0:54

Multitask right now. Quote today

0:56

at progressive.com. on

2:00

Ukraine and we hope just

2:02

as much to be able to count

2:04

on you. Despite

2:06

his plea delivered in person

2:09

in Washington, a multi-million dollar

2:11

US defense package is embroiled

2:13

in partisan domestic strife. Petty

2:16

partisan angry politics can't get in the

2:19

way of our responsibilities of

2:21

a leading nation in the world. The

2:23

entire world is watching. What will the United States

2:25

do to think if we don't support

2:28

Ukraine? What's the rest of the world going

2:30

to do? And Ukraine's much-wanted

2:32

battleground counter-offensive has stalled,

2:34

with President Zelensky facing

2:37

criticism in his own

2:39

backyard. There seems to

2:41

be a frustration between President Zelensky, where

2:43

he has to talk up whatever

2:46

gains have happened for his side on

2:48

the battlefield, to appease Western

2:50

allies, but there's also a change

2:53

of view really from his generals.

2:56

Leaders of EU nations are also

2:58

debating funding for Ukraine, as well

3:01

as the possibility of EU membership,

3:03

but they've economic worries at home

3:05

and a war in the Middle

3:07

East to contend with. It's clear

3:10

not all states are on the

3:12

same page. Enlargement is not a

3:14

theoretical issue. Enlargement is a merit-based,

3:16

legally-detailed process which

3:19

has preconditions. Three

3:22

out of the seven is not fulfilled,

3:24

so there is no reason to negotiate

3:26

membership of Ukraine now. In

3:29

Moscow, Vladimir Putin appears to

3:31

be biding his time. Despite

3:34

sanctions, the Russian economy looks

3:36

as though it's holding up,

3:38

and President Putin will stand

3:40

for re-election next year. Our

3:43

armed forces, practically along the

3:46

entire line of contact, to

3:48

put it modestly, are improving their

3:50

situation. So is time

3:53

running out for Ukraine? If fresh

3:55

funds aren't secured, does Ukraine risk

3:57

losing this war? What is it?

