting
zombie like figures, a battle crier or call to arms
type of thing. Since then they've kind of progressed into
playing on people's pride to defend their country. You know,
an officer on the phone talking to his mother, she's
proud that he's enlisting.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
That kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
And new ads don't even show weapons or officers iddling
babies and you know, playing with dogs and things like that,
sitting on a beach operating a drone. What do you
think this says about enlisting in Ukraine but also the
course of I think it's an interesting if you step
(15:17):
back and look at the evolvement of these ads. Are
they perhaps finding it quite difficult to garner that national
pride or do you think that the Ukrainians are doing
quite well in that respect.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Both sides are under stress in this war, but one
of the under economic stress, under military stress, and they're
under manpower stress. I used the word manpower loosely. The
amount of soldiers that you've got to replace each month
is over twenty thousand, and trying to keep this kind
of figure going on a continue rolling basis is a
(15:53):
very difficult ask and so Ukraine itself has not got
a problem with people. Young men often will try to
avoid conscription and they will try not to do their service,
and so you've got to find a way where you
can make it attractive for them. But it's unsustainable and
belong to if you keep feeding young people into these
military machines. The Russians don't have quite the same restraints.
(16:14):
Ukraine does have a restraint in miteria. So they've got
to find ways which it looks more appealing to the
young men and young women rather than what it is,
which is often a very terrible situation. But yes it's
a concern and they have to work hard trying to
keep their numbers up.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Now we know that talks have stalled. What happens if
they just completely collapse.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Well, we go back to the battlefront, and the traditional
pattern of wars is that you try to negotiate until
one side gets an upper hand. And the way that
they're going to get an upper hand is that they're
either going to grind their way through, which seems unlikely,
especially if the new weaponry continues to come through from
Europe and its supporters, or you try to change the
(16:54):
tactics or the weapons are being used to get that advantage.
That's where the risk is because different are used on
the battlefield, or the battlefield expand rapidly into say Russia
will hypothetically, say a long range misself from Ukraine hit Moscow.
Then things can go sideways quite quickly. It's contained at
the moment, but it's fragile, and the risk is that
(17:17):
to try to get that breakthrough, they will try new
tactics and new weapons which could make things split out
of control.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
What do you think the likelihood of Putin actually beginning
a war where Europe is it's.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
A very irrational thing to do. I don't think it's
a likely thing to do. But often the larger wars
happen through irrational or accidental methods or mistakes, And when
you've got armies which arebuptressing each other and bumping into
each other on a regular basis, you escalate those risks
each day. A war with Europe is potentially the Third
(17:49):
World War. I don't think that's going to happen. I
think that's quite unlikely. It's in no one's interests. It's irrational,
but in war, mistakes happen, and when tensions escalate, the
risks multiplied.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Thanks for joining us, AL, You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(18:29):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Kiyota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Russia is
apparently ready to go to.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
War with Europe. Well, that's according to its president.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Vladimir Putin met with US negotiators this week for about
five hours to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. He's
accused European leaders of trying to scover the peace talks
with the US, saying they're tweaks to a plan to
end the war were unacceptable. The Kremlin has apparently accepted
some proposals to end it, although latest talks.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Haven't yielded a breakthrough.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Today on the Front Page, University of Waikato international law
professor Al Gillespie's with us to run through what could
happen next. Our first, tell me about this twenty eight
point plan that Russia and the US have supposedly agreed
to slash been talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
It's difficult to work out which plan we're talking about
in a sequence right now. It starts out with a
twenty eight point plan that has effectively a broad agreement
between America and Russia. It then turns to a nineteen
point plan which is effectively between America and Ukraine. It
then goes back to Moscow and it's somewhere between the
(01:30):
twenty eight points and the nineteen points. But it's coming
down to a few areas we can't get agreement on,
which primarily are about territory, the security, force, and accountability.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, it includes banning Ukraine from ever joining NATO and
halving the size of the Ukrainian army. First off, what's
the benefit of Ukraine joining NATO.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Ukraine has a difficult relationship with Russia, and this is
now in a full scale war. Well, there is very
little trust or good faith between them. There was an
agreement in nineteen ninety four when Ukraine gave up to
nuclear weapons that its territorial sovereignty and its integrity would
be respected by Russia, America and Britain, and that agreement
(02:15):
was not worth the paper it was printed on, and
so becaurse of the Russian invasion, they now feel that
