February 24, 2025 • 36 mins
On the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Inside Geneva has some big questions about the US-Russia talks this week on ending the war in Ukraine.
“Is this really a peace deal or is it just a deal about money? Or is it even some kind of capitulation or a power grab?” asks Inside Geneva host Imogen Foulkes.
What does US President Donald Trump want?
“Do you want to just stop the war, or do you want to win it? We don’t know what President Trump would consider a win. One suspects it’s a win that would be purely transactional in US interests,” says Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor for the New York Times.
Who will have to make sure that peace is sustainable?
“The US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin, but who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe,” adds Gunilla von Hall, correspondent for Svenska Dagbladet.
How can negotiations even take place without Ukraine?
“We will never be able to talk about peace and sustainable peace as long as the Ukrainians are not involved, because the grievances will remain,” says Laurent Sierro, journalist at the Swiss News Agency Keystone-ATS.
These are tough questions for the US, Europe and Ukraine. And what about the United Nations – does it have a role at all? Join us on Inside Geneva to find out.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme….
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It started before dawn.
Ukraine woke to explosionsaround the capital Kiev.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
In the last several hours, Russia has invaded
Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
We stand with Ukraine now and in the future.
That starts on the battlefield.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Tonight in a radical break with the past the US and
Russia agreeing to work together, the two sides discussing how
to end Russia's war in Ukraine,but doing so without any
Ukrainian officials present.
We couldn't have imagined abetter result after this session
.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
But today I heard oh well, we weren't invited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it threeyears.
You should have never startedit.
You could have made a deal.
How are you approaching this?
Do you want just to stop thewar or do you want to win it?
And that's the point.
We don't know even whatPresident Trump would think is a
win.
One suspects it's a win thatwould be purely transactional in
(01:17):
US interests, which is bad newsfor Europe.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an
unrealistic objective.
The United States does notbelieve that NATO membership for
Ukraine is a realistic outcomeof a negotiated settlement.
Instead, any security guaranteemust be backed by capable
European and non-European troops.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
Europe is expected to be responsible for the
reconstruction of Ukraine,having troops on the ground to
oversee a ceasefire.
So the US will take thedecisions together with Russia,
with Putin, but then who isgoing to do the real work
afterwards?
It is Europe.
Can you assure this audiencethat Ukrainians will be at the
table and Europeans will be atthe table.
Speaker 5 (02:07):
The answer to that last question, just as you
framed it, the answer is no.
We will never be able to talkabout peace, and sustainable
peace, as long as the Ukrainiansare not associated with that,
because the grievances willremain.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Hello again and welcome to Geneva for our very
special episode Three yearssince Russia invaded Ukraine.
Events moving very, very, veryfast, so we're recording this a
few days before this podcastgoes on air.
Things may even have changedwhen we go on air, but what
we're going to try to do isexplore where we are now with
that conflict with threejournalists here in Geneva that
I've been talking to about thisfor the last three years.
(02:56):
They are Gunilla von Hall fromthe Swedish daily Svenska
Dagbladet, nick Cumming-Bruce,contributor to the New York
Times from here in Geneva, andLaurence Siero of the Swiss news
agency ATS, also a longtimecorrespondent here at the UN,
and we're going to try to unpick.
(03:18):
Is this really a peace deal, oris it just a deal about money?
Or is it just a deal aboutmoney?
Or is it even some kind ofcapitulation or a power grab by
countries that are already verypowerful?
And we're going to have a lookat where it leaves the United
Nations, perhaps also where itleaves European countries.
(03:38):
A lot to talk about, nick.
I think I'll start with youabout Nick.
I think I'll start with you.
I do remember that when the daythis war started, the day of
the invasion, you, laurent, andI were discussing this.
We know Western diplomats herein Geneva have told us privately
, off the record, that they knewa peace deal would come in
(03:59):
which Ukraine would lose someterritory, and that maybe the
NATO membership would have to govery far down the list of
priorities.
So why the uproar now about theUnited States saying this
publicly?
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Well, I think it was just extremely disconcerting to
see Defense Secretary Hegsworthcasually discarding issues that
could have served as levers inany negotiation on a peace deal
no NATO membership for Ukraine,which preempt in any negotiation
on a peace deal.
No NATO membership for Ukraine,which preempts their choice as
a sovereign government.
No deployment of US troops toenforce post-war security
(04:33):
guarantees.
Any European troops deployedwould not be under a NATO
umbrella.
I mean advertising hugely therift between this position and
the previous positions of NATOmembers.
And then, perhaps an evenbigger cause of whiplash was
Trump's 90-minute phone call toVladimir Putin.
(04:54):
You know, we know that Trumpshoots from the lip and we can't
prejudge the course of thenegotiations.
And we've heard people aroundhim saying you know, he's fully
aware of all the levers he's gotto pull.
But contacting Putin in this way, after three years of isolating
him as a pariah state for hisinvasion of Ukraine, chatting
(05:17):
chummily about the great historyof their nations, putting up on
Truth, social, this sort ofvery jolly record of the
conversation celebrating thefact that Vladimir Putin had
endorsed his campaign slogan ofcommon sense, no sense at all.
That he was dealing withsomeone who had violated the UN
(05:40):
Charter, butchered thousands ofpeople violated committed
numerous atrocity crimes.
None of that was evident orreflected in any of the comments
.
It was easy to understandreally why the Kremlin is
euphoric, why NATO states aredismayed and the sense of
(06:03):
victory already in their graspwithin the Kremlin is not going
to make it easier to negotiate adeal that Ukraine and Europe
would consider respectable.
So, I think, a huge source ofconcern and dismay among
America's former allies.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
I think that reflects a lot of what I've been hearing
from other people about this.
That very important not leastUkraine, seem to be shut out of
this discussion.
Gunilla, you of course, havebeen traveling back and forth to
Ukraine over the last threeyears Now.
The last time I saw you, youwere just back and you said that
people were very tired of thewar.
(06:43):
But is this a relief to them,the way this is happening now?
Speaker 6 (06:47):
I think it is what Nick is saying too, that this
was coming as a shock.
The phone call and these suddentalks in Saudi Arabia and it's
from Ukraine's point of view isseen very much as a betrayal.
It is partly what he's saying,but then the way it is done,
that is so clearly that Ukraineis, you know, ukraine, and
(07:08):
Europe too.
For that case, they are leftoutside this and they're
basically told that we're goingto give you a call and tell you
what's happening so we can tellyou the state of affairs, and
Zelensky is just shut out.
