March 6, 2025 • 18 mins
Leaders across European capitals are scrambling to work out what the withdrawal of US military aid means for Ukraine and Europe’s security as a whole. Led by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a “coalition of the willing” has been formed to support Ukraine both financially and militarily. But will it be enough?
To help us answer that question, host Allegra Stratton is joined by Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative member of Parliament who previously served as security minister. He says the return of Donald Trump to the White House and his actions to distance America from Ukraine and Europe is a “9-11 moment—one of those moments where you have to rethink the fundamentals.”
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 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Welcome to in the City a podcast from Bloomberg about
the stories important to the City of London. I'm Elegri Stratton.
Here in the City of London and across European capitals,
everyone is scrambling to process what the US withdrawal of
aid to Ukraine means. Europe is trying to step up
to fill the gap after Trump's announcement. Led by Prime
(00:37):
Minister Kis Darmer, a coalition of the willing has been
formed to support Ukraine both financially and militarily. But will
it be enough to help us answer that question? We're
joined by MP for Tunbridge, Tom Tugenhart. From twenty twenty
two to twenty twenty four, Tom served as Security Minister,
and amongst other things, he worked to combat Russian and
(00:58):
Chinese activities, leading to the arrest and charging of more
spies from these nations than in the previous decade.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Welcome to the City of London.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The City of the City of London.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Gad between and the financial heart of the country.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
The City, the City.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Welcome to in the City, Clear of the doors, Tom,
It's brilliant to have you on the Inner City Podcast.
And indeed, for Bloomberg, this is something of a return
for you because you're a former Bloomberg employee, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
That's right, I left Bloomberg. Actually, I worked in Bloomberg
News from two thousand and two thousand and three, and
I left Bloomberg when I was mobilized to go and
fight the war in Iraq.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
So, Tom, you're a security minister for two years until
the last election. Be honest, how much of this did
you see coming?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Well? I think we all knew that Trump was a disruptor,
and I don't think that's much of a surprise. The
level of disruption is significant, and it's certainly true that
what we're seeing now is similar to a nine to
eleven moment. It's one of those moments where you have
to rethink the fundamentals. You have to think really hard
about what it is that you're prepared to do on
(02:18):
your own, what you need to do with allies, and
how you need to build up new relationships. So I
think this is a very fundamental moment of rethinking, and
in many ways it's one that's been needed for a
little while.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
So, your former security minister, we've got the current Prime
Minister talking about an uplift to two point five percent
to twenty twenty seven, and then he is already saying,
which I think did surprise a lot of people, he'd
go to three percent by in the next parliament. But
is it enough when you've got America talking about removing
itself from the scene pretty much completely.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Well, I mean, what we're discovering at the moment is
how much the American defense contribution has meant to the
UK budget over the last thirty forty fifty years, And
the reality is it looks like it's between one and
four percentage point of GNI. Because if you want to
replace the strategical lift, the satellite communications, the ISR and
all the other different elements that have made up part
(03:08):
of our security architecture, you're talking not a few hundred
million pounds, but you're talking tens of billions. Now, that
doesn't mean you have to replace them all in a day,
of course you don't. And it doesn't mean that the
United States has left NATO or is a totally unreliable
partner or anything like that. But it just means that
you need to think about what it is that you're
going to need and determine whether it is likely you'll
(03:30):
get it. There's some things I think we will definitely
maintain that connection with and I don't think there's any
real question about it, satellite communications and intelligence being too.
But there are other areas like strategic lift, which might
involve areas of operations in Ukraine or something like that,
where you've got to look at what happened in twenty
eleven when David Cameron and Nicolas Sakazi went to conducted
(03:53):
operations over Libya. And at the time I was a
military office advising the Chief of the devent Staff, and
it became rapidly, very very obvious what we needed in
America for. And it wasn't just defense stocks. We almost
ran out of missiles of various different points and bombs
at different points, but also the communications and the support.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
So to be clear, we're looking at two point five
or three percent uplift. But do you think when this
is all said and done, the UK will have had
to spend more than three percent of GDP on defense.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yes, I don't think there's any real debate actually in
any serious military circles. The reality is what you're looking
at is you're looking at a fundamental change. Now does
that change take you to three three and a half?