they need something stronger than just to promise of mister
Putin to defend whatever is remaining of the country. If
they go for a collective agreement, it would mean that
an attack against Ukraine would be an attack against all
members who signed that agreement, and that could either be
European countries or it could be NATO itself. But mister
(02:39):
Putin is clear he doesn't want Ukraine to be linked
in any defensive alliance with any other country, which means
it would be perpetually very weak and vulnerable to another attack.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So the significance of joining NATO would mean that you've
just automatically got the backing of all of its members.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Strictly, an attack against one is an attack against all,
so that means that all twin eight countries would respond
at the same time. So if Britain was hit by Russia,
the other twenty seven countries would come in and respond
against the aggressor. And missus Zelenski would like that same
guarantee given to his country because he feels that if
you've just got a promise without security of other countries,
(03:16):
you're vulnerable to another attank. That vulnerability is increased when
you get demands such as reductions or restrictions on the
size of the military that Ukraine may possess or the
weapons that they can have in their arsenal.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Yeah, well, let's talk about that.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Halving the size of the Ukrainian army. That doesn't really
seem like a fair trade. Why would that be on
the table at all.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
That kind of condition where you restrict the scale of
a country's forces or the weapons that they have, is
what you get normally when a country is defeated in war,
not in a negotiated peace agreement. It's the kind of
thing that you would see after World War One or
World War two. But what we know, of course is
Ukraine has not been defeated, and in many ways it's
told in its ground quite well.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So I also understand it includes handing back most of
Russia's frozen assets, to which the likes of course Frances
Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Georgia Maloney have opposed. How has
the war altered the balance of power between Russia, the
US and of course European leaders as well.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
The question of assets is a curious one because with
the sanctions, we've put penalties on Russia for its illegal act,
and part of the penalties is involved seizing the Russian assets.
There is a serious legal question about freezing the assets
and then disposing of the assets. The risk, and it's uncertain,
is that if you dispose of them, you could become
(04:38):
legally liable for them in the future when peace resumes.
So even though countries are feeling very angry right now
at Russia and they want to use these frozen assets,
there could be a payback or a penalty laid down
the track. In terms of the cohesiveness of Europe, it's
challenging right now. But as you probably would have noticed
overnight that as the peace talks in Moscow they've grounded
(05:00):
to another deadlock, we're seeing an increase of European country
saying we will now give more money to the Ukraine
with regards to weaponry. And that expansion is not just
with the European countries with a billion dollars, it's with
Australia and New Zealand as well, And so overnight New
Zealand's have said that we will spend an extra fifteen
million dollars to support Ukraine and its military efforts. And
that's on top of the humanitarian assistant and legal assistance
(05:24):
and other types of help that we give. So countries
are digging deeper to support Ukraine. They're not weakening right now.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
When it comes to the frozen assets.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
When talking about international law, is this unprecedented it's not unprecedented.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
It happened in the nineteen eighties when Iran and America
had a difficulty and their assets were then seized and
attempts were made to see quest them. It ended up
in a very large, protracted legal dispute because it's one
thing to freeze the asset. It's another thing to liquidate
it and then use it for another purpose. It's still
someone else's asset, and so there's no clear legal answer
(05:57):
on this, although both sides are saying that they have
an answer, which is probably overstated.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
What should be the answer.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
The answer is that there should be a penalty for
any country which legally invades another country, and there should
be accountability for those crimes and for that act. But
increasingly what you're seeing with international law is that we're
moving away from penalties and accountability just so we can
get peace. And so we're seeing that also with regards
to the regards of peace plant which is a good deal,
(06:25):
but part of the deal is that there we no
accountability for the crimes committed by either the State of
Israel or by hamas alleged crimes. But you're seeing that
same approach with regards to the Ukraine that to get peace,
that you'll push accountability to one side, and potentially the
costs of reconstruction as well. And so everything's got murky,
(06:47):
and we're no longer in a principled world. We're now
in a negotiated outcome.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
He also said this, we are not cleaning to go
to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this
one hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to go
to war with us and starts, we are ready right now.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Well shortly after the meeting ended, a top Russian official
posted a single word on social media productive punctuated by
a dove and an olive branch.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
When it comes to consequences and penalties, though, what do
you think is the right way forward?