So I think, for many Ukrainianstoday, they're feeling betrayed
, disappointed.
Some, though, are feeling alittle bit.
(07:30):
There's a slight slimmer ofhope and a little little bit of
relief, because everyone wantsthe war to end.
People are so tired.
A lot of people I spoke to saidthat we have these missile
strikes and we have these airraid sirens all the time, and
the economy is falling apart,millions of people who have lost
(07:50):
their lives or are injured, orthey are refugees, and we just
want it to end.
And some people said actuallyjust a few months after the
full-scale invasion by Russiathat there is no way we can win
against Putin, against Russia,we should just cut a deal now,
(08:12):
when we can, and then maybe wecan change things later.
But if we continue this road,people will die, people will
flee, our country will beshattered, and this is what has
happened.
So mixture of feeling betrayedand feeling, maybe, that the end
is in sight and whatever wehave to give up.
(08:34):
We have to give up in order tohave some kind of peace and
stopping the bloodbath.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Laurent, this, seems, really makes me feel really
depressed, because I know theday this war started, you and I
you're Swiss, I'm half Swiss,swiss and British we suggested
what Gunilla just said Ukrainecan't win this.
Maybe it would be better to doa deal now and wait till Putin
(09:00):
dies, rather than the tens ofthousands, hundreds of thousands
of people who will die if thiswar goes on.
Now it feels like we're kind ofback where we started Ukraine
can't win it.
Hundreds of thousands of peoplehave died.
I mean, how does this work now?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
I think the diagnosis that we made at that time is
still valid.
But we cannot blame PresidentZelensky and the Ukrainians to
try to defend their territory,and I think they're still
willing to do that.
So there is no guarantee that,even if a deal is secured by the
(09:37):
US and by the Russians, theUkrainians will just say, ok, we
agree with that and we stopfighting.
And some of the fighters arealready saying that if President
Zelensky himself sign a deal,they might be tempted to go on
because they just don't acceptthe loss of the territories.
(09:58):
But first one is that, yeah, theWestern countries, apart from
the US, will never admitpublicly what we're discussing
(10:20):
about, because that would givethe impression that they let
Ukraine down in a way, and theydo not want to give that
impression.
So there is a moral component,and the difference is that Trump
doesn't care at all about moraland he cares only about that
transactional approach.
(10:41):
And the other thing is that,yeah, now we felt that we really
shifted from nothing aboutUkraine without Ukrainians
towards a new bilateralframework.
Nothing about Ukraine withoutUkrainians towards a new
bilateral framework.
And that's really a terraincognita for Europeans and
they're angry for their ownsecurity.
(11:02):
But they're also angry about apotential framework which could
be used on other fronts on theinternational area.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
It strikes me this could set a really dangerous
precedent where one countryinvades another and then at the
end of it, the people whosupported the country that was
invaded then go to the invaderand say, yeah, let's do a deal.
I mean, this is surely part ofthe problem.
(11:32):
It's the way this is being done, very transactional.
I mean, I thought it was reallyreally significant that the one
US administration figure whowent to Ukraine first was not
the Secretary of State, it wasnot the Defence Secretary, it
was the Treasury Secretary,scott Besant, and he went to
(11:54):
Zelensky and said sign thiscontract.
It was not the defencesecretary, it was the treasury
secretary, scott Besant, and hewent to Zelensky and said sign
this contract, signing away yourrare earth minerals, and then
maybe we can do something foryou.
I mean, this is just not.
I mean I'm also wondering maybesomebody wants to come in there
as well where it is the UN'sconflict resolution role in this
(12:14):
.
Nowhere, they've not beenmentioned at all.
Speaker 6 (12:17):
No, I just want to add what you say here about the
mineral agreement, the rareearth minerals.
It is incredible how that cameup from.
Zelensky proposed a little bitthat deal but then when the US
came and said you know you wanta security guarantees, you sign
this.
And then Zelensky realized youknow it's half of it's basically
an economic colonization ofUkraine and he backed up.
(12:41):
But the pressure is enormous onZelensky to sign off and give
away very, very importantnatural resources If he's going
to get any kind of support fromthe US.
It is blackmail.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
If he's going to get any kind of support from the US.
It is blackmail.
Nick Laurent, where do youthink this is peacemaking that
Gunilla has termed blackmail?
Where is Guterres in this?
Speaker 4 (13:05):
I don't think the UN has any part in this at all.
But I mean, I think what's sodisturbing which is a point that
Laurent made earlier was that,you know, ukraine isn't even
involved, but also Europe.
I mean, it's hardly news thatAmerica's priorities are
pivoting towards Asia and awayfrom Europe.
We hear that Marco Rubio'sfirst 10 international calls
after starting as Secretary ofState didn't include any of
(13:27):
America's European allies.
But the buildup to these talkscould hardly have been less
propitious.
I mean, with Hegsath's verystumbling performance in Munich
and Vance's Vice President,vance's extraordinary statement,
the fact that he goes fromlaying a wreath at Dachau to
(13:48):
cozying up to the hard rightparties whose antecedents are
with the people who built Dachauand who are deeply anti-Semitic
.
I mean it was an extraordinaryperformance.
And then a statement full ofdistortion and half-truths.
And lies actually, and lies,which really just opened up the
(14:11):
divisions between Europe and theUnited States, and it's hard to
see how demonstrating the gapbetween America and its NATO
allies somehow strengthensAmerica's positions when it
comes to negotiating with Putin.
And I think the other concernalso is that although President
Trump and his acolytes like toproclaim him the greatest deal
(14:34):
maker on the planet, the fact isthat his international record
isn't very good.
We saw the agreement that henegotiated with the Taliban,
which again was over the headsof the Afghan government, and
that was a major contributor tothe debacle that followed.
We saw how he was kind ofplayed in the rather fruitless
negotiations or discussions withNorth Korean leader Kim Jong-un
(14:57):
.
I don't think many people wouldbet on Trump coming out on top
in a negotiation with Putin.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
As you said, nick, the basic of a negotiation is
not disclosing to yourinterlocutor, the stakeholder.
You're negotiating with theconcessions that you're ready to
make, and Trump already gavethe impression to make
concessions about everythingPresident Putin would like to
(15:24):
see happening for Russia.
So what do you negotiate then?
Because everything has beenpretty much negotiated already
by these concessions.