I don't know. It depends what we're going to see.
But the reality is it depends on your defense assumptions.
And one of the things that the New Strategic Defense
Review is doing under Lord Robertson, under General Barons and
(04:44):
under Fiona Hill, who you'll remember was a DNSA in
the United States, is they're looking at these defense assumptions
and actually having Fiona Hill on that team is a
very very good appointment by John Healy because she'll have
a very good understanding not just to the Trump White House,
but of the underlying pressures and currents in the United States.
Because only anybody believes that we're going back to the
United States of nineteen eighty or nineteen ninety, We're going
(05:05):
back to a very different United States at the end
of this Trump term in four years time.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Just reflecting on that Oval office at the time, it
appeared to be a triumph by the Prime Minister as
a well choreographed, well handled event, but it obviously did
go south very quickly with the Zelenski Donald Trump jd
Vance televised exchange. How would you have handled that differently?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I thought the Prime Minister did extremely well. I'm not
going to criticize him. I think the Prime Minister should
be given credit for it. I think that the challenge
that he's got is the fundamental reality that the United
States has changed as a partner. And you can argue
that it's a gradual change, of which Trump is the
latest iteration. That's certainly certainly true that the Obama administration,
(05:48):
the previous Bush administrations and so on warned about European
free riding, or you can believe that it's a very
fundamental change. I was speaking to a senior foreign minister
from one of our allies yes today, who believed that
it was a much more significant switch and this wasn't
some sort of return to Wilsonian doctrine or that form
of Americanism, but actually a very fundamental transactionist and isolationist form.
(06:12):
So you can put your own interpretation on, but it
is a very big change, and I think that's something
that the UK system hasn't yet fully taken on both.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I agree with your characterization of the event last week.
It was well executed British to pomacy, but it does
appear that part of Starmer's plan to put British and
along with French peacekeepers into Ukraine does rely on an
American backstop that doesn't look like it necessarily will come
to pass. So I suppose the problem is going forward.
How much does Starmer need Trump back back in the room.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, I think we all need the United States back
in the room. I don't think there's any great debate
that the Western alliance that has kept not just Europe,
but actually the many, many large parts of the world,
including parts of East Asia, free, prosperous and just for
the best part of seventy eighty years, is possible without
it engaged United States. And by the way, I think
(07:01):
it makes the United States free, prosperous and engaged as well.
I mean, I think if you look at US economic
prosperity from the nineteen fifties certain into the nineteen eighties,
it was almost entirely underwritten by ideas like the Marshall
Plan that saw the creation of mass markets that enabled
US conglomerates to expand. And you can certainly make the
(07:22):
argument that the US domination of the rules based system
is one of the aspects that has made its tech
companies so extraordinarily powerful. The underwriting of the dollar. It's
the underwriting of the common architecture. So I think this
is very very much in US interests, and what we've
got to do as Western partners is demonstrate that. And
I think what we've got a problem with over the
last few years is we've looked like free riders because
(07:43):
we have been free riders on certain aspects of it.
We've actually been really important twin players, as it were,
on other aspects, and we haven't made those aspects clear.
And I think this is a transactional time, not just
in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom,
and so actually making that clear is really important. And
that's where I think we have a role in communicating,
not just to ourselves, to Russia, to China, but actually
(08:04):
to the United States.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Let's just look at Ukraine before we look a little
bit more widely the relationship with the United States. But
on Ukraine, you're former security minister. How long can Ukraine
keep going without American military aid?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
It's very hard to say from this perspective, but I
think Ukraine has been written off many times in the past.
