March 1, 2025 • 15 mins
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the White House yesterday.
Things turned fiery when Vance began to question whether Zelenskyy was grateful for U.S. support.
Geoffrey Miller says if Ukraine was asking of New Zealand what they are asking of the United States, we wouldn't be happy either.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be by our discussion at the White House yesterday,
as I'm sure we've all seen Voladimir Zelenski there to
meet Trump in front of all the media and the
cameras and the clash as we've seen, and to discuss
that in the fall out from it. Geopolitical analyst Jeffrey
Miller is with me right now. Jeffrey, Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim.
What did you make at the display yesterday?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Well, look, it was all rather unedifying seeing this diplomatic
falling out. Fascinating for me as a commentator, because normally
these kinds of disputes are threshed out behind closed doors
and you just get dull statements issued and every all
smiles for the cameras. But you saw this all falling
apart there in the Oval office. It was fascinating to see,
(00:51):
but also quite it's quite shocking, actually just seeing this
all fall apart before your eyes. And of course the
deal was off, the mineral's deal that was all prepared
ready to sign, that was off. Lunch was canceled, and
the lot of Meselenski was effectively kicked out of the
White House. It was. It was quite a day actually.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Having said that, of course they did have the meeting beforehand,
didn't they wasn't that rightly?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I don't know. I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I think they started off with a press conference.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No so, I think that's what they call the press
spray and diplomatic terms or in US politics terms, where
it's a photo op effectively, then the doors are closed
and and then they have their full meeting and then
there's the press conference later. So the day really fell apart,
as I say, and the deal that was going to
be signed never eventuated, and relations really have brought bottom
(01:41):
between a lot of Manzolensky and Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Can something be salvaged?
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I think it probably can. A lot of Mezelenski said
that US interests Ukraine interests are bigger than just the
president's personal relationship, and I think that is true to
an extent. I think you've already been seeing some cleaning
up going on on the part of a lot of Messlensky.
He's been putting had a whole lot of posts on
social media saying how grateful he is and the Ukraine
(02:10):
is for the US support and that they can't do
it without the United States. So there's been some kind
of groveling that said he didn't make an apology when
he was asked whether we wanted to make one on
US TV on Friday night. And Donald Trump has made
that really the criterion for getting back on track, that
blot of Meslensky would make a public apology to him.
(02:34):
I'm not sure whether that's really going to happen, So
I don't know how they come back from here. You've
seen European leaders, of course, throwing a weight behind lot
of Mesalinski and Ukraine and showing great solidarity, and of
course Zelenski is now in London and they're preparing for
this big European summit today overnight New Zealand time. But
(02:55):
in the end US supporter is just crucial. There's been
about five hundred billion dollars New Zealand dollars in total
support for Ukraine from Western countries, about half of that
military aid and about half of that military aid, so
around about one hundred and twenty hundred and twenty five
billy in New Zealand dollars has come from the United States.
That the biggest single burner by far, and the US
(03:15):
has all the weapons that Ukraine needs, and it has
the most high tech weaponry in the world.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
So what about when does it leave the USA commitment
to Europe in general? I guess because if the others
are all getting sort of behind Zelenski and then Trump's
going to feel even more personally offended, isn't he.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Yes, this is clearly a split. There's a transit latter
Atlantic divide right now that is growing bigger by the day,
and it's the America first foreign policy and action. Donald
Trump has a very different view of the world and
he's following a very realist foreign policy, very transactional. It's
what's best for America. It's focused on deals. We've seen
(03:57):
that with regards to Gaza as well, of course the
proposals to displace the population of Gaza, for example. He's
putting some big ideas out there. I guess you could
say the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. China is another one.
And he's approaching foreign policy in a completely different way
(04:18):
to what we've been used to from the United States.
And even compared with Donald Trump's first term, this is
getting pretty big and it will be quite a new reality.