4:00

President Putin's plan and how

4:02

make the war end. Those

4:10

are the questions we aim to answer with

4:13

our Real Story panel for this edition, along

4:15

with perhaps the most important question of the

4:17

week, will America provide more money? And

4:20

if it doesn't, can Ukraine keep fighting without

4:22

it? Let's meet our panel. From

4:25

Washington, DC, is Samuel Cherup, a

4:27

senior political scientist at the Rand

4:29

Corporation, an American not-for-profit think tank

4:31

where he specializes in the foreign

4:34

policy of Russia and of other

4:36

former Soviet states. He served in

4:38

President Barack Obama's administration as senior

4:40

advisor for arms control and international security at

4:43

the State Department. Samuel, if you had to

4:45

call it, who do you think has the

4:47

upper hand on the battlefield at the moment,

4:50

Russia or Ukraine? At the

4:52

strategic level, I would say that neither has

4:54

the upper hand because we've seen to a

4:56

significant extent stasis. Some movement here,

4:58

some movement here on the tactical level over

5:01

the last 12 months, but strategically there have

5:03

not been dramatic shifts on the front. Today,

5:06

I would say that there are areas where Ukraine

5:08

has tactical advantage and there are other areas where

5:10

Russia has tactical advantage, but neither of them, I

5:12

think, reaches either the operational or the

5:14

strategic level. Okay. Yulia

5:17

Osmorlovska, a former Ukrainian diplomat now

5:19

heads the Globsec think tank in

5:21

Kiev, which works to strengthen security,

5:24

an area she focused on during

5:26

her 15 years with the

5:28

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She joins us

5:30

from the Ukrainian capital. Yulia,

5:32

if you had to call it, who do you think has the

5:34

upper hand? A short answer is the

5:37

same, neither. Actually, I

5:39

think that it's not a correct question

5:41

to put to us because it's much

5:43

easier to answer more quantitative question like

5:46

who is leading in the polls,

5:48

Labour Party or Conservative Party for

5:50

next elections, rather than try to

5:52

assess the war, the sides of

5:54

the war, which is more of

5:56

the quantitative parameter. during

6:00

the course of the next

6:02

hour or so. And finally Gustav Gressel,

6:04

who is a senior policy fellow with

6:07

the wider Europe programme at the European

6:09

Council on Foreign Relations, a pan-European think

6:11

tank. Russia, Eastern Europe and defence policy

6:13

is central to his work. Before his

6:16

academic career he served for five years

6:18

in the Austrian armed forces and Gustav

6:20

is based in the German capital Berlin

6:22

from where he joins us. Gustav Gressel,

6:25

if you had to call it, who do you think has the

6:27

upper hand, Russia or Ukraine? Well, for now

6:29

we have Russia. They

6:31

are attacking on almost the entire

6:34

front. That doesn't mean they achieve

6:36

much of a result, but they

6:38

have the initiative and they dictate

6:40

the pace of the fighting. That's

6:42

of course nothing that has to stay

6:44

forever, but for the time being that's

6:47

the situation. Right, now

6:49

in September, here on The Real

6:51

Story, we examined Ukraine's counter offensive

6:53

on which many had pinned their

6:55

hopes. Three months on it's clear

6:57

that the breakthrough some had predicted

6:59

has not come. Since the

7:01

summer the front line has been shifted

7:04

very little. They have though denied Russia

7:06

any advantage. Moscow is in control of

7:08

about 20% of Ukrainian territory,

7:10

the same as it was a year ago.

7:13

As we move into the winter Russia has

7:15

expanded missile strikes to the highest level seen

7:17

this year. Russia has one

7:19

important advantage. It can afford to

7:21

wait. Despite extensive sanctions

7:23

and the loss of Western

7:26

customers for Russian oil, overall

7:28

the economy is resilient. Ukraine

7:30

though is dependent on handouts

7:32

and they're slow in coming.

7:34

Samuel Cherup in Washington,

7:37

President Zelensky has been there this week asking

7:39

for support. We're going to talk in a

7:41

bit more detail later about US funding. But

7:44

tell us briefly first, if US

7:46

financial aid doesn't come through, do you

7:48

think Ukraine can sustain itself on the

7:50

battlefield? Financial assistance

7:52

is really, you can think of it

7:54

in two buckets. There's the direct budgetary

7:57

assistance, i.e. the money that goes to

7:59

cover Ukraine. Ukraine's deficit and

8:01

goes to pay soldiers,

8:03

teachers, doctors, etc.,

8:06

keep the functioning of the state. And

8:08

then there's the military assistance and hardware

8:11

training, intelligence, etc. In

8:13

the short term, the biggest impact would be

8:15

felt on the financial assistance because that's

8:18

a hole that will emerge immediately

8:21

in January of next year.