It was written off in twenty fourteen when admistedly a
very rapid and effective Russian military operation took Crimea. It
was again written off, as you'll remember, in February twenty
twenty two. I was there in January, and I remember
speaking to the then National Security Advisor of Ukraine in
(08:40):
a rather koi but when it came to being one
to one, it was extremely frank. He knew exactly what
he was facing and he was prepared. And then they
had caged weapons and ammunition around the country and they
were ready, I mean as ready as they could be, right,
And there was that moment when Resident Zelenski was offered
(09:00):
a ride and he said he didn't need a riding
in ammunition. So you know, Ukraine has been putting off
time and time again. And currently Ukraine is producing I
think it's between fifteen one hundred thousand drones a month
with which they're conducting operations against Russia. And whatever you
think about Russia, Russia has lost somewhere between seven and
eight hundred thousand men killed and injured in the last
three years. And for that level of death and destruction
(09:24):
and misery, they've gone from holding nineteen point six percent
of Ukrainian territory to nineteen point two. So the idea
that this is somehow, some sort of great Russian victory
is complete rubbish. Now, only a few weeks ago, maybe
just over a month ago, the Ukrainians conducted one of
the first operations which was entirely drone one hundred or
so units. I don't mean individual drones, but units of
(09:46):
drones conducted operations against Russian targets, effectively destroying an entire
Russian unit and the people who were commanding it or
controlling it were three hundred miles away and there was
four of them in a rus That's it. That's a
remarkable change. So the idea that Ukraine is somehow going
to collapse tomorrow, I don't buy that. Said, of course,
(10:07):
it needs support and ammunition, and it needs to help
that the West can give.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Does this strategic landscape that we're looking at right now
does it impact the UK's national security?
Speaker 3 (10:17):
Absolutely yes, it completely does, and it impacts of the
UK's national security in some rather obvious ways in the
sense that the reality is what we're seeing today is
we're seeing a consumption of defense stocks at speeds which
leave all of us slightly more vulnerable. You know, we are,
we're running down our own defense stocks. So if we
were to need weapons and ammunition, we have less in
(10:39):
the cupboard now than we did three years ago, and
so that's a huge element. Secondly, there's a massive distraction factor.
You don't need mean to tell you that what Iran
has been doing in the Middle East is unbelievably pernicious.
What Russia has been doing in West Africa is extremely violent,
and a lot of it's connected to human trafficking, slavery. Really,
we're seeing other areas of the world raising different challenges
(11:03):
and they could easily flare up in different ways. We're
also seeing Russia attempting to spark revolution out of places
like the Balkans. So you know, this is something that
we know is already happening in other areas. So yes,
it's having a direct impact on us. And you know,
having the United States distracted when it is an absolutely
essential security partner is problematic, of course it is.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And I think the thing you haven't mentioned, but I'm
sure it's not an oversight is you've got in President Trump.
He's bringing putin to the table on quite a few issues.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
Now.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We have the allegations in the past of relation to
conversations between musk and Putin and Russian officials. How much
do you feel, as former security minister who obviously looked
at this stuff day in day out, how much do
you feel that the UK now has to be wary
of the information it shares with the US because of
relations that they are now conducting with Russia.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I think it's very easy to get parallel on these things.
I think we've always had a very strong intelligence sharing relationship.
It's important to remember that the Five Eyes partnership between
the Australian Museum in Canada, the UK and the US
is not actually just an intelligent sharing relationship, is intelligence
collecting relationship. The difference is you've got to bring something
to the party otherwise that you don't get in the club,
(12:17):
and the US brings a huge amount to the party.
I think the UK is a massive part of that
as well, and the depth of the relationship is very
very It's closer than I think many people quite understand.
I mean, the personal contacts, let alone the professional contacts
between our intelligence professionals is very very high. So I
don't share a huge amount of concern. I think that
there are real challenges going forward for all of us
(12:41):
on how to deal with Poutin. I think the US
has an approach, some of it known. Criticize if you want,
but it is an approach that is trying to bring
Putin to the table. Now, I think it depends whether
you believe that this is a territorial deal or a
sovereignty question. Some people believe it's a question of land
and it's a trade, and other people believe it's an
(13:04):
existential question over the existence of a sovereign Ukraine. Now
I know which it is.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So you feel, no matter how close Trump gets to Putin.