I think for Europeans to deal with, for New Zealand
to deal with as well. Remember New Zealand has got
to make its own choices now and whether it goes
into to orcus Pillar two for example. So there's some
(04:38):
huge challenges, huge questions ahead for foreign policy, both in
the United States but around the world.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
I want to dig into that in just a second.
But just back to that press conference. Where was there
a moment that you thought it went wrong? Was it
Zelenski said the wrong thing about JD Vance? What does
diplomacy look like to you? He should have just left
that for the meeting? Or was jd Evance coming on
off a long run up a little bit hot? Where
do you think it went wrong?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Yes, it did tend to go wrong that question of diplomacy. Effectively,
Vilensky questioned the ability to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and
said that Prutin just doesn't stick by his word, doesn't
keep his promises, and you can't really negotiate. You can't
merely have diplomacy with Russia. And of course that was
(05:24):
a red rag to JD Vance and Trump, who really
is staking there? You know they're they're backing diplomacy here,
and that's what they want to do. They want to
deal with Russia to end the war and they want peace.
And what Vilensky wants is security guarantees. And that's quite
a fancy term for really saying it's an insurance policy
(05:46):
to stop Russia invading again. Sign up, you know, Russia,
to stop Russia signing a deal saying you know, Wall's
over and then a year later or two years later,
invading again. Now, a way to look at security guarantees
is to look at say NATO, that's a security guarantee.
If you're a NATO and you're attacked, then it's seen
as an attack on all Alliance members and therefore all
(06:10):
the Alliance members will come to your aid. It's an
alliance based security guarantee. Now, US had said that that's
not happening with Ukraine because of the risk that would create.
And that's what Donald Trump meant really with your gambling
with World War three, because if Ukraine ends up in
something like NATO and then Russia does attack, then it
(06:31):
is World War three because you're ending up with a
head to head war between Russia and NATO. Are not
merely a proxy war as it is now with NATO
countries back in Ukraine against Russia.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But doesn't it I mean it needs some security guarantee,
that doesn't it, because otherwise we just see putin regroups
in a way. It goes again, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Indeed, there probably does need to be some kind of
security guarantee for Ukraine, and I think Trump's view is
that the minerals deal is an opening step towards that,
because you would have US business people in Ukraine as
part of this minerals plan. It would be something that
the US really needs because they want.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
To particular their wealth. Is it like Trumps saying, don't worry,
if we've got money, I'll will defend our interests exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
So essentially the US would have skin in the game
at that point, and there is an element of logic
to that. It wouldn't be the same as a formal
security guarantee, of course, and there might need to be
other aspects brought alongside it. But I don't think it's
necessarily a bad idea, as you know, as an opening
bid here. I didn't think it would hurt Ukraine. And
(07:34):
Trump's view would paying back the American tax payer for
all the support but I think from Ukraine's perspective, it
does have something to offer as well, because it sees
the U is literally being invested in Ukraine providing some
of these critical minerals which are so important now in particular,
you know with this big geopolitical competition with China, you
know there is a real race on to get these
(07:54):
critical minerals that can be used in high tech equipment.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Do we know what they're pushing for on that deal
with the minerals, are they because at one stage it
was they wanted a license to actually saw their rare
earth minerals forever.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Basically, I don't think it's one hundred per cent clear
exactly what that deal contains because it was never signed.
In the end, you know, it would involve Ukraine giving
up quite a bit, but therefore in exchange they would
be getting their implicit security guarantees, so it could be
a deal with signing and looked for a lot of
(08:28):
Meslensky was willing to sign that deal. It was all prepared.
He was going to sign that on Friday, So it
must have been judged to be okay in the end,
all worth doing, or he wouldn't have gone all the
way to Washington to the White House to sign it.
But there's clearly an awful lot of bad blood between
Zolensky and Trump, and understandably so. I remember Trump, it
was only a couple of weeks ago was referring to
(08:50):
him as a dictator, and it seems to be performing out.