And answering to the questionof where could the UN stand with
that, it's really difficult,because the only language that
Trump is understanding is thelanguage of the deal, and for
(15:47):
him, deal means bilateralagreements between only two
stakeholders.
And if you look at what MarcoRubio said after the meeting in
Riyadh, he just added that, yeah, at one point the Europeans and
the Ukrainians will beassociated, but the main
framework will remain high-levelteams between Americans and
(16:11):
Russia.
So that means that there won'tbe any change in that boundaries
, because this is precisely thecore component of a negotiation,
the way it is understood byPresident Trump.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
I think also that you know what is this deal going to
be all about?
Because, in a way, from yourpoint of view, it's seen like, I
think, the the UN first of allis completely out of the picture
.
The UN is not going to haveanything to deal with this.
I think, unfortunately, it'sgoing to be the US and Russia.
They're going to make up,they're going to present this in
(16:46):
one way or another to Zelensky,to Europe, and the really
upsetting thing for Europe hereis that we're going to be
presented with almost a faitaccompli and, at the same time,
europe is expected to beresponsible for the
reconstruction of Ukrainesending troops to Ukraine,
having troops on the ground tooversee a ceasefire.
(17:10):
So the US will take thedecisions together with Russia,
with Putin, but then who isgoing to do the real work
afterwards?
It is Europe.
So we are just being told,basically, and then we're going
to be expected to pick up thepieces, and this is very
upsetting for Europe and forUkraine of course.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
And also I mean there's another transactional
element in there, this push forEurope to spend more on defence,
which they can't make their ownfast enough.
So who are they going to haveto buy it for?
Guess where?
America, particularly Britain.
Their defence systems arealready quite interoperable,
(17:48):
britain and the US.
So this is again.
It's all flowing back to UScoffers.
Well, maybe I'm very cynicalabout it, but I've never maybe
this is very subjective I'venever particularly felt that the
transatlantic relationship thatis being portrayed now is that
America has protected Europe for70 years.
(18:08):
It has always been a two-waystreet.
We were, when I was very young,a teenager, I was worried we
were becoming the US's nuclearmissile carrier in Britain.
With cruise missiles we wouldhave been the targets first.
That was in America's interest.
Exeth and JD Vance to speak sodisrespectfully of a continent,
the one in the world, whichstill tries to really uphold and
(18:42):
respect international law andhuman rights.
Speaker 6 (18:46):
Yeah, at the same time.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but Ithink he has some points about
Europe, and I think that'ssomething the Europe, eu and
Europe realizes now.
We have to be more united, wehave to pay more for defense, we
have to contribute more than wedo in relation to GDP per
capita, so it's really Europehas to beef up the spending on
(19:07):
defense.
I think it's been a realizationthat we have more to do in
Europe, also uniting.
I don't think, though.
You know there's also this talkabout having European force,
european army, eu army.
I think that, though, is farfrom being anything realistic.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Lauren.
Where does Switzerland sit inthis, it being neutral, and the
one European country that seemednot to express discomfort with
what JD Vance and Pete Hexethhad to say in Munich was
Switzerland's president KarenKeller Suter.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
I think there is a will by the Swiss government to
try to keep all the channelsopen both with Moscow and
Washington, and Moscow isalready quite angry with the
sanctions that were taken bySwitzerland.
So that means that the Swissgovernment doesn't want to make
(20:03):
Donald Trump angry and or theTrump administration angry with
it.
But the problem is that and thereaction of the Swiss president
to Gideon's speech is a perfectexample of that is that for now
they haven't been able toclearly find a way to position
themselves towards that newadministration in a way that
(20:27):
would both be appropriate, withthe goal of being that middle
ground and keeping all thechannels open and, at the same
time, trying not to give theimpression to endorse such
speeches.
And I think the comparison thatthe Swiss president made by
saying that this was a typicallySwiss minded speech and the
(20:50):
plea for direct democracies isjust a massive blunder and
irrelevant, because there is nodirect democracy at the federal
level in the US and there is notradition of coalition
government that you could findin Europe or the kind of
government encompassing a lot ofdifferent political parties
(21:10):
that we have in Switzerland.
And the other thing I would liketo add on that is that the last
weeks and months have been animportant diplomatic defeat for
Switzerland, because Switzerlandinvested massively on that
process that led to theBurgenstock Summit last year,
and all about that was one yes,to include Russia, but to have a
(21:34):
framework that will beinclusive, with all the
different countries associated.
And there, number one, we endup with a meeting in Saudi
Arabia and not in Switzerlandanymore, as it was the case for
Biden and Putin.
So, first defeat forSwitzerland and number two, all
that work, that multilateralwork that was done by
(21:56):
Switzerland to have everyone onboard and to try to build a
consensus around a plan for apotential negotiation, has just
been reduced to nothing by Trump, because he's not interested in
that kind of format.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
I did hear also, though, that, of course, one of
the reasons the meeting of thesetwo big autocratic beasts,
trump and Putin, for SaudiArabia is that, I mean, if Putin
were to come somewhere likeSwitzerland, switzerland would
have to arrest him.
Yeah, I mean, he's an indictedwar criminal.
So I mean it would be quite adilemma, wouldn't it, to say
(22:37):
we're the peacemakers, but we'regoing to have to arrest you.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
I'm not so sure about that, because there are
exemptions that can be grantedby the ICC, and actually the
question was asked directly tothe former president, viola
Amert, in the Bergenstock andshe answered that if President
Putin comes to Switzerland tonegotiate a peace deal, these
(23:00):
exemptions could apply andapparently there wouldn't be any
reason to not letting him cometo the Swiss territory and then
arresting him so he could comeand he could take part to a
negotiation.
That's the conclusion that theSwiss reached, but it seems that
legally, these exemptions arepossible with the ICC.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
As we said at the beginning, the events are moving
really, really fast.
But people I've talked to whodo know a bit about peace
building and conflict resolutionsay over and over again this is
not going to be easy, it's notgoing to be a snap deal, but if
it is it would set very badprecedents of might makes right
(23:47):
for all sorts of despots andautocrats.
I mean, we have conflicts allover the place.
We have DRC, we have Sudanplace.
We have DRC, we have Sudan.
We can't predict.
But just a final analysis.
Do you think, gunilla I'll cometo you first that Ukraine is
(24:09):
going to get a voice eventually?
Speaker 6 (24:10):
in this, can we get a stable piece out of this?
I think maybe Ukraine will geta very, very, very small piece
of this cake.