To your point, you feel that it's a it's negotiations
and it's antempt to solve a conflict that has been
enormously denuding for the entire world. But you feel that
even however close he gets, there are no implications for
UK security sharing.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Look, I think that the United States has had a
very very long record of dealing with very difficult players
like Putin. I mean, this is not not you know,
this is not our first rout And the reality is
that some of those relationships have raised eyebrows in various
different partnerships. And you know, sometimes things that we've done
(13:49):
have have done that. And what's important to do is
to make sure what we're doing is we're maintaining the
relationships that matter. And for us, it is an absolutely
fundamental relationship that we must maintain and we do it
because it keeps us free, It keeps us safe, and
it keeps us prosperous, and it supports and helps our allies.
You know, the security of the Republic of Ireland, the
security of Germany, and the security of France. The security
(14:11):
of many of our partners around the world is connected
to the UK's relationship to the United States and security
and intelligence.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
So just to end, let's try and be positive. Do
you see strategic advantage on the horizon for the United Kingdom?
And just thinking economically, Rachel Reeves was speaking yesterday and
she talked about the increase in defense spending will go
into parts of the United Kingdom and in that sense,
and we hear at Bloomberg have written about this quite
a bit in the last few weeks. In that sense,
(14:40):
it is a growth agenda completely.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Look, I mean agra Look, I mean one of the
phrases using government when you there was leveling up. I
mean defense is leveling up. It's leveling up in two senses. One,
it's manufacturing. It's old fashion manufacturing in some cases, but
actually very modern manufacturing in others, and much of which
have in parts of the country like the northeast, Northwest Wales,
(15:02):
Belfast and Northern Ireland where investment is really important. But secondly,
it's leveling up in the sense it's training. You know,
we take young people into the armed forces and the
intelligence services and we train them, and it's a huge
investment in young people, which whether they stay two, three,
four years or whether they stay twenty years, they end
up contributing in different ways to the economy. Now that
(15:23):
is enormously important. So I'm really positive about Pen's investment.
The second thing I'm positive about actually, I think one
of the things that this change means is that the
UK has a very very important role not just to
ourselves but to countries like France and Germany and Sweden
and even countries like Japan, Australia and India that we
(15:44):
need to be really emphasizing.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Now.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
This is where I think there is a huge opportunity
for a UK strategic reset globally, and we're already beginning
to see it by the way in which Macron and
Schultz and I suspect Mertz and due course are beginning
to come to London. I think the Prime Minister's meeting
in Lancaster House on Sunday was frankly a triumph. I
think he did extremely well. He brought NATO together. Forgive me,
I'm not in the usual position of praising a labor
(16:10):
but I think the last few days he has done well.
And what this means is that the UK is being
remembered again as a strategic partner on the international stage,
which is almost impossible to match. Now. Nobody wants to
ignore the United States or cut it out or do
anything like that, but the relationship is difficult. Kir Starmer
has demonstrated he can do it. The United Kingdom has
(16:30):
relationships at every level, personal relationships. I have friends I
served with in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and now
sitting in the House of Representatives and the Senate. You know,
I'm not unusual in that I've got many friends who
you know, served in combat with young lieutenants in the
US Army, and the two of them are now three
star generals, one in the British one of the American Army.
You know, we have a very, very close relationship. So
(16:50):
the United Kingdom has a real opportunity, building on our
defense networks, on our intelligence networks, on our diplomatic networks,
to be that strategic partner for many countries around the world. Now,
what we need to do is invest in it. But
I do think it's an investment, it's not a cost.
So actually taking British defense investment from what it is
now to two and a half percent up to three
or even four percent can easily be seen as leveling
(17:14):
up and strategic outreach, and I think both of those
are going to prove increasingly important UK companies in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
During this conversation, I think you've been in your spare room,
and I think behind your head is a map of Iraq.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I cannot quite see.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
In my defense, it's actually a map of Afghanistan. You
can see behind me. I'm going to tip very slightly.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
You're both It was hard to make out.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
That's a historic map of Afghanistan. Below is the silk
map of Afghanistan with which I was issued and which
must have got lost in combat, because otherwise, obviously I
would have returned it to the stores.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Okay, all right, thanks for listening to this week's in
the City podcast from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted by
Me Like Stratton, produced by Soasadi and Moses and Am
Sound designed by Blake Maples and special thanks to Tom Tugenheart.