8:24

On the military side, I don't think we're

8:26

going to see a rapid collapse

8:28

in the next three,

8:30

six months because we've seen

8:33

no sign of that so far. And

8:36

the defense has the

8:39

advantage in this war, has had up

8:41

to now for sure. So

8:43

the prospect of a hugely successful

8:45

Russian offensive in the short

8:48

term seems unlikely. But if

8:50

this goes on for more than that, I

8:52

think then the Ukrainian military could be in

8:54

trouble in terms of ammunition

8:57

and upkeep of systems and

8:59

so on. Kostov-Ressel, in

9:01

Berlin, you obviously have a military

9:03

background during your time in the

9:05

Austrian armed forces. You also focus

9:07

very much on military and security

9:09

questions. Is it fair to

9:11

describe Ukraine's counter-offensive as a failure? Yes,

9:15

it has not yielded the results

9:17

Ukraine was hoping for. It did

9:19

not yield the operative results that

9:21

were envisioned. It did not provide

9:23

Ukraine with a better position to

9:25

fight during the winter. So in

9:27

that sense, it had failed to

9:29

achieve results. It did, of course,

9:32

yield tactical gains, but they

9:34

could not be translated into something

9:36

bigger. Yulia Osmalovska

9:39

in Kiev, diplomatically and militarily, is it

9:42

fair to say that you know Ukraine's

9:44

position is weaker now than it was

9:46

a year ago? I would

9:48

disagree with Gustavo. I have to

9:51

remind you that the Ukrainian military

9:53

chiefs said that we shouldn't expect

9:55

one big police-crit counter-offensive. There will

9:58

be serious consequences. counter-offensive

10:00

campaigns and attacks and then

10:02

we will be judging the

10:04

result. Second comment is how

10:07

would you expect a successful result

10:09

if Ukraine started this counter-offensive with

10:11

only 30% of what it actually

10:13

needed and resources? And this is

10:15

already the question that should be

10:17

put forward to our partners because

10:19

when we assess the gap of

10:21

what had been requested by Ukraine,

10:23

then promised and then delivered by

10:26

our partners, so the gap was

10:28

big and actually if we would

10:31

have had received something that you received in

10:33

September this year but in the end of

10:35

last year so the dynamic of the war

10:37

would have been much different. I mean

10:39

President Zelensky's resolved since the invasion of Ukraine

10:41

by Russia last February has been unwavering but

10:43

as the war drags on and

10:46

few gains are made on the battle

10:48

with some back home including former advisors

10:50

and even serving generals are starting to

10:52

become critical of his strategy. I

10:55

mean just on that question, Ulya,

10:57

Ukraine's army commander in chief told

10:59

the economists last month there will

11:01

most likely be no deep and

11:03

beautiful breakthrough. How did that go

11:05

down with the president would you say? It

11:07

is a confusion of interpretation because

11:09

what General Zelusny meant actually he

11:11

assessed the situation from the militarily

11:14

point of view and

11:16

Zelensky assessed the situation comprehensively

11:18

as the president of the country.

11:21

So I wouldn't mix this all

11:23

together and I don't see that

11:25

there is a room for actually

11:27

interpreting this as a dispute among

11:30

the military and the political leadership

11:33

and the recent comments

11:35

of our president at

11:37

the press conference with the US

11:39

president Joseph Biden just proved

11:42

that we are determined to

11:44

go ahead and there is a strategic plan for

11:46

2024 which Zelensky actually

11:48

said about the war but he was

11:51

known obviously to reveal the details about

11:53

this. Sam Cherup in Washington

11:55

we've heard the mayor of Kiev

11:57

Vitalik Litchko saying that Zelensky's

12:00

rule is becoming increasingly

12:02

autocratic. He even went

12:04

as far as to say Ukraine could end up like

12:06

authoritarian Russia. What's going on, do you think? Well,

12:09

I mean, there are a couple of things. There

12:11

is the reality of a country that's

12:14

been under martial law for two years

12:16

where there is military censorship and sort

12:18

of by definition narrowing the space of

12:21

political discourse, which is completely understandable in

12:23

the context of the Russian invasion. As

12:26

time goes on, I think that

12:28

there are increasing frustrations among others

12:31

in Ukraine and Ukrainian politics about

12:33

that narrowing of that space. So

12:35

I think that there's a return to

12:37

a certain extent in recent weeks of

12:39

political debate in Ukraine, more open criticism

12:41

of the president and the government than

12:44

we had seen prior to this, I

12:46

think which was only natural in

12:48

a way. But the context of

12:51

the counteroffensive not being a huge

12:53

success creates an environment where politicians

12:55

who are not on Zelensky's team

12:57

are sort of incentivized to speak

13:00

out more openly. Gustav Gressel, I was going to

13:02

ask you about the polling figures. The

13:04

economists last month quoted Ukrainian polling as

13:07

saying that 32 percent of Ukrainians

13:09

trust the president, 70 percent trust

13:12

the army commander in chief, Valery Zalushny,

13:15

who was the one who made this

13:17

comment about no deal and beautiful breakthrough.

13:19

Do you think President Zelensky is politically

13:21

vulnerable? Well, if you

13:23

look at the long term trends in Ukrainian

13:26

policy, since 2014, the army considerably

13:29

enjoyed more trust and confidence

13:31

than any political institution, regardless

13:34

who was the president. So

13:36

that's actually nothing new here.

13:39

Second thing is, yeah, there are some interpretations as

13:41

a rivalry, but the thing is solution is not

13:43

a political animal. He has no political

13:46

ambition. So that is a bit

13:48

of a shadowboxing. And part of

13:50

that, because he has no political

13:52

ambition and he's a political guy,

13:55

is part of the reason why he has

13:57

high trust level, because he's down to earth.