They have all kinds of trivial matters as well, just
the matter whether he wears a suit or not.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I mean, I saw that.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
It's all a bit silly at that point, but you know,
some of these things do matter to Trump, and maybe
for Vilensky, perhaps he did play this a bit wrong.
On Friday, he wow, yeah, I'm go in there and
flatter Trump. So we're all very happy to be here
and then work out some of these details about security
guarantees and the minerals deal behind closed doors. And maybe
(09:22):
Vance in the sense had a point. Look at litigating
us before the media wasn't perhaps the smartest move, but
it happened, and now they had to deal with it. Well.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I guess actually I was wondering whether he deliberately wanted
people to know that you know that talk about diplomacy,
wanted to put that out front, that you know this
is what we've seen so far from Putin, and I
guess it was the way challenged jd vance on that.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
But how indeed, how much do.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
We know about how concrete the deal was that he
was coming to sign, because one suspects by the rhetoric
that there was still a bit to be nutted out,
Otherwise he wouldn't have been so perhaps provocative.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
There must have been a deal in place ready to go,
because these things are worked out behind the scenes in advance.
It really is in the end the last step the
leaders get together and sign on the dotted line. So
there must have been a deal there that was waiting
to be signed in another room at the White House.
Exactly what that contains and what that would have meant
(10:17):
we may never know because the deal effectively is off.
But you know, I still think it's worth considering, and
it would have to be part of a bigger package,
no doubt. But in the end, we do need diplomacy.
We've got to solve this war because a military solution
is just not working, and Russia is making gains in Ukraine,
and that's one of the things that hasn't been focused
on much lately. But Russia gained around four thousand square
(10:40):
kilometers last year and the inchin meted by meter over
in the use of Ukraine. They're gaining ground, not losing it.
And Ukraine now has all the weapons that in the
world really that it could need. It has all the
high tech weaponry, it has the attackings along range missiles,
they have the high mars systems, they have F sixteens,
(11:00):
they have all the weapons that they could could want,
and it's just not enough because they don't have is
the man power and they're losing men every week. It's
an absolute meat grinder go there. So in the end,
there is any a diplomatic answer, and it doesn't mean
you have to like Vladimir fruit and it's just the realities.
I don't think Western countries are willing to put in
(11:21):
boots on the ground. I don't think of Christopher Luxon
came out tomorrow and said to New Zealanders we're going
to send a thousand troops to Ukraine. That would be
a popular move. And I think even in Europe, I
don't think there's support in Germany, France, the UK to
send their soldiers to the front line because we can
see what a slaughter house it is. In Ukraine. So
if we're not willing to do that, then it's negotiations
(11:44):
are the only answer. There has to be a diplomatic
solution here.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Okay, Well, what's going to get them back to the table.
Is it going to be someone who seems to be
acceptable in Europe like Macron, you know, having a word
with everyone and try and get them together. And it
doesn't look like Kirstarmer is the man. But then again
Trump's put himself under pressure to do the deal as well.
Does that play a part? What do you think it's
going to get them back together?
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Yeah, Look, there's a certain amount of brinksmanship going on,
and no doubt and you will need some kind of
intermediary to go between Voladimislinsky and Donald Trump and try
and get them back together. I mean, debates are raging
online now about to what extent this was all theatrical
and perhaps in the White House on Friday, you know,
(12:27):
I think it was real. It looked real enough to me,
just falling out. But maybe there is an element of
that that both sides want to be maximalist at the moment.
Maybe Donald Trump by you know, and Dot J d
vance by ripping the steal up effectively and kicking Vilenska
out of the White House. Maybe that will provide some
kind of room to find some middle ground. Maybe both
(12:51):
sides will regret that big open falling out, and maybe
they will patch things up and meet in the middle
somewhere where they agree that the minerals deal is not
the only step, but it's a necessary step and beginnings
of a security guaranteed package for Ukraine. But it is
hard to see in a way that we're to want to,
(13:13):
but it is so personal. You know, it is possible
that for lot of Mezelenski is not the right leader
for Ukraine to work out a peace deal in the end.