I think basically they willhave to, unfortunately.
I think they will have toaccept what Russia has occupied
so far 20% of the country.
I don't think it will be partof the Russian Federation
formally, but I think Ukrainewill have to give that up.
(24:33):
I do not think they're going toget any promises of NATO
membership.
I think there will be some kindof massive security guarantees
given from Europe, perhaps alsowith the US, perhaps in exchange
of an agreement about theminerals.
I think there could be ademilitarized zone somehow in
(24:55):
Ukraine and who will be guardingthat one Europe?
Probably, perhaps soldiers fromtroops from Arab countries or
from India.
Unfortunately, I think this isgoing to be the case and
Zelensky has to accept that.
Then it's going to be anelection, also probably in
Ukraine, and then Zelensky riskreally losing it because his
(25:18):
people might feel also that hewent into this war and he didn't
win anything and he might justbe ousted.
And then the scary thing couldbe that there is someone else
who's going to be in power inUkraine who is pro-Russian, and
this is what Putin would like,because then he could increase
his influence.
And this is what Putin wouldlike because then he could
(25:38):
increase his influence.
And then, of course, me beingSwedish we just joined NATO
we're very worried about Russia.
Scared People in my country arescared of Russia.
We feel like we are in a hybridwar situation with Russia today
, like Finland is feeling too.
We have incidents in the BalticSea every other week.
There's a big, big worry, andif there is this deal that I
(26:00):
think that I'm just outlining,just speculating for Ukraine,
there is a worry in the Balticstates especially, but also in
Finland and Sweden.
What happens next?
Is this going to encouragePutin to do something similar in
the future?
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Nick and then Laura.
Where do you see this going?
What are the perils andpitfalls?
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Well, I think it's really hard to say.
I mean, it's very difficult tosecond guess how the Americans
are going to negotiate thisagreement.
People around the Trumpadministration emphasize how
aware he is of the economicmuscle he has to bring to bear
on the Kremlin, particularly inrelation to oil prices, but it
(26:43):
seems to vary from day to day.
During the election campaign,vance said I don't care what
happens to Ukraine one way orthe other.
But then in his interview withthe Wall Street Journal last
week, he said you know, we docare about Ukraine having
sovereign independence.
Trump's special envoy forUkraine said in Munich that the
US wants a sovereign Ukraine.
(27:05):
But there was an interestingmoment where, in one of the
meetings in Munich, where aUkrainian MP asked Keith Kellogg
, who is Trump's special envoyto Ukraine how are you
approaching this?
Do you want just to stop thewar or do you want to win it?
And he said Keith Kelloggreplied well, it depends how you
define a win.
Well, and that's the point, wedon't know even what President
(27:28):
Trump would think is a win.
One suspects it's a win thatwould be purely transactional in
US interests, which is bad newsfor Europe.
And then I think another pointthat one has to bear in mind is
that this is not the only issuethat is going to complicate
European relations with the USin the next few years.
(27:49):
I mean we have, you know,america's withdrawal from the
climate accord.
We have America pulling out ofthe WHO.
We have America declining toparticipate in the Human Rights
Council.
We're seeing it essentiallyturning against the multilateral
system.
We see President Trumpendorsing a solution for Gaza
(28:09):
that would absolutely floutevery known international law.
So you begin to wonder really,what is left of the multilateral
system and the internationallegal protections that have been
so carefully built up sinceWorld War II, and I think it's
very, very difficult to see howEurope and the US align on these
issues.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Laurent, it is going to be very hard to kind of trust
the United States, isn't itAfter this.
It's so unpredictable.
The suggestions some of themcome across are so outrageous.
Speaker 5 (28:41):
You're right, and the thing is that if you want to
try to trust the US and to betrusted by the US, you will have
to play by Donald Trump'splaybook, which is trying to
show him what the added value interms of investments could be
for the US.
And once again this afternoonthe conclusion of the Russian-US
(29:07):
meeting in Riyadh is that wewant to launch again a great
cooperation in order to openways for investment.
So they don't even talk aboutsettling the conflict just for
peace, but it's already in thenarrative settling the conflict
(29:28):
to open investment, usinvestment in Russia again.
So the European countries willhave to play by that playbook,
but I would say that we willnever be able to talk about
peace and sustainable peace aslong as the Ukrainians are not
associated with that, becausethe US and Russia and I think
(30:00):
the bet of President Zelensky isprobably to try to secure that
minerals deal in order for Trumpto consider that, if he wants
to be sure to benefit from it,he will have to send some troops
to secure Ukrainian soils wherehe's going to get some earnings
with that.
(30:21):
But for now they're reallymaximalist in that approach.
They say we won't send troops.
The Russians now say we don'twant any European troops and the
Europeans are divided.
So for me, that's the biggestconcern who's going to be in
charge of these securityguarantees if all the
stakeholders are going inopposite directions?
(30:44):
Regarding that particularquestion and I would end by
enlarging the scope of theanalysis If we don't deal in an
appropriate way with thatsituation, what will happen next
?
Speaker 1 (31:04):
So many questions, so much concern and uncertainty,
and, caught in the middle, acountry, ukraine, which was
invaded by its neighbour, haslost territory, lost loved towns
, villages, theatres, parks andhomes and, of course, tens of
thousands of lives.
A country that thought it hadan ally in the United States and
(31:28):
now feels abandoned.
What does that mean for futureregressors?
What does it mean for oldalliances, for respect for
international law?
We've tried to answer some ofyour questions here today, but
it's an unstable world out thereand things are moving very fast
, not necessarily in the rightdirection.
My thanks to Gunilla, nick andLaurent for their time and
(31:52):
perspectives.
If you've got another burninginternational topic you'd like
us to discuss, drop us a line atinsidegeneva, at swissinfoch,
and just before we go, here'ssome news about a new podcast
series out now from Swiss Info.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author
.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems social problems
and I'm the host of Lost Cells,a thrilling new investigative
podcast that will make youquestion the promises behind
private stem cell banking.
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
(32:39):
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
they pinned their hopes on?
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swiss Info podcast.
(33:01):
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
That does sound pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini when LostCells comes out.
And, of course, do join us nexttime on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with ouroccasional series of books to
make you think, talking torenowned human rights defender
Ken Roth about his new bookWriting Wrongs, and
(33:29):
international law professorAndrew Clapham about his book
called simply War.
It has just won the prestigiousPaul Reuter Prize for major
contributions to ourunderstanding of international
humanitarian law.