14:00

military stuff. I think

14:02

that we are a bit overinterpreting

14:04

this. On Zelensky, his

14:07

ratings go up and down and

14:09

Ukraine still, despite the war, despite

14:11

of course the media marathon, etc,

14:14

it is still a country that

14:16

while it debates its political leaders

14:18

and politics. So it's also not

14:20

very unusual that the ratings go

14:22

down. One's success is not

14:25

so much there. On the other hand, there

14:27

is a wide consensus in Ukraine,

14:29

for example, that you can't organize

14:31

elections during the war itself. There

14:34

is a wide expectation that politicians

14:37

should do their job and stop infighting.

14:39

So it would be

14:41

for him the least clever thing to

14:43

kind of react too much on these

14:45

polls. One place where

14:47

you don't see much sign of infighting is

14:50

of course in Russia with a very different

14:52

political environment, not least for critics of the

14:54

president. How do things look, though, to

14:56

his supporters? Sergei Markov is a

14:58

good person to ask. He was

15:00

president Vladimir Putin's spokesman and he

15:03

remains a very supportive observer. It's

15:05

look like that Ukrainian offensive

15:07

crashed and in fact stopped

15:10

and the Russian army won

15:12

this battle. So now a

15:14

little bit optimism. Vladimir Putin

15:16

made a joke well and

15:18

the Russian army now is

15:21

much more prepared. And on the

15:23

next year, the Russian army will

15:25

go forward and will crash the

15:28

Ukrainian, new, necessary, and also public

15:30

terrorism regime. I think they would

15:32

dispute that. They would simply say

15:34

they are trying to defend and

15:36

have spent the last couple

15:39

of years trying to defend the

15:41

sovereignty of their country. First of

15:43

all, there are no sovereignty of

15:46

Ukraine. Everybody knows that the Ukrainian

15:48

government is absolutely 100% the popular

15:50

regime of the United States of

15:53

America and partly by Great Britain.

15:55

You are from Great Britain. That's

15:58

why you don't want to...

16:00

recognize that you make Ukrainian

16:02

slaves, your slaves, could stand

16:04

for your geopolitical interests. How

16:07

would you describe public sentiment

16:09

in Russia towards the

16:11

war and towards President Putin? Putin, he

16:14

will have elections and he will

16:16

get something more than 70% of our

16:18

laws. Enemies

16:21

of Russia, such as

16:23

America, England, Europe, hate

16:25

Vladimir. That's why we

16:28

like Vladimir Putin very much. Most

16:30

of the people want this war

16:32

to stop as soon as possible.

16:34

But at the same time, I

16:36

will understand that if

16:39

we failed the war,

16:41

next we will be

16:43

American and European occupation

16:46

of Russia exactly as

16:48

they occupy Ukraine and

16:50

Russians for sure don't want to

16:52

repeat the neo-Nazi terroristic regime on

16:55

Russian territory, which we have on

16:58

Ukrainian territory now. Around this time

17:00

last year, Russia was in control of

17:02

about 20% of Ukrainian territory as

17:06

we speak is in control of

17:08

about the same amount of territory.

17:10

Is Putin really winning this war?

17:13

And what would victory look like?

17:15

Russians, they used to be winners.

17:17

A Russian believes that

17:19

Odessa, Kharkov, Nikolai, Kherson,

17:22

the Paroia, they are

17:24

Russian cities and

17:26

they should be either part

17:28

of the neutral Ukraine with

17:31

Russian language as official language

17:33

or this city should be

17:36

part of the Russian Federation.

17:38

Whatever happens within Ukraine, I

17:40

wonder really strategically Russia has

17:42

lost because NATO has been

17:44

strengthened. You have two new

17:46

member countries who are your

17:48

direct neighbors, Finland and Sweden,

17:50

who are now NATO members.

17:52

Surely a stronger NATO is a problem

17:54

for Russia in the long term. The

17:57

joining conflict and freedom to NATO is

17:59

absolutely no problem. for Russia

18:01

is absolutely no problem, because

18:03

this country has been a member

18:05

of the European Union. In fact, I

18:08

would say political branch of NATO.

18:10

So it's no difference at

18:13

all. In fact, Russian role

18:15

in the history, to crush

18:17

any who pretend to be

18:20

the state of the world,

18:22

Russia crashed Noprion Bonaparte, Russia

18:24

crashed Adolf Hitler, now Russia

18:27

has to crush Washington, who want to

18:29

be dictator of the world.