If you think of the end of World War II,
tim and how Winston Churchill was voted out, and you know,
Kingdom voted in a labor government under Clement Attley. At
the end, they were very grateful for a wartime prime
(13:33):
minister in Winston Churchill, but when it came to peace,
they wanted a new face. They wanted Clement Atley. Maybe
that's the case here, and maybe there's just so much
bad blood that they're going to have to come up
with a new leader for Ukraine. But at the moment.
There's difficult when.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
You've got sex, difficult when you've got so many millions
people displaced in Russia, propaganda and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
But yeah, indeed, and the only and also brain.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Sorry Hitler blind his brains out by the time Atley
got elected of so that it was all over by
the shouting, if we could say the same.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Analogies are always a little imprecise, but I think you
know there is Look, I think there's a lot going
on here, and none of these these situations are that simple.
And I think it's always easy to look at these
things in black and white. You say to mensciuz the
good guy trumps the bad guy, prudent is the bad guy,
and make it out sort of very simple, good versus evil.
(14:29):
But I think in international relations, nothing or nothing is
very very simple, and situations are usually complex and a
lot of factors going on. So I think we just
need to look at the situation all objectively. And if
the war is not going to end in a comprehensive
victory for Ukraine on the battlefield, is going to end
(14:50):
with a solution, a diplomatic solution, not a military.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Much well, one that's cynically pragmatic, I guess might be
an expression ideus which may look I.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Mean, compromise in the end is something usually that both
sides are not particularly happy with. So you can set
ultimately that solution to the war will be one that
Russia is not really that keen on, and neither will Ukraine,
but it will be one that they have to live with,
and we can all hope that because at the moment,
at the rate of casualties in Ukraine is just shocking.
(15:21):
Thousands of lives being lost a week on the Ukrainian
and Russian sites. It's a real tragedy, it is.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Indeed, Hey, jiffare I really appreciate time this efvening, Thank
you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
For more from the Weekend Collective, Listen live to news
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'd be by our discussion at the White House yesterday,
as I'm sure we've all seen Voladimir Zelenski there to
meet Trump in front of all the media and the
cameras and the clash as we've seen, and to discuss
that in the fall out from it. Geopolitical analyst Jeffrey
Miller is with me right now. Jeffrey, Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim.
What did you make at the display yesterday?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Well, look, it was all rather unedifying seeing this diplomatic
falling out. Fascinating for me as a commentator, because normally
these kinds of disputes are threshed out behind closed doors
and you just get dull statements issued and every all
smiles for the cameras. But you saw this all falling
apart there in the Oval office. It was fascinating to see,
(00:51):
but also quite it's quite shocking, actually just seeing this
all fall apart before your eyes. And of course the
deal was off, the mineral's deal that was all prepared
ready to sign, that was off. Lunch was canceled, and
the lot of Meselenski was effectively kicked out of the
White House. It was. It was quite a day actually.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Having said that, of course they did have the meeting beforehand,
didn't they wasn't that rightly?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I don't know. I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
I think they started off with a press conference.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
No so, I think that's what they call the press
spray and diplomatic terms or in US politics terms, where
it's a photo op effectively, then the doors are closed
and and then they have their full meeting and then
there's the press conference later. So the day really fell apart,
as I say, and the deal that was going to
be signed never eventuated, and relations really have brought bottom
(01:41):
between a lot of Manzolensky and Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Can something be salvaged?
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I think it probably can. A lot of Mezelenski said
that US interests Ukraine interests are bigger than just the
president's personal relationship, and I think that is true to
an extent. I think you've already been seeing some cleaning
up going on on the part of a lot of Messlensky.