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Because we saw and this is.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
A vast generalization I'm thinking of here, but Nazi Germany
obviously was born from the smoldering ashes of World War
One and the Treaty of Versailles and the penalties that
were put upon the German people as a nation.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So what would be a middle ground here?
Speaker 3 (07:57):
A middle ground would have been the International Criminal Court,
at which we created at the end of the nineteen nineties,
and the assumption was was that no one, no matter
how big or small they were, would be held accountable
for the crimes that they committed, including eventually the crime
of aggression. And we all signed up for that, well,
most countries understood that they signed up for that. But
by the time we get to the twenty first century,
(08:19):
you find that these rules only apply to the small players,
not to the large players. And so there's a degree
of impunity in the world right now where countries like Russia,
China and the United States will more or less do
what they want without being held to account and that
is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. And that
makes it difficult for small countries like New Zealand, which
rely on a rules based order, or Australia as well,
(08:41):
because then you find that countries feel if they've put
enough power, they will do what they want to do.
And then we've got the additional risk that if we
make a bad peace steel now with Ukraine, one, you're
only going to make it difficult for the next generation
and they'll be bitter and angry and come back. And
two you've got the precedent problem where other countries will
follow the same sane route. I think that they can
(09:02):
take someone else's country without repercussions.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah, and I mean thinking of that as well.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
And in terms of an international rules based order, do
you think we'll ever be able to see another Nuremberg
trials for example?
Speaker 1 (09:14):
I mean that was or have we since?
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Really we saw some impressive trials with regard to the
former Yugoslavia Serial leone Rwanda. We've had some individual cases
before the International Criminal Court, but they've all been minor
then none of them have involved the superpowers. We had
a very positive period of growth in the nineteen nineties,
but we've seen two decades of going backwards. It will
(09:40):
take a long time to rebuild that kind of confidence
and good faith until you can get to that point
where all countries are accountable right now, where it's about
trying to defeend the architecture that we've got, let alone
trying to build new ones.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
What do you think Russia's stated conditions for peace, you know,
from NATO guarantees to recognition of con over occupied territories.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
What does that reveal about Moscow's endgame?
Speaker 3 (10:05):
They are looking for a victory that They've been very
clear from the beginning that non membership of NATO is
critical to them where it's expanded, and it's showing an
increasingly strong putin as with regards to the demands of
a territory, because now they demanding territory that they haven't
(10:25):
even conquered, let alone what they've a legally annex. They're
now saying, we actually want the more than what we
even hold, and this would suggest that they're feeling confident
in what they can negotiate for. They're not on a
back foot, and you're seeing that the level of threat
continue to grow, and so the retoric about being prepared
for war with Europe at the same time as making
(10:45):
excessive demands suggests that they are not in a weak position.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
What kind of security guarantees are there left for Ukraine
bar a full NATO membership you could try to go for?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
A to approach is one you have troops which are
non aligned which would be able to be positioned in
Ukraine in a kind of like a buffer zone, and
that would mean non NATO countries of which you might
find that New Zealand could become a potential applicant. The
alternative approach is what we did with Belgium in the
nineteenth century and the whole country is declared neutral and
(11:21):
other countries guarantee its security. But of course, as you
may recall the problem with doing that with Belgium, and
is that led to World War One because another country
just has to go through it eventually in nineteen fourteen,
and so you could declare Ukraine neutral, but whether it
was honored as it was not honored in nineteen ninety
four is a big question mark. And right now very
(11:42):
free countries, especially in Europe, have faith in the word
of mister Putin.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
What do you make of European leader's reactions to Putin's calls,
and you know, the other day he did mention something
along the lines of they're ready to go to war
with Europe steadfast.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I think think Europe is becoming galvanized in a unique
point of history. It's been pushed by two different factors.
On the one hand, you've got the threat of Russia
and on the other hand you've got the uncertainty of America.
And I think for a long time Europe has relied
upon America to do all the lift or the heavy
weight or the heavy carrying. But now they've got to
(12:20):
do it for themselves, and they're showing a greater independence
and willingness to do it.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
And do you think Putin has underestimated their ability to
band together and.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
Do this, Yes, I do, I do, But I think
the Europeans now face what they can see is a
very severe threat on their border, and they are galvanizing
in a way which we haven't seen for many generations.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
That and galvanizing when you say, putting more money towards
Ukraine's sovereignty.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
So yesterday they pledged a further billion dollars in military assistance.