18:31

So it's not ideal fate,

18:34

but it was not our

18:36

choice from our point of

18:38

view. Not Russia aggressive against

18:40

Ukraine, but it's United States

18:42

of America who are aggressive

18:44

against Russia, and they occupy

18:47

Russia, part of Russia, which

18:49

is Ukraine. So again,

18:51

Markov, of course, I should clarify that

18:53

Finland is indeed an immediate

18:55

neighbour, and Sweden is the next country

18:57

over. Gustav Gressel, on

18:59

that question of the NATO enlargement, what

19:02

do you make of Sergei Markov suggesting

19:04

that Russia isn't bothered by these

19:06

two new members of NATO? Well,

19:11

taking Sergei Markov seriously is a

19:13

tall order. Well, of course,

19:16

it is something that annoys them, but

19:18

they wouldn't admit. On

19:21

the other hand, Putin lined out

19:23

his long-aim aim as

19:26

Markov stated, to crush

19:28

and destroy the Western

19:30

international order. And

19:34

the war in Ukraine, the

19:36

Russian aggression against Ukraine and incorporating

19:38

Ukraine into a greater Russian empire

19:41

is a precondition to achieve that, to

19:43

reinstate Russia as a great power and

19:45

then to move on from there. In

19:48

that sense, yes, of course,

19:50

we can congratulate ourselves to Sweden and

19:52

Finland, but on the other hand, the

19:54

big problem that is posed by a

19:56

revisionist Russia is far from solved and

19:59

it's not solved. billion

26:00

dollars to Ukraine for their aid

26:03

which has been unaccounted for at

26:06

the exact same time that we are experiencing

26:08

an invasion on our own southern border that

26:10

he refuses to secure it. Right, and that

26:12

is key to this, isn't it? You and

26:15

many other Republicans are saying the

26:17

only way aid should be given to Ukraine is

26:19

if enough funding is

26:21

given to border security. It's

26:24

not just the funding for border

26:26

security, James. This is the problem.

26:28

It is the implementation of policies

26:30

that had been implemented during the

26:33

administration of President Trump which we

26:35

know worked because we saw the

26:38

border sealed. Sure. I just want

26:40

to return to Ukraine. You said that you were in

26:42

favour of pushing the Russians

26:44

out of Ukraine, but you think you

26:46

can do it through sanctions. I mean,

26:48

surely this far into the war, that's

26:50

wishful thinking, isn't it? No,

26:52

I don't say to push them

26:54

out. I said to apply pressure,

26:57

the global community needs to apply

26:59

pressure to Russia to get themselves

27:01

to leave the Ukraine. Unfortunately, what

27:03

we saw was the complete opposite.

27:05

Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline,

27:07

forcing us to be more dependent

27:10

on other energy sources. He lifted

27:12

the sanctions on the Nord Stream

27:15

2 pipeline, enriching Russia,

27:17

being able to sell that energy

27:19

and fuel their own

27:21

military. With all due

27:23

respect, Congressman, aren't you talking about a

27:25

point before this war started and what

27:27

should have happened? We are now this

27:30

far into military action and Ukraine is

27:32

begging for money and saying without it

27:34

we will be overrun by Russia. Doesn't

27:36

that have implications for the Western world,

27:39

which includes the United States? Yes, but

27:41

here's where we are. The

27:43

United States is going to run in

27:45

excess of a $2.5 trillion deficit this

27:47

year, somewhere between

27:50

$2.5 trillion and $3 trillion. That

27:54

is basically double what the entire budget of

27:56

the UK is. You're going to spend about

27:58

$1.5 trillion. for

28:00

your entire budget, okay? And so

28:02

why should the people of the

28:04

United States borrow money from China

28:06

to give to Ukraine? That

28:09

is not in our best interest. From

28:11

what you're saying, can Ukraine still depend on

28:13

America? It doesn't sound like it. I

28:16

think that Ukraine has been able

28:18

to give a lot of funding

28:20

from America that they have yet

28:22

to give a good accounting for.