He's been putting had a whole lot of posts on
social media saying how grateful he is and the Ukraine
(02:10):
is for the US support and that they can't do
it without the United States. So there's been some kind
of groveling that said he didn't make an apology when
he was asked whether we wanted to make one on
US TV on Friday night. And Donald Trump has made
that really the criterion for getting back on track, that
blot of Meslensky would make a public apology to him.
(02:34):
I'm not sure whether that's really going to happen, So
I don't know how they come back from here. You've
seen European leaders, of course, throwing a weight behind lot
of Mesalinski and Ukraine and showing great solidarity, and of
course Zelenski is now in London and they're preparing for
this big European summit today overnight New Zealand time. But
(02:55):
in the end US supporter is just crucial. There's been
about five hundred billion dollars New Zealand dollars in total
support for Ukraine from Western countries, about half of that
military aid and about half of that military aid, so
around about one hundred and twenty hundred and twenty five
billy in New Zealand dollars has come from the United States.
That the biggest single burner by far, and the US
(03:15):
has all the weapons that Ukraine needs, and it has
the most high tech weaponry in the world.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
So what about when does it leave the USA commitment
to Europe in general? I guess because if the others
are all getting sort of behind Zelenski and then Trump's
going to feel even more personally offended, isn't he.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Yes, this is clearly a split. There's a transit latter
Atlantic divide right now that is growing bigger by the day,
and it's the America first foreign policy and action. Donald
Trump has a very different view of the world and
he's following a very realist foreign policy, very transactional. It's
what's best for America. It's focused on deals. We've seen
(03:57):
that with regards to Gaza as well, of course the
proposals to displace the population of Gaza, for example. He's
putting some big ideas out there. I guess you could
say the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. China is another one.
And he's approaching foreign policy in a completely different way
(04:18):
to what we've been used to from the United States.
And even compared with Donald Trump's first term, this is
getting pretty big and it will be quite a new reality.
I think for Europeans to deal with, for New Zealand
to deal with as well. Remember New Zealand has got
to make its own choices now and whether it goes
into to orcus Pillar two for example. So there's some
(04:38):
huge challenges, huge questions ahead for foreign policy, both in
the United States but around the world.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
I want to dig into that in just a second.
But just back to that press conference. Where was there
a moment that you thought it went wrong? Was it
Zelenski said the wrong thing about JD Vance? What does
diplomacy look like to you? He should have just left
that for the meeting? Or was jd Evance coming on
off a long run up a little bit hot? Where
do you think it went wrong?
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Yes, it did tend to go wrong that question of diplomacy. Effectively,
Vilensky questioned the ability to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and
said that Prutin just doesn't stick by his word, doesn't
keep his promises, and you can't really negotiate. You can't
merely have diplomacy with Russia. And of course that was
(05:24):
a red rag to JD Vance and Trump, who really
is staking there? You know they're they're backing diplomacy here,
and that's what they want to do. They want to
deal with Russia to end the war and they want peace.
And what Vilensky wants is security guarantees. And that's quite
a fancy term for really saying it's an insurance policy
(05:46):
to stop Russia invading again. Sign up, you know, Russia,
to stop Russia signing a deal saying you know, Wall's
over and then a year later or two years later,
invading again. Now, a way to look at security guarantees
is to look at say NATO, that's a security guarantee.
If you're a NATO and you're attacked, then it's seen
as an attack on all Alliance members and therefore all
(06:10):
the Alliance members will come to your aid. It's an
alliance based security guarantee. Now, US had said that that's
not happening with Ukraine because of the risk that would create.