Please subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen to podcasts.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Welcome to in the City a podcast from Bloomberg about
the stories important to the City of London. I'm Elegri Stratton.
Here in the City of London and across European capitals,
everyone is scrambling to process what the US withdrawal of
aid to Ukraine means. Europe is trying to step up
to fill the gap after Trump's announcement. Led by Prime
(00:37):
Minister Kis Darmer, a coalition of the willing has been
formed to support Ukraine both financially and militarily. But will
it be enough to help us answer that question? We're
joined by MP for Tunbridge, Tom Tugenhart. From twenty twenty
two to twenty twenty four, Tom served as Security Minister,
and amongst other things, he worked to combat Russian and
(00:58):
Chinese activities, leading to the arrest and charging of more
spies from these nations than in the previous decade.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Welcome to the City of London.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The City of the City of London.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Gad between and the financial heart of the country.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
The City, the City.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Welcome to in the City, Clear of the doors, Tom,
It's brilliant to have you on the Inner City Podcast.
And indeed, for Bloomberg, this is something of a return
for you because you're a former Bloomberg employee, aren't you.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
That's right, I left Bloomberg. Actually, I worked in Bloomberg
News from two thousand and two thousand and three, and
I left Bloomberg when I was mobilized to go and
fight the war in Iraq.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
So, Tom, you're a security minister for two years until
the last election. Be honest, how much of this did
you see coming?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Well? I think we all knew that Trump was a disruptor,
and I don't think that's much of a surprise. The
level of disruption is significant, and it's certainly true that
what we're seeing now is similar to a nine to
eleven moment. It's one of those moments where you have
to rethink the fundamentals. You have to think really hard
about what it is that you're prepared to do on
(02:18):
your own, what you need to do with allies, and
how you need to build up new relationships. So I
think this is a very fundamental moment of rethinking, and
in many ways it's one that's been needed for a
little while.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
So, your former security minister, we've got the current Prime
Minister talking about an uplift to two point five percent
to twenty twenty seven, and then he is already saying,
which I think did surprise a lot of people, he'd
go to three percent by in the next parliament. But
is it enough when you've got America talking about removing
itself from the scene pretty much completely.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Well, I mean, what we're discovering at the moment is
how much the American defense contribution has meant to the
UK budget over the last thirty forty fifty years, And
the reality is it looks like it's between one and
four percentage point of GNI. Because if you want to
replace the strategical lift, the satellite communications, the ISR and
all the other different elements that have made up part
(03:08):
of our security architecture, you're talking not a few hundred
million pounds, but you're talking tens of billions. Now, that
doesn't mean you have to replace them all in a day,
of course you don't. And it doesn't mean that the
United States has left NATO or is a totally unreliable
partner or anything like that. But it just means that
you need to think about what it is that you're
going to need and determine whether it is likely you'll
(03:30):
get it. There's some things I think we will definitely
maintain that connection with and I don't think there's any
real question about it, satellite communications and intelligence being too.
But there are other areas like strategic lift, which might
involve areas of operations in Ukraine or something like that,
where you've got to look at what happened in twenty
eleven when David Cameron and Nicolas Sakazi went to conducted
(03:53):
operations over Libya. And at the time I was a
military office advising the Chief of the devent Staff, and
it became rapidly, very very obvious what we needed in
America for. And it wasn't just defense stocks. We almost
ran out of missiles of various different points and bombs
at different points, but also the communications and the support.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
So to be clear, we're looking at two point five
or three percent uplift. But do you think when this
is all said and done, the UK will have had
to spend more than three percent of GDP on defense.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Yes, I don't think there's any real debate actually in
any serious military circles. The reality is what you're looking
at is you're looking at a fundamental change. Now does
that change take you to three three and a half?
I don't know. It depends what we're going to see.
But the reality is it depends on your defense assumptions.