28:25

And there's a lot of people, a lot of

28:27

Republicans, a lot of people across the country that

28:30

are completely opposed to sending any more

28:32

money to Ukraine until, number one, we

28:35

say our own border's secured, and number

28:37

two, until we have an accounting of

28:39

where all the money that's already been

28:41

sent there has actually gone. Republican

28:45

Matt Rosendale, US Congressman from

28:47

Montana, talking last week to

28:50

Jamie Komorosamy. Sam Cherub, I

28:53

noticed also that the House leader

28:55

for the Republicans was saying that

28:57

even if we say yes, there

28:59

are going to be conditions. I

29:01

mean, additional requirements to

29:03

influence how the money

29:06

is spent and how an

29:08

agreement is reached to end the war. He

29:11

was quite insane. They've not explained to us, they

29:13

being the White House, what the end game is.

29:15

So even getting the money is only a first

29:17

stage of this. Well, I think

29:19

that there's a bit of, you know,

29:21

this is a political bargaining going on here.

29:23

So I wouldn't necessarily read too

29:26

much into that, although the Republicans in

29:28

the House did send a letter posing

29:30

a number of questions about the US

29:32

strategy in Ukraine, questions that they have the

29:35

right to get an answer to from the

29:37

executive branch. I think

29:39

that we're going to likely see

29:42

some public discussion of that. But Congress

29:44

in the US, the role of the

29:47

legislative branch is to appropriate funds, the

29:49

executive branch that does the

29:51

foreign policy. So in a sense, once they've

29:53

said yes to the funding, they don't really

29:55

have control. But I suppose it does raise

29:57

the question, what kind of influence... White

30:00

House would want to have on the outcome.

30:02

Presumably, it's just not going to be content

30:04

to say, okay, whatever you, however you want

30:06

to settle this, President Zelensky, we're with you.

30:09

Well, I mean, that's something of a

30:11

paraphrase of the current existing

30:13

approach. In other words, that it's up to

30:16

Ukraine to decide. And that is just reflective

30:18

of the reality that it's Ukraine doing the

30:20

fighting, not the United States. The United States

30:22

is supporting Ukraine. But,

30:25

you know, we're not a belligerent in this war.

30:27

And thus, our ability to micromanage

30:30

the outcome is by definition

30:32

somewhat limited. I think we

30:34

can, of course, influence things,

30:36

make suggestions, provide

30:38

advice. But at the end of the day, it's

30:40

on President Zelensky

30:42

to make decisions about war

30:44

and peace and, you know, the ultimate

30:47

nature of the endgame. And I think

30:49

that gets to the sort of structural

30:51

challenge in terms

30:53

of this question of outcomes. Like

30:55

for Western governments, it's just, they

30:57

are by definition, they can't determine

31:00

it because it's not their war.