And that's what Donald Trump meant really with your gambling
with World War three, because if Ukraine ends up in
something like NATO and then Russia does attack, then it
(06:31):
is World War three because you're ending up with a
head to head war between Russia and NATO. Are not
merely a proxy war as it is now with NATO
countries back in Ukraine against Russia.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But doesn't it I mean it needs some security guarantee,
that doesn't it, because otherwise we just see putin regroups
in a way. It goes again, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
Indeed, there probably does need to be some kind of
security guarantee for Ukraine, and I think Trump's view is
that the minerals deal is an opening step towards that,
because you would have US business people in Ukraine as
part of this minerals plan. It would be something that
the US really needs because they want.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
To particular their wealth. Is it like Trumps saying, don't worry,
if we've got money, I'll will defend our interests exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
So essentially the US would have skin in the game
at that point, and there is an element of logic
to that. It wouldn't be the same as a formal
security guarantee, of course, and there might need to be
other aspects brought alongside it. But I don't think it's
necessarily a bad idea, as you know, as an opening
bid here. I didn't think it would hurt Ukraine. And
(07:34):
Trump's view would paying back the American tax payer for
all the support but I think from Ukraine's perspective, it
does have something to offer as well, because it sees
the U is literally being invested in Ukraine providing some
of these critical minerals which are so important now in particular,
you know with this big geopolitical competition with China, you
know there is a real race on to get these
(07:54):
critical minerals that can be used in high tech equipment.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Do we know what they're pushing for on that deal
with the minerals, are they because at one stage it
was they wanted a license to actually saw their rare
earth minerals forever.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
Basically, I don't think it's one hundred per cent clear
exactly what that deal contains because it was never signed.
In the end, you know, it would involve Ukraine giving
up quite a bit, but therefore in exchange they would
be getting their implicit security guarantees, so it could be
a deal with signing and looked for a lot of
(08:28):
Meslensky was willing to sign that deal. It was all prepared.
He was going to sign that on Friday, So it
must have been judged to be okay in the end,
all worth doing, or he wouldn't have gone all the
way to Washington to the White House to sign it.
But there's clearly an awful lot of bad blood between
Zolensky and Trump, and understandably so. I remember Trump, it
was only a couple of weeks ago was referring to
(08:50):
him as a dictator, and it seems to be performing out.
They have all kinds of trivial matters as well, just
the matter whether he wears a suit or not.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I mean, I saw that.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
It's all a bit silly at that point, but you know,
some of these things do matter to Trump, and maybe
for Vilensky, perhaps he did play this a bit wrong.
On Friday, he wow, yeah, I'm go in there and
flatter Trump. So we're all very happy to be here
and then work out some of these details about security
guarantees and the minerals deal behind closed doors. And maybe
(09:22):
Vance in the sense had a point. Look at litigating
us before the media wasn't perhaps the smartest move, but
it happened, and now they had to deal with it. Well.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I guess actually I was wondering whether he deliberately wanted
people to know that you know that talk about diplomacy,
wanted to put that out front, that you know this
is what we've seen so far from Putin, and I
guess it was the way challenged jd vance on that.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
But how indeed, how much do.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
We know about how concrete the deal was that he
was coming to sign, because one suspects by the rhetoric
that there was still a bit to be nutted out,
Otherwise he wouldn't have been so perhaps provocative.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
There must have been a deal in place ready to go,
because these things are worked out behind the scenes in advance.
It really is in the end the last step the
leaders get together and sign on the dotted line. So
there must have been a deal there that was waiting
to be signed in another room at the White House.
Exactly what that contains and what that would have meant
(10:17):
we may never know because the deal effectively is off.
But you know, I still think it's worth considering, and
it would have to be part of a bigger package,
no doubt. But in the end, we do need diplomacy.
We've got to solve this war because a military solution
is just not working, and Russia is making gains in Ukraine,
and that's one of the things that hasn't been focused
on much lately. But Russia gained around four thousand square
(10:40):
kilometers last year and the inchin meted by meter over
in the use of Ukraine. They're gaining ground, not losing it.
And Ukraine now has all the weapons that in the
world really that it could need. It has all the
high tech weaponry, it has the attackings along range missiles,
they have the high mars systems, they have F sixteens,
(11:00):
they have all the weapons that they could could want,
and it's just not enough because they don't have is
the man power and they're losing men every week. It's
an absolute meat grinder go there. So in the end,
there is any a diplomatic answer, and it doesn't mean
you have to like Vladimir fruit and it's just the realities.