And one of the things that the New Strategic Defense
Review is doing under Lord Robertson, under General Barons and
(04:44):
under Fiona Hill, who you'll remember was a DNSA in
the United States, is they're looking at these defense assumptions
and actually having Fiona Hill on that team is a
very very good appointment by John Healy because she'll have
a very good understanding not just to the Trump White House,
but of the underlying pressures and currents in the United States.
Because only anybody believes that we're going back to the
United States of nineteen eighty or nineteen ninety, We're going
(05:05):
back to a very different United States at the end
of this Trump term in four years time.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Just reflecting on that Oval office at the time, it
appeared to be a triumph by the Prime Minister as
a well choreographed, well handled event, but it obviously did
go south very quickly with the Zelenski Donald Trump jd
Vance televised exchange. How would you have handled that differently?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I thought the Prime Minister did extremely well. I'm not
going to criticize him. I think the Prime Minister should
be given credit for it. I think that the challenge
that he's got is the fundamental reality that the United
States has changed as a partner. And you can argue
that it's a gradual change, of which Trump is the
latest iteration. That's certainly certainly true that the Obama administration,
(05:48):
the previous Bush administrations and so on warned about European
free riding, or you can believe that it's a very
fundamental change. I was speaking to a senior foreign minister
from one of our allies yes today, who believed that
it was a much more significant switch and this wasn't
some sort of return to Wilsonian doctrine or that form
of Americanism, but actually a very fundamental transactionist and isolationist form.
(06:12):
So you can put your own interpretation on, but it
is a very big change, and I think that's something
that the UK system hasn't yet fully taken on both.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I agree with your characterization of the event last week.
It was well executed British to pomacy, but it does
appear that part of Starmer's plan to put British and
along with French peacekeepers into Ukraine does rely on an
American backstop that doesn't look like it necessarily will come
to pass. So I suppose the problem is going forward.
How much does Starmer need Trump back back in the room.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Well, I think we all need the United States back
in the room. I don't think there's any great debate
that the Western alliance that has kept not just Europe,
but actually the many, many large parts of the world,
including parts of East Asia, free, prosperous and just for
the best part of seventy eighty years, is possible without
it engaged United States. And by the way, I think
(07:01):
it makes the United States free, prosperous and engaged as well.
I mean, I think if you look at US economic
prosperity from the nineteen fifties certain into the nineteen eighties,
it was almost entirely underwritten by ideas like the Marshall
Plan that saw the creation of mass markets that enabled
US conglomerates to expand. And you can certainly make the
(07:22):
argument that the US domination of the rules based system
is one of the aspects that has made its tech
companies so extraordinarily powerful. The underwriting of the dollar. It's
the underwriting of the common architecture. So I think this
is very very much in US interests, and what we've
got to do as Western partners is demonstrate that. And
I think what we've got a problem with over the
last few years is we've looked like free riders because
(07:43):
we have been free riders on certain aspects of it.
We've actually been really important twin players, as it were,
on other aspects, and we haven't made those aspects clear.
And I think this is a transactional time, not just
in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom,
and so actually making that clear is really important. And
that's where I think we have a role in communicating,
not just to ourselves, to Russia, to China, but actually
(08:04):
to the United States.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Let's just look at Ukraine before we look a little
bit more widely the relationship with the United States. But
on Ukraine, you're former security minister. How long can Ukraine
keep going without American military aid?
Speaker 3 (08:18):
It's very hard to say from this perspective, but I
think Ukraine has been written off many times in the past.