31:03

Gustav Gressel in Berlin, the

31:05

Pentagon, the US Defense Department

31:08

is reportedly already rationing existing

31:10

Ukrainian funding, knowing that there's a possibility

31:12

that the money could run out altogether

31:14

if a new funding package isn't

31:17

agreed. What impact do you

31:19

think this is having directly on the

31:21

fighting? It already has

31:23

one. You see a decrease in

31:25

Ukrainian artillery activity and fire support

31:28

is generated through artillery in this

31:30

war. Because all the

31:32

Ukrainians need to ration their expense

31:34

for ammunition if they are not

31:37

entirely sure how the supply will

31:39

continue after the current batches that are

31:42

being delivered. How dramatic the impact will

31:44

be, we will see over

31:46

the last month. I mean, the discussion in

31:48

Washington will continue in January. Unfortunately,

31:51

there's a very similar discussion going on

31:53

in the European Union with Viktor Orban

31:55

playing the chief Republican here. The

31:59

discussion in Europe... is similar but a

32:01

bit more dramatic because the commission, what

32:03

the commission tries to get

32:05

through is long-term funding. Long-term funding would

32:08

allow defense enterprises, who are all private

32:10

enterprises and have to have

32:12

a return of investment, to invest

32:14

in an increase in production. An

32:16

increase in production would actually allow

32:18

Europeans to shoulder a larger share

32:21

in the war. Now,

32:23

this has been blocked and it again

32:25

boils down to short-term funding. The problem

32:27

with short-term funding is that it does

32:30

not provide enterprises with

32:32

a viable business plan,

32:34

how to expand production, how to

32:36

return on the investment in new

32:38

facilities, new production lines, etc. Yeah,

32:42

we will see a continuation of

32:44

what is going on but it

32:46

actually needs to be increased for

32:48

various reasons. The first is that

32:50

demand in Ukraine, the second, the

32:52

problems in the US, the third,

32:54

which nobody talks about, that Europeans

32:56

were critically short of ammunition and

32:59

stocks going into the war

33:01

and if the political situation in

33:03

East Asia, for example, deteriorates and

33:05

the US are bogged down in

33:07

a Pacific war, Europeans themselves would

33:10

not be in a position to

33:12

do much about their own security

33:14

and that's pretty appalling. Yulia Osmelowska

33:16

in keys, I want you to

33:18

come back on this funding question.

33:20

You might want for a start

33:22

to give your response to what

33:24

Matt Rosendale had to say there

33:26

to Jamie Kumara's army where he

33:28

bluntly said Ukraine is still

33:30

not given a good account of how it spent

33:32

the money it already has from the Americans. Well,

33:35

this is a despicable statement

33:37

because we've heard from the

33:39

Biden administration and special people

33:42

that have been assigned as

33:44

an advisor to overview how

33:46

the aid is being

33:48

spent in Ukraine, that there are no

33:50

complaints. So I'd rather interpret it as

33:52

a political interpretation, but when it comes

33:55

to capacity of Ukraine on domestic production

33:57

and some other stuff, so I would

33:59

definitely. I would like to publicly advise you

34:01

both and probably the listeners to this

34:04

program to view our

34:06

five security scenarios for

34:08

2024-25 that Globsec has

34:10

developed and where we

34:12

precisely describe all the

34:15

capacities that we have both

34:17

Russia and Ukraine in this war and the

34:19

scenarios and so on and commenting

34:21

on this assistance from the

34:23

Republican politician. So

34:25

okay, if you're not ready to give us

34:28

money, that's fine. Provide us with some

34:30

in-kind assistance that we would be happily

34:33

receiving also. So instead of

34:35

just sending money, we are happy

34:37

with this because the next phase

34:39

of this war will be of

34:41

technological nature. So Ukraine is definitely

34:43

understanding that we can't over beat

34:45

Russia and achieve superiority in

34:47

numbers when it comes to manpower

34:50

and military equipment, but we

34:52

definitely in the position of having this

34:54

technological superiority. And

34:57

what we do with drones, UIVs

34:59

and FPVs, and all this is

35:01

actually clearly stated in our document,

35:03

it is impressive. Just look at what we

35:06

managed to achieve in the vaccine region. So

35:08

that means that the current

35:11

debates are about providing Ukraine

35:13

with more advanced technical equipment

35:15

and something that could help

35:17

us to improve situational awareness,

35:20

electronic warfare, precision strike capability

35:22

and force protection. So

35:24

this would be enough for Ukraine to sustain

35:26

this war and to eventually win

35:28

it. Okay, a European Commission proposal that

35:31

would provide about $54 billion to prop

35:33

up Kiev's

35:35

budget for the next four years has

35:37

been the subject of productive negotiations between

35:39

EU leaders at their end of the

35:41

year summit in Brussels ongoing as we

35:43

record this programme on Thursday afternoon. Can

35:45

I go back to you, Gustav Gressel?

35:48

It's fair to say that hasn't always been unanimous

35:50

support amongst European public opinion for funding the war,

35:52

but we have started to see public protests. I

35:54

mean, there was one in Berlin earlier this year

35:57

calling on the German government to stop arming

35:59

Ukraine. European

42:00

countries also had been suffered from the terrorists

42:02

and actually also had been some of them

42:04

sadly had been killed there So I don't

42:07

think that you would like to put this

42:09

question like that And this is the framing

42:11

through which our president is looking at this.