That's on top of the additional money that they've already given.
And then you will find also that they're rapidly developing,
building and reinforcing their own military, and so military budgets
across Europe have all expanded rapidly in recent times, and
so they're much more conscious than they would that they've
(13:10):
got to look after their own defense and they cannot
rely on They want American help, but they're at a
point right now where they're recognizing that mister Trump is
not always the most stable of partners, and so they're
willing to go a step further for themselves. Countries like
New Zealand and Australia are in the same boat, and
we too are increasing our military spend. And this is
a difficult thing to do because every dollar you spend
(13:32):
on a piece of military kit is a dollar you
don't spend on education, or a dollar you don't spend
on housing or on schools, And so that opportunity cost
is hard, but the risk externally is great.
Speaker 6 (13:51):
You don't know what the Kremlin's doing. I can tell
you that they had a reasonably good meeting with President
put We're going to find out. It's a war that
should have never been started, and were if I were president,
we had a rigged election. If I were president, that
war would have never happened. It's a terrible thing. But
I thought they had a very good meeting yesterday with
the President Putin. We'll see what happens. It's you know,
(14:12):
when I was in this office and I talked you
about no cards, I said, you have no cards? That
was the time to settle. I thought that would have
been a much better time to settle, But their wisdom
decided to do that. They have a lot of things
against them right now.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
I read a piece in the New York Times analyzing
the Ukrainian recruitment ads and.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
How they have evolved over the course of the war.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Right, so the beginning saw wars, you know, soldiers fighting
zombie like figures, a battle crier or call to arms
type of thing. Since then they've kind of progressed into
playing on people's pride to defend their country. You know,
an officer on the phone talking to his mother, she's
proud that he's enlisting.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
That kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
And new ads don't even show weapons or officers iddling
babies and you know, playing with dogs and things like that,
sitting on a beach operating a drone. What do you
think this says about enlisting in Ukraine but also the
course of I think it's an interesting if you step
(15:17):
back and look at the evolvement of these ads. Are
they perhaps finding it quite difficult to garner that national
pride or do you think that the Ukrainians are doing
quite well in that respect.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Both sides are under stress in this war, but one
of the under economic stress, under military stress, and they're
under manpower stress. I used the word manpower loosely. The
amount of soldiers that you've got to replace each month
is over twenty thousand, and trying to keep this kind
of figure going on a continue rolling basis is a
(15:53):
very difficult ask and so Ukraine itself has not got
a problem with people. Young men often will try to
avoid conscription and they will try not to do their service,
and so you've got to find a way where you
can make it attractive for them. But it's unsustainable and
belong to if you keep feeding young people into these
military machines. The Russians don't have quite the same restraints.
(16:14):
Ukraine does have a restraint in miteria. So they've got
to find ways which it looks more appealing to the
young men and young women rather than what it is,
which is often a very terrible situation. But yes it's
a concern and they have to work hard trying to
keep their numbers up.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Now we know that talks have stalled. What happens if
they just completely collapse.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
Well, we go back to the battlefront, and the traditional
pattern of wars is that you try to negotiate until
one side gets an upper hand. And the way that
they're going to get an upper hand is that they're
either going to grind their way through, which seems unlikely,
especially if the new weaponry continues to come through from
Europe and its supporters, or you try to change the
(16:54):
tactics or the weapons are being used to get that advantage.
That's where the risk is because different are used on
the battlefield, or the battlefield expand rapidly into say Russia
will hypothetically, say a long range misself from Ukraine hit Moscow.
Then things can go sideways quite quickly. It's contained at
the moment, but it's fragile, and the risk is that
(17:17):
to try to get that breakthrough, they will try new
tactics and new weapons which could make things split out
of control.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
What do you think the likelihood of Putin actually beginning
a war where Europe is it's.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
A very irrational thing to do. I don't think it's
a likely thing to do. But often the larger wars
happen through irrational or accidental methods or mistakes, And when
you've got armies which arebuptressing each other and bumping into
each other on a regular basis, you escalate those risks
each day. A war with Europe is potentially the Third
(17:49):
World War. I don't think that's going to happen. I
think that's quite unlikely. It's in no one's interests. It's irrational,
but in war, mistakes happen, and when tensions escalate, the
risks multiplied.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Thanks for joining us, AL, You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
(18:29):
in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.