It was written off in twenty fourteen when admistedly a
very rapid and effective Russian military operation took Crimea. It
was again written off, as you'll remember, in February twenty
twenty two. I was there in January, and I remember
speaking to the then National Security Advisor of Ukraine in
(08:40):
a rather koi but when it came to being one
to one, it was extremely frank. He knew exactly what
he was facing and he was prepared. And then they
had caged weapons and ammunition around the country and they
were ready, I mean as ready as they could be, right,
And there was that moment when Resident Zelenski was offered
(09:00):
a ride and he said he didn't need a riding
in ammunition. So you know, Ukraine has been putting off
time and time again. And currently Ukraine is producing I
think it's between fifteen one hundred thousand drones a month
with which they're conducting operations against Russia. And whatever you
think about Russia, Russia has lost somewhere between seven and
eight hundred thousand men killed and injured in the last
three years. And for that level of death and destruction
(09:24):
and misery, they've gone from holding nineteen point six percent
of Ukrainian territory to nineteen point two. So the idea
that this is somehow, some sort of great Russian victory
is complete rubbish. Now, only a few weeks ago, maybe
just over a month ago, the Ukrainians conducted one of
the first operations which was entirely drone one hundred or
so units. I don't mean individual drones, but units of
(09:46):
drones conducted operations against Russian targets, effectively destroying an entire
Russian unit and the people who were commanding it or
controlling it were three hundred miles away and there was
four of them in a rus That's it. That's a
remarkable change. So the idea that Ukraine is somehow going
to collapse tomorrow, I don't buy that. Said, of course,
(10:07):
it needs support and ammunition, and it needs to help
that the West can give.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Does this strategic landscape that we're looking at right now
does it impact the UK's national security?
Speaker 3 (10:17):
Absolutely yes, it completely does, and it impacts of the
UK's national security in some rather obvious ways in the
sense that the reality is what we're seeing today is
we're seeing a consumption of defense stocks at speeds which
leave all of us slightly more vulnerable. You know, we are,
we're running down our own defense stocks. So if we
were to need weapons and ammunition, we have less in
(10:39):
the cupboard now than we did three years ago, and
so that's a huge element. Secondly, there's a massive distraction factor.
You don't need mean to tell you that what Iran
has been doing in the Middle East is unbelievably pernicious.
What Russia has been doing in West Africa is extremely violent,
and a lot of it's connected to human trafficking, slavery. Really,
we're seeing other areas of the world raising different challenges
(11:03):
and they could easily flare up in different ways. We're
also seeing Russia attempting to spark revolution out of places
like the Balkans. So you know, this is something that
we know is already happening in other areas. So yes,
it's having a direct impact on us. And you know,
having the United States distracted when it is an absolutely
essential security partner is problematic, of course it is.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And I think the thing you haven't mentioned, but I'm
sure it's not an oversight is you've got in President Trump.
He's bringing putin to the table on quite a few issues.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
Now.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
We have the allegations in the past of relation to
conversations between musk and Putin and Russian officials. How much
do you feel, as former security minister who obviously looked
at this stuff day in day out, how much do
you feel that the UK now has to be wary
of the information it shares with the US because of
relations that they are now conducting with Russia.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I think it's very easy to get parallel on these things.
I think we've always had a very strong intelligence sharing relationship.
It's important to remember that the Five Eyes partnership between
the Australian Museum in Canada, the UK and the US
is not actually just an intelligent sharing relationship, is intelligence
collecting relationship. The difference is you've got to bring something
to the party otherwise that you don't get in the club,
(12:17):
and the US brings a huge amount to the party.
I think the UK is a massive part of that
as well, and the depth of the relationship is very
very It's closer than I think many people quite understand.
I mean, the personal contacts, let alone the professional contacts
between our intelligence professionals is very very high. So I
don't share a huge amount of concern. I think that
there are real challenges going forward for all of us
(12:41):
on how to deal with Poutin. I think the US
has an approach, some of it known. Criticize if you want,
but it is an approach that is trying to bring
Putin to the table. Now, I think it depends whether
you believe that this is a territorial deal or a
sovereignty question. Some people believe it's a question of land
and it's a trade, and other people believe it's an
(13:04):
existential question over the existence of a sovereign Ukraine. Now
I know which it is.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
So you feel, no matter how close Trump gets to Putin.
To your point, you feel that it's a it's negotiations
and it's antempt to solve a conflict that has been
enormously denuding for the entire world. But you feel that
even however close he gets, there are no implications for
UK security sharing.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Look, I think that the United States has had a
very very long record of dealing with very difficult players
like Putin. I mean, this is not not you know,
this is not our first rout And the reality is
that some of those relationships have raised eyebrows in various
different partnerships. And you know, sometimes things that we've done
(13:49):
have have done that. And what's important to do is
to make sure what we're doing is we're maintaining the
relationships that matter. And for us, it is an absolutely
fundamental relationship that we must maintain and we do it
because it keeps us free, It keeps us safe, and
it keeps us prosperous, and it supports and helps our allies.