42:13

This is first moment Second

42:15

is even if he is

42:17

being pressed by the West and eventually

42:20

he would like to consider this He

42:23

need to sell this to the society first and

42:25

the resentment of the society to this idea is

42:28

very high despite different

42:30

fake news about the willingness of

42:33

Ukrainians to concede no The

42:36

recent polls still show that

42:38

it is roughly about 90 percent 90 Percent

42:42

of Ukrainians who are not ready to

42:44

consider any kind of conceding the territories

42:46

or any negotiating solutions to Russia

42:48

with Russia So therefore at

42:50

this point, I think that is

42:53

import impossible to actually raise this

42:55

issue Because the president

42:57

can sell this to the public and

42:59

which is more important if

43:01

he does this will create internal

43:04

resentment and political turmoil and I

43:06

think that this will weaken Ukraine

43:09

In its unity against the aggressor and

43:11

this will play very much in the

43:13

hands of Russia and actually will help

43:15

them to win this War and

43:17

some chair up in Washington in military terms

43:20

have been no substantial Territorial

43:22

gains for Russia or regains for

43:24

Ukraine with I think there's pretty

43:26

much consensus on that is

43:28

a negotiated Settlement the only way forward

43:31

to think well It's been

43:33

the position of the Biden administration from

43:35

the very beginning that this war will

43:37

end in negotiations It that does not

43:40

mean that that's a short-term prospect but

43:42

I think that the prospect of Ukraine's

43:45

ability to impose Its

43:47

preferred outcome using military means was not

43:49

considered to be a viable proposition from

43:51

the beginning now That doesn't mean that

43:53

Ukraine is going to be incapable of

43:55

further territorial gains or imposing costs on

43:57

Russia It's possible and potentially

44:00

even likely. But this will end

44:02

with a negotiated outcome at some

44:04

point. Now, I would say

44:06

that, you know, all sides have

44:08

an incentive right now when there

44:10

is no negotiating table to put

44:12

forward maximalist objectives in public, right?

44:14

That's standard issue. You don't

44:16

want to negotiate with yourself before the

44:19

table appears. So I would, you know,

44:21

qualify some of the rhetoric on both

44:23

sides that, you know,

44:25

with relatively maximalist objectives being

44:27

articulated. But I think really

44:29

this question is a matter of the

44:31

time when those negotiations will start

44:33

and under what conditions and, you

44:35

know, what the relative position of the

44:38

sides will be. That does

44:40

not mean that it's a short-term prospect. But I think

44:42

at some point it's inevitable.

44:44

Can I push on that next year? If

44:47

I had said that, I would say no. Can

44:49

I say no? No, you say no. Thank you.

44:51

Gustav Gressel, what about you? I

44:53

think it's quite elusive to talk

44:55

of negotiations. I think

44:57

it will remain elusive for

45:00

some years to come. I

45:02

tend to take Putin more

45:05

seriously by his words in his

45:07

maximalist goals. And that's his aim.

45:09

That's fairly consistent with his

45:11

worldview and what he said before. He

45:14

has invested quite a lot of resources

45:16

and domestic standing into the world. He

45:18

still has a prospect of Donald Trump

45:20

returning to the White House. So why

45:22

would he agree now to 20 percent

45:24

of Ukraine when Trump might give him

45:26

more? And even that, he

45:28

wants to destroy the entire country. His

45:30

vision, his legacy as

45:32

a politician is based on the

45:34

vision of a resurrection of the

45:37

Soviet Union. I

45:41

don't think there is much

45:43

common ground to strike somewhere.

45:45

Ukraine is fighting for its

45:47

very existence. You can't negotiate

45:49

your existence away. You can't

45:52

expect anybody from negotiating

45:54

your own existence away.

45:56

So I think it's

45:59

it's. edition

50:00

of the real story. This

50:05

episode is brought to you by Progressive.

50:08

Most of you aren't just listening right

50:10

now. You're driving, cleaning, and even exercising.

50:13

But what if you could be saving money by switching to

50:15

Progressive? Drivers who save by

50:18

switching save nearly $750 on average, and auto customers qualify

50:22

for an average of seven discounts. Multitask

50:25

right now. Vote today at

50:27

progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance

50:29

Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of

50:31

$744 by new customers surveyed who are

50:34

saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential

50:37

savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and

50:39

situations. Tired of ads barging into

50:41

your favorite news podcasts? Good

50:43

news. Ad-free listening on Amazon

50:45

Music is included with your Prime membership.

50:48

Just head to amazon.com/ad-free news podcast

50:50

to catch up on the latest

50:53

episodes without the ads. Enjoy

50:55

thousands of Acast shows ad-free for Prime subscribers. Some shows may have ads.