That's out on March 4th.
Before that, if you wantobjective clarity about conflict
(33:51):
, climate change, human rights,international law or any other
of today's global challenges,then take a look at our previous
episodes and subscribe to uswherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks for listening to InsideGeneva.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme….
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It started before dawn.
Ukraine woke to explosionsaround the capital Kiev.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
In the last several hours, Russia has invaded
Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
We stand with Ukraine now and in the future.
That starts on the battlefield.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Tonight in a radical break with the past the US and
Russia agreeing to work together, the two sides discussing how
to end Russia's war in Ukraine,but doing so without any
Ukrainian officials present.
We couldn't have imagined abetter result after this session
.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
But today I heard oh well, we weren't invited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it threeyears.
You should have never startedit.
You could have made a deal.
How are you approaching this?
Do you want just to stop thewar or do you want to win it?
And that's the point.
We don't know even whatPresident Trump would think is a
win.
One suspects it's a win thatwould be purely transactional in
(01:17):
US interests, which is bad newsfor Europe.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an
unrealistic objective.
The United States does notbelieve that NATO membership for
Ukraine is a realistic outcomeof a negotiated settlement.
Instead, any security guaranteemust be backed by capable
European and non-European troops.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
Europe is expected to be responsible for the
reconstruction of Ukraine,having troops on the ground to
oversee a ceasefire.
So the US will take thedecisions together with Russia,
with Putin, but then who isgoing to do the real work
afterwards?
It is Europe.
Can you assure this audiencethat Ukrainians will be at the
table and Europeans will be atthe table.
Speaker 5 (02:07):
The answer to that last question, just as you
framed it, the answer is no.
We will never be able to talkabout peace, and sustainable
peace, as long as the Ukrainiansare not associated with that,
because the grievances willremain.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Hello again and welcome to Geneva for our very
special episode Three yearssince Russia invaded Ukraine.
Events moving very, very, veryfast, so we're recording this a
few days before this podcastgoes on air.
Things may even have changedwhen we go on air, but what
we're going to try to do isexplore where we are now with
that conflict with threejournalists here in Geneva that
I've been talking to about thisfor the last three years.
(02:56):
They are Gunilla von Hall fromthe Swedish daily Svenska
Dagbladet, nick Cumming-Bruce,contributor to the New York
Times from here in Geneva, andLaurence Siero of the Swiss news
agency ATS, also a longtimecorrespondent here at the UN,
and we're going to try to unpick.
(03:18):
Is this really a peace deal, oris it just a deal about money?
Or is it just a deal aboutmoney?
Or is it even some kind ofcapitulation or a power grab by
countries that are already verypowerful?
And we're going to have a lookat where it leaves the United
Nations, perhaps also where itleaves European countries.
(03:38):
A lot to talk about, nick.
I think I'll start with youabout Nick.
I think I'll start with you.
I do remember that when the daythis war started, the day of
the invasion, you, laurent, andI were discussing this.
We know Western diplomats herein Geneva have told us privately
, off the record, that they knewa peace deal would come in
(03:59):
which Ukraine would lose someterritory, and that maybe the
NATO membership would have to govery far down the list of
priorities.
So why the uproar now about theUnited States saying this
publicly?
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Well, I think it was just extremely disconcerting to
see Defense Secretary Hegsworthcasually discarding issues that
could have served as levers inany negotiation on a peace deal
no NATO membership for Ukraine,which preempt in any negotiation
on a peace deal.
No NATO membership for Ukraine,which preempts their choice as
a sovereign government.
No deployment of US troops toenforce post-war security
(04:33):
guarantees.
Any European troops deployedwould not be under a NATO
umbrella.
I mean advertising hugely therift between this position and
the previous positions of NATOmembers.
And then, perhaps an evenbigger cause of whiplash was
Trump's 90-minute phone call toVladimir Putin.
(04:54):
You know, we know that Trumpshoots from the lip and we can't
prejudge the course of thenegotiations.
And we've heard people aroundhim saying you know, he's fully
aware of all the levers he's gotto pull.
But contacting Putin in this way, after three years of isolating
him as a pariah state for hisinvasion of Ukraine, chatting
(05:17):
chummily about the great historyof their nations, putting up on
Truth, social, this sort ofvery jolly record of the
conversation celebrating thefact that Vladimir Putin had
endorsed his campaign slogan ofcommon sense, no sense at all.
That he was dealing withsomeone who had violated the UN
(05:40):
Charter, butchered thousands ofpeople violated committed
numerous atrocity crimes.
None of that was evident orreflected in any of the comments
.
It was easy to understandreally why the Kremlin is
euphoric, why NATO states aredismayed and the sense of
(06:03):
victory already in their graspwithin the Kremlin is not going
to make it easier to negotiate adeal that Ukraine and Europe
would consider respectable.
So, I think, a huge source ofconcern and dismay among
America's former allies.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
I think that reflects a lot of what I've been hearing
from other people about this.
That very important not leastUkraine, seem to be shut out of
this discussion.
Gunilla, you of course, havebeen traveling back and forth to
Ukraine over the last threeyears Now.
The last time I saw you, youwere just back and you said that
people were very tired of thewar.
(06:43):
But is this a relief to them,the way this is happening now?
Speaker 6 (06:47):
I think it is what Nick is saying too, that this
was coming as a shock.
The phone call and these suddentalks in Saudi Arabia and it's
from Ukraine's point of view isseen very much as a betrayal.
It is partly what he's saying,but then the way it is done,
that is so clearly that Ukraineis, you know, ukraine, and
(07:08):
Europe too.
For that case, they are leftoutside this and they're
basically told that we're goingto give you a call and tell you
what's happening so we can tellyou the state of affairs, and
Zelensky is just shut out.
So I think, for many Ukrainianstoday, they're feeling betrayed
, disappointed.
Some, though, are feeling alittle bit.
(07:30):
There's a slight slimmer ofhope and a little little bit of
relief, because everyone wantsthe war to end.
People are so tired.
A lot of people I spoke to saidthat we have these missile
strikes and we have these airraid sirens all the time, and
the economy is falling apart,millions of people who have lost
(07:50):
their lives or are injured, orthey are refugees, and we just
want it to end.
And some people said actuallyjust a few months after the
full-scale invasion by Russiathat there is no way we can win
against Putin, against Russia,we should just cut a deal now,
(08:12):
when we can, and then maybe wecan change things later.