You know, the security of the Republic of Ireland, the
security of Germany, and the security of France. The security
(14:11):
of many of our partners around the world is connected
to the UK's relationship to the United States and security
and intelligence.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
So just to end, let's try and be positive. Do
you see strategic advantage on the horizon for the United Kingdom?
And just thinking economically, Rachel Reeves was speaking yesterday and
she talked about the increase in defense spending will go
into parts of the United Kingdom and in that sense,
and we hear at Bloomberg have written about this quite
a bit in the last few weeks. In that sense,
(14:40):
it is a growth agenda completely.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Look, I mean agra Look, I mean one of the
phrases using government when you there was leveling up. I
mean defense is leveling up. It's leveling up in two senses. One,
it's manufacturing. It's old fashion manufacturing in some cases, but
actually very modern manufacturing in others, and much of which
have in parts of the country like the northeast, Northwest Wales,
(15:02):
Belfast and Northern Ireland where investment is really important. But secondly,
it's leveling up in the sense it's training. You know,
we take young people into the armed forces and the
intelligence services and we train them, and it's a huge
investment in young people, which whether they stay two, three,
four years or whether they stay twenty years, they end
up contributing in different ways to the economy. Now that
(15:23):
is enormously important. So I'm really positive about Pen's investment.
The second thing I'm positive about actually, I think one
of the things that this change means is that the
UK has a very very important role not just to
ourselves but to countries like France and Germany and Sweden
and even countries like Japan, Australia and India that we
(15:44):
need to be really emphasizing.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Now.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
This is where I think there is a huge opportunity
for a UK strategic reset globally, and we're already beginning
to see it by the way in which Macron and
Schultz and I suspect Mertz and due course are beginning
to come to London. I think the Prime Minister's meeting
in Lancaster House on Sunday was frankly a triumph. I
think he did extremely well. He brought NATO together. Forgive me,
I'm not in the usual position of praising a labor
(16:10):
but I think the last few days he has done well.
And what this means is that the UK is being
remembered again as a strategic partner on the international stage,
which is almost impossible to match. Now. Nobody wants to
ignore the United States or cut it out or do
anything like that, but the relationship is difficult. Kir Starmer
has demonstrated he can do it. The United Kingdom has
(16:30):
relationships at every level, personal relationships. I have friends I
served with in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and now
sitting in the House of Representatives and the Senate. You know,
I'm not unusual in that I've got many friends who
you know, served in combat with young lieutenants in the
US Army, and the two of them are now three
star generals, one in the British one of the American Army.
You know, we have a very, very close relationship. So
(16:50):
the United Kingdom has a real opportunity, building on our
defense networks, on our intelligence networks, on our diplomatic networks,
to be that strategic partner for many countries around the world. Now,
what we need to do is invest in it. But
I do think it's an investment, it's not a cost.
So actually taking British defense investment from what it is
now to two and a half percent up to three
or even four percent can easily be seen as leveling
(17:14):
up and strategic outreach, and I think both of those
are going to prove increasingly important UK companies in the future.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
During this conversation, I think you've been in your spare room,
and I think behind your head is a map of Iraq.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I cannot quite see.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
In my defense, it's actually a map of Afghanistan. You
can see behind me. I'm going to tip very slightly.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
You're both It was hard to make out.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
That's a historic map of Afghanistan. Below is the silk
map of Afghanistan with which I was issued and which
must have got lost in combat, because otherwise, obviously I
would have returned it to the stores.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Okay, all right, thanks for listening to this week's in
the City podcast from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted by
Me Like Stratton, produced by Soasadi and Moses and Am
Sound designed by Blake Maples and special thanks to Tom Tugenheart.
Please subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen to podcasts.
Host
Francine Lacqua
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.