I don't think Western countries are willing to put in
(11:21):
boots on the ground. I don't think of Christopher Luxon
came out tomorrow and said to New Zealanders we're going
to send a thousand troops to Ukraine. That would be
a popular move. And I think even in Europe, I
don't think there's support in Germany, France, the UK to
send their soldiers to the front line because we can
see what a slaughter house it is. In Ukraine. So
if we're not willing to do that, then it's negotiations
(11:44):
are the only answer. There has to be a diplomatic
solution here.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Okay, Well, what's going to get them back to the table.
Is it going to be someone who seems to be
acceptable in Europe like Macron, you know, having a word
with everyone and try and get them together. And it
doesn't look like Kirstarmer is the man. But then again
Trump's put himself under pressure to do the deal as well.
Does that play a part? What do you think it's
going to get them back together?
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Yeah, Look, there's a certain amount of brinksmanship going on,
and no doubt and you will need some kind of
intermediary to go between Voladimislinsky and Donald Trump and try
and get them back together. I mean, debates are raging
online now about to what extent this was all theatrical
and perhaps in the White House on Friday, you know,
(12:27):
I think it was real. It looked real enough to me,
just falling out. But maybe there is an element of
that that both sides want to be maximalist at the moment.
Maybe Donald Trump by you know, and Dot J d
vance by ripping the steal up effectively and kicking Vilenska
out of the White House. Maybe that will provide some
kind of room to find some middle ground. Maybe both
(12:51):
sides will regret that big open falling out, and maybe
they will patch things up and meet in the middle
somewhere where they agree that the minerals deal is not
the only step, but it's a necessary step and beginnings
of a security guaranteed package for Ukraine. But it is
hard to see in a way that we're to want to,
(13:13):
but it is so personal. You know, it is possible
that for lot of Mezelenski is not the right leader
for Ukraine to work out a peace deal in the end.
If you think of the end of World War II,
tim and how Winston Churchill was voted out, and you know,
Kingdom voted in a labor government under Clement Attley. At
the end, they were very grateful for a wartime prime
(13:33):
minister in Winston Churchill, but when it came to peace,
they wanted a new face. They wanted Clement Atley. Maybe
that's the case here, and maybe there's just so much
bad blood that they're going to have to come up
with a new leader for Ukraine. But at the moment.
There's difficult when.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
You've got sex, difficult when you've got so many millions
people displaced in Russia, propaganda and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
But yeah, indeed, and the only and also brain.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Sorry Hitler blind his brains out by the time Atley
got elected of so that it was all over by
the shouting, if we could say the same.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Analogies are always a little imprecise, but I think you
know there is Look, I think there's a lot going
on here, and none of these these situations are that simple.
And I think it's always easy to look at these
things in black and white. You say to mensciuz the
good guy trumps the bad guy, prudent is the bad guy,
and make it out sort of very simple, good versus evil.
(14:29):
But I think in international relations, nothing or nothing is
very very simple, and situations are usually complex and a
lot of factors going on. So I think we just
need to look at the situation all objectively. And if
the war is not going to end in a comprehensive
victory for Ukraine on the battlefield, is going to end
(14:50):
with a solution, a diplomatic solution, not a military.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Much well, one that's cynically pragmatic, I guess might be
an expression ideus which may look I.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
Mean, compromise in the end is something usually that both
sides are not particularly happy with. So you can set
ultimately that solution to the war will be one that
Russia is not really that keen on, and neither will Ukraine,
but it will be one that they have to live with,
and we can all hope that because at the moment,
at the rate of casualties in Ukraine is just shocking.
(15:21):
Thousands of lives being lost a week on the Ukrainian
and Russian sites. It's a real tragedy, it is.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Indeed, Hey, jiffare I really appreciate time this efvening, Thank
you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
For more from the Weekend Collective, Listen live to news
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
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.