But if we continue this road,people will die, people will
flee, our country will beshattered, and this is what has
happened.
So mixture of feeling betrayedand feeling, maybe, that the end
is in sight and whatever wehave to give up.
(08:34):
We have to give up in order tohave some kind of peace and
stopping the bloodbath.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Laurent, this, seems, really makes me feel really
depressed, because I know theday this war started, you and I
you're Swiss, I'm half Swiss,swiss and British we suggested
what Gunilla just said Ukrainecan't win this.
Maybe it would be better to doa deal now and wait till Putin
(09:00):
dies, rather than the tens ofthousands, hundreds of thousands
of people who will die if thiswar goes on.
Now it feels like we're kind ofback where we started Ukraine
can't win it.
Hundreds of thousands of peoplehave died.
I mean, how does this work now?
Speaker 5 (09:16):
I think the diagnosis that we made at that time is
still valid.
But we cannot blame PresidentZelensky and the Ukrainians to
try to defend their territory,and I think they're still
willing to do that.
So there is no guarantee that,even if a deal is secured by the
(09:37):
US and by the Russians, theUkrainians will just say, ok, we
agree with that and we stopfighting.
And some of the fighters arealready saying that if President
Zelensky himself sign a deal,they might be tempted to go on
because they just don't acceptthe loss of the territories.
(09:58):
But first one is that, yeah, theWestern countries, apart from
the US, will never admitpublicly what we're discussing
(10:20):
about, because that would givethe impression that they let
Ukraine down in a way, and theydo not want to give that
impression.
So there is a moral component,and the difference is that Trump
doesn't care at all about moraland he cares only about that
transactional approach.
(10:41):
And the other thing is that,yeah, now we felt that we really
shifted from nothing aboutUkraine without Ukrainians
towards a new bilateralframework.
Nothing about Ukraine withoutUkrainians towards a new
bilateral framework.
And that's really a terraincognita for Europeans and
they're angry for their ownsecurity.
(11:02):
But they're also angry about apotential framework which could
be used on other fronts on theinternational area.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
It strikes me this could set a really dangerous
precedent where one countryinvades another and then at the
end of it, the people whosupported the country that was
invaded then go to the invaderand say, yeah, let's do a deal.
I mean, this is surely part ofthe problem.
(11:32):
It's the way this is being done, very transactional.
I mean, I thought it was reallyreally significant that the one
US administration figure whowent to Ukraine first was not
the Secretary of State, it wasnot the Defence Secretary, it
was the Treasury Secretary,scott Besant, and he went to
(11:54):
Zelensky and said sign thiscontract.
It was not the defencesecretary, it was the treasury
secretary, scott Besant, and hewent to Zelensky and said sign
this contract, signing away yourrare earth minerals, and then
maybe we can do something foryou.
I mean, this is just not.
I mean I'm also wondering maybesomebody wants to come in there
as well where it is the UN'sconflict resolution role in this
(12:14):
.
Nowhere, they've not beenmentioned at all.
Speaker 6 (12:17):
No, I just want to add what you say here about the
mineral agreement, the rareearth minerals.
It is incredible how that cameup from.
Zelensky proposed a little bitthat deal but then when the US
came and said you know you wanta security guarantees, you sign
this.
And then Zelensky realized youknow it's half of it's basically
an economic colonization ofUkraine and he backed up.
(12:41):
But the pressure is enormous onZelensky to sign off and give
away very, very importantnatural resources If he's going
to get any kind of support fromthe US.
It is blackmail.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
If he's going to get any kind of support from the US.
It is blackmail.
Nick Laurent, where do youthink this is peacemaking that
Gunilla has termed blackmail?
Where is Guterres in this?
Speaker 4 (13:05):
I don't think the UN has any part in this at all.
But I mean, I think what's sodisturbing which is a point that
Laurent made earlier was that,you know, ukraine isn't even
involved, but also Europe.
I mean, it's hardly news thatAmerica's priorities are
pivoting towards Asia and awayfrom Europe.
We hear that Marco Rubio'sfirst 10 international calls
after starting as Secretary ofState didn't include any of
(13:27):
America's European allies.
But the buildup to these talkscould hardly have been less
propitious.
I mean, with Hegsath's verystumbling performance in Munich
and Vance's Vice President,vance's extraordinary statement,
the fact that he goes fromlaying a wreath at Dachau to
(13:48):
cozying up to the hard rightparties whose antecedents are
with the people who built Dachauand who are deeply anti-Semitic
.
I mean it was an extraordinaryperformance.
And then a statement full ofdistortion and half-truths.
And lies actually, and lies,which really just opened up the
(14:11):
divisions between Europe and theUnited States, and it's hard to
see how demonstrating the gapbetween America and its NATO
allies somehow strengthensAmerica's positions when it
comes to negotiating with Putin.
And I think the other concernalso is that although President
Trump and his acolytes like toproclaim him the greatest deal
(14:34):
maker on the planet, the fact isthat his international record
isn't very good.
We saw the agreement that henegotiated with the Taliban,
which again was over the headsof the Afghan government, and
that was a major contributor tothe debacle that followed.
We saw how he was kind ofplayed in the rather fruitless
negotiations or discussions withNorth Korean leader Kim Jong-un
(14:57):
.
I don't think many people wouldbet on Trump coming out on top
in a negotiation with Putin.
Speaker 5 (15:03):
As you said, nick, the basic of a negotiation is
not disclosing to yourinterlocutor, the stakeholder.
You're negotiating with theconcessions that you're ready to
make, and Trump already gavethe impression to make
concessions about everythingPresident Putin would like to
(15:24):
see happening for Russia.
So what do you negotiate then?
Because everything has beenpretty much negotiated already
by these concessions.
And answering to the questionof where could the UN stand with
that, it's really difficult,because the only language that
Trump is understanding is thelanguage of the deal, and for
(15:47):
him, deal means bilateralagreements between only two
stakeholders.
And if you look at what MarcoRubio said after the meeting in
Riyadh, he just added that, yeah, at one point the Europeans and
the Ukrainians will beassociated, but the main
framework will remain high-levelteams between Americans and
(16:11):
Russia.
So that means that there won'tbe any change in that boundaries
, because this is precisely thecore component of a negotiation,
the way it is understood byPresident Trump.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
I think also that you know what is this deal going to
be all about?
Because, in a way, from yourpoint of view, it's seen like, I
think, the the UN first of allis completely out of the picture
.
The UN is not going to haveanything to deal with this.
I think, unfortunately, it'sgoing to be the US and Russia.
They're going to make up,they're going to present this in
(16:46):
one way or another to Zelensky,to Europe, and the really
upsetting thing for Europe hereis that we're going to be
presented with almost a faitaccompli and, at the same time,
europe is expected to beresponsible for the
reconstruction of Ukrainesending troops to Ukraine,
having troops on the ground tooversee a ceasefire.
(17:10):
So the US will take thedecisions together with Russia,
with Putin, but then who isgoing to do the real work
afterwards?
It is Europe.
So we are just being told,basically, and then we're going
to be expected to pick up thepieces, and this is very
upsetting for Europe and forUkraine of course.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
And also I mean there's another transactional
element in there, this push forEurope to spend more on defence,
which they can't make their ownfast enough.
So who are they going to haveto buy it for?
Guess where?
America, particularly Britain.
Their defence systems arealready quite interoperable,
(17:48):
britain and the US.
So this is again.
It's all flowing back to UScoffers.
Well, maybe I'm very cynicalabout it, but I've never maybe
this is very subjective I'venever particularly felt that the
transatlantic relationship thatis being portrayed now is that
America has protected Europe for70 years.
(18:08):
It has always been a two-waystreet.
We were, when I was very young,a teenager, I was worried we
were becoming the US's nuclearmissile carrier in Britain.
With cruise missiles we wouldhave been the targets first.
That was in America's interest.
Exeth and JD Vance to speak sodisrespectfully of a continent,
the one in the world, whichstill tries to really uphold and
(18:42):
respect international law andhuman rights.
Speaker 6 (18:46):
Yeah, at the same time.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but Ithink he has some points about
Europe, and I think that'ssomething the Europe, eu and
Europe realizes now.
We have to be more united, wehave to pay more for defense, we
have to contribute more than wedo in relation to GDP per
capita, so it's really Europehas to beef up the spending on
(19:07):
defense.
I think it's been a realizationthat we have more to do in
Europe, also uniting.
I don't think, though.
You know there's also this talkabout having European force,
european army, eu army.
I think that, though, is farfrom being anything realistic.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Lauren.
Where does Switzerland sit inthis, it being neutral, and the
one European country that seemednot to express discomfort with
what JD Vance and Pete Hexethhad to say in Munich was
Switzerland's president KarenKeller Suter.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
I think there is a will by the Swiss government to
try to keep all the channelsopen both with Moscow and
Washington, and Moscow isalready quite angry with the
sanctions that were taken bySwitzerland.
So that means that the Swissgovernment doesn't want to make
(20:03):
Donald Trump angry and or theTrump administration angry with
it.
But the problem is that and thereaction of the Swiss president
to Gideon's speech is a perfectexample of that is that for now
they haven't been able toclearly find a way to position
themselves towards that newadministration in a way that
(20:27):
would both be appropriate, withthe goal of being that middle
ground and keeping all thechannels open and, at the same
time, trying not to give theimpression to endorse such
speeches.
And I think the comparison thatthe Swiss president made by
saying that this was a typicallySwiss minded speech and the
(20:50):
plea for direct democracies isjust a massive blunder and
irrelevant, because there is nodirect democracy at the federal
level in the US and there is notradition of coalition
government that you could findin Europe or the kind of
government encompassing a lot ofdifferent political parties
(21:10):
that we have in Switzerland.
And the other thing I would liketo add on that is that the last
weeks and months have been animportant diplomatic defeat for
Switzerland, because Switzerlandinvested massively on that
process that led to theBurgenstock Summit last year,
and all about that was one yes,to include Russia, but to have a
(21:34):
framework that will beinclusive, with all the
different countries associated.
And there, number one, we endup with a meeting in Saudi
Arabia and not in Switzerlandanymore, as it was the case for
Biden and Putin.
So, first defeat forSwitzerland and number two, all
that work, that multilateralwork that was done by
(21:56):
Switzerland to have everyone onboard and to try to build a
consensus around a plan for apotential negotiation, has just
been reduced to nothing by Trump, because he's not interested in
that kind of format.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
I did hear also, though, that, of course, one of
the reasons the meeting of thesetwo big autocratic beasts,
trump and Putin, for SaudiArabia is that, I mean, if Putin
were to come somewhere likeSwitzerland, switzerland would
have to arrest him.
Yeah, I mean, he's an indictedwar criminal.
So I mean it would be quite adilemma, wouldn't it, to say
(22:37):
we're the peacemakers, but we'regoing to have to arrest you.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
I'm not so sure about that, because there are
exemptions that can be grantedby the ICC, and actually the
question was asked directly tothe former president, viola
Amert, in the Bergenstock andshe answered that if President
Putin comes to Switzerland tonegotiate a peace deal, these
(23:00):
exemptions could apply andapparently there wouldn't be any
reason to not letting him cometo the Swiss territory and then
arresting him so he could comeand he could take part to a
negotiation.
That's the conclusion that theSwiss reached, but it seems that
legally, these exemptions arepossible with the ICC.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
As we said at the beginning, the events are moving
really, really fast.
But people I've talked to whodo know a bit about peace
building and conflict resolutionsay over and over again this is
not going to be easy, it's notgoing to be a snap deal, but if
it is it would set very badprecedents of might makes right
(23:47):
for all sorts of despots andautocrats.
I mean, we have conflicts allover the place.
We have DRC, we have Sudanplace.
We have DRC, we have Sudan.
We can't predict.
But just a final analysis.
Do you think, gunilla I'll cometo you first that Ukraine is
(24:09):
going to get a voice eventually?
Speaker 6 (24:10):
in this, can we get a stable piece out of this?
I think maybe Ukraine will geta very, very, very small piece
of this cake.
I think basically they willhave to, unfortunately.
I think they will have toaccept what Russia has occupied
so far 20% of the country.
I don't think it will be partof the Russian Federation
formally, but I think Ukrainewill have to give that up.
(24:33):
I do not think they're going toget any promises of NATO
membership.
I think there will be some kindof massive security guarantees
given from Europe, perhaps alsowith the US, perhaps in exchange
of an agreement about theminerals.
I think there could be ademilitarized zone somehow in
(24:55):
Ukraine and who will be guardingthat one Europe?
Probably, perhaps soldiers fromtroops from Arab countries or
from India.
Unfortunately, I think this isgoing to be the case and
Zelensky has to accept that.
Then it's going to be anelection, also probably in
Ukraine, and then Zelensky riskreally losing it because his
(25:18):
people might feel also that hewent into this war and he didn't
win anything and he might justbe ousted.
And then the scary thing couldbe that there is someone else
who's going to be in power inUkraine who is pro-Russian, and
this is what Putin would like,because then he could increase
his influence.
And this is what Putin wouldlike because then he could
(25:38):
increase his influence.
And then, of course, me beingSwedish we just joined NATO
we're very worried about Russia.
Scared People in my country arescared of Russia.
We feel like we are in a hybridwar situation with Russia today
, like Finland is feeling too.
We have incidents in the BalticSea every other week.
There's a big, big worry, andif there is this deal that I
(26:00):
think that I'm just outlining,just speculating for Ukraine,
there is a worry in the Balticstates especially, but also in
Finland and Sweden.
What happens next?
Is this going to encouragePutin to do something similar in
the future?
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Nick and then Laura.
Where do you see this going?
What are the perils andpitfalls?
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Well, I think it's really hard to say.
I mean, it's very difficult tosecond guess how the Americans
are going to negotiate thisagreement.
People around the Trumpadministration emphasize how
aware he is of the economicmuscle he has to bring to bear
on the Kremlin, particularly inrelation to oil prices, but it
(26:43):
seems to vary from day to day.
During the election campaign,vance said I don't care what
happens to Ukraine one way orthe other.
But then in his interview withthe Wall Street Journal last
week, he said you know, we docare about Ukraine having
sovereign independence.
Trump's special envoy forUkraine said in Munich that the
US wants a sovereign Ukraine.
(27:05):
But there was an interestingmoment where, in one of the
meetings in Munich, where aUkrainian MP asked Keith Kellogg
, who is Trump's special envoyto Ukraine how are you
approaching this?
Do you want just to stop thewar or do you want to win it?
And he said Keith Kelloggreplied well, it depends how you
define a win.
Well, and that's the point, wedon't know even what President
(27:28):
Trump would think is a win.
One suspects it's a win thatwould be purely transactional in
US interests, which is bad newsfor Europe.
And then I think another pointthat one has to bear in mind is
that this is not the only issuethat is going to complicate
European relations with the USin the next few years.
(27:49):
I mean we have, you know,america's withdrawal from the
climate accord.
We have America pulling out ofthe WHO.
We have America declining toparticipate in the Human Rights
Council.
We're seeing it essentiallyturning against the multilateral
system.
We see President Trumpendorsing a solution for Gaza
(28:09):
that would absolutely floutevery known international law.
So you begin to wonder really,what is left of the multilateral
system and the internationallegal protections that have been
so carefully built up sinceWorld War II, and I think it's
very, very difficult to see howEurope and the US align on these
issues.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Laurent, it is going to be very hard to kind of trust
the United States, isn't itAfter this.
It's so unpredictable.
The suggestions some of themcome across are so outrageous.
Speaker 5 (28:41):
You're right, and the thing is that if you want to
try to trust the US and to betrusted by the US, you will have
to play by Donald Trump'splaybook, which is trying to
show him what the added value interms of investments could be
for the US.
And once again this afternoonthe conclusion of the Russian-US
(29:07):
meeting in Riyadh is that wewant to launch again a great
cooperation in order to openways for investment.
So they don't even talk aboutsettling the conflict just for
peace, but it's already in thenarrative settling the conflict
(29:28):
to open investment, usinvestment in Russia again.
So the European countries willhave to play by that playbook,
but I would say that we willnever be able to talk about
peace and sustainable peace aslong as the Ukrainians are not
associated with that, becausethe US and Russia and I think
(30:00):
the bet of President Zelensky isprobably to try to secure that
minerals deal in order for Trumpto consider that, if he wants
to be sure to benefit from it,he will have to send some troops
to secure Ukrainian soils wherehe's going to get some earnings
with that.
(30:21):
But for now they're reallymaximalist in that approach.
They say we won't send troops.
The Russians now say we don'twant any European troops and the
Europeans are divided.
So for me, that's the biggestconcern who's going to be in
charge of these securityguarantees if all the
stakeholders are going inopposite directions?
(30:44):
Regarding that particularquestion and I would end by
enlarging the scope of theanalysis If we don't deal in an
appropriate way with thatsituation, what will happen next
?
Speaker 1 (31:04):
So many questions, so much concern and uncertainty,
and, caught in the middle, acountry, ukraine, which was
invaded by its neighbour, haslost territory, lost loved towns
, villages, theatres, parks andhomes and, of course, tens of
thousands of lives.
A country that thought it hadan ally in the United States and
(31:28):
now feels abandoned.
What does that mean for futureregressors?
What does it mean for oldalliances, for respect for
international law?
We've tried to answer some ofyour questions here today, but
it's an unstable world out thereand things are moving very fast
, not necessarily in the rightdirection.
My thanks to Gunilla, nick andLaurent for their time and
(31:52):
perspectives.
If you've got another burninginternational topic you'd like
us to discuss, drop us a line atinsidegeneva, at swissinfoch,
and just before we go, here'ssome news about a new podcast
series out now from Swiss Info.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author
.
I've written four booksexploring humanity's fascination
with science as a solution tosocial problems social problems
and I'm the host of Lost Cells,a thrilling new investigative
podcast that will make youquestion the promises behind
private stem cell banking.
This gripping podcast followsthe stories of families from
(32:39):
Spain, serbia, italy and manyother countries as they embark
on a global quest to find theone thing they need the most
life itself.
Will they succeed in theirsearch for the stem cells that
they pinned their hopes on?
Tune in to Lost Cells, anoriginal Swiss Info podcast.
(33:01):
To find out, listen on ApplePodcasts, spotify or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
That does sound pretty interesting.
Do join Angela Saini when LostCells comes out.
And, of course, do join us nexttime on Inside Geneva.
We'll be back with ouroccasional series of books to
make you think, talking torenowned human rights defender
Ken Roth about his new bookWriting Wrongs, and
(33:29):
international law professorAndrew Clapham about his book
called simply War.
It has just won the prestigiousPaul Reuter Prize for major
contributions to ourunderstanding of international
humanitarian law.
That's out on March 4th.
Before that, if you wantobjective clarity about conflict
(33:51):
, climate change, human rights,international law or any other
of today's global challenges,then take a look at our previous
episodes and subscribe to uswherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks for listening to InsideGeneva.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.