The Hamas attack on October seven sent shockwaves around the globe. We begin tonight with the Middle East in flames.
Israel has formally declared war after that unprecedented, multi pronged terror attack from Hamas.
The new fears the surprise attack could spark an even wider Middle East war. Today, the Pentagon ordered US warships and forces in the region to move closer to Israel, including that.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is certainly not the only one taking place right now. Russia's warn Ukraine will soon enter its third year of fighting. Recent world events and the question of here will be the next US president have some allies wondering about how much military aid to keep providing Ukraine, with the White House has war in Congress that the United States is running out of money for Ukraine. Official say this will affect Kiev's ability to defend itself from Russia.
Tonight, Republican senators blocked a White House request for more than one hundred billion dollars in emergency aid, primarily for Ukraine and Israel.
Congress Republics and Congress has are willing to give put the greatest gift he could hope for and abandon our global leadership, not just Ukraine, but beyond that.
I'm joined by Bloomberg's Kiv bureau chief Dasha krasno Lutska and Alberta now Deli, who's corresponding at large for Europe, to discuss this more.
I heard from some law officials that maybe you know there will be no aid for Ukraine at all if Trump takes the seat, and then what The.
Bottom line is very simple. You cannot fight a war if you don't have artillery, and currently Ukraine is receiving less artillery than Russia is able to produce.
I'm your host Roslin matheson today on the big take. How is the Israel Hamas War affecting the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Your reporting begins by describing the day that Ukrainian President Vladimir Lensky arrived at the NATO headquarters in October the eleventh. I was in fact in Brussels during his visit, and indeed when he made his first visit to Brussels since the war in early twenty twenty three,
and the contrast was quite striking to me. But Dasha, can you start by talking a bit about Zelensky's goal going into that NATO meeting.
At that time, it was clear that Ukraine's controversy was about to wrap up as the weather was supposed to deteriorate, so surely he came there to update how the partners about the battlefield. That probably one of his main goals was to ensure that partners will continue to support Ukraine with ear defense. One of the key challenges that Ukraine is facing now whether Ukraine will be able to survive what is expected to be Russian missile attacks or drawn
attacks at energy infrastructure, exactly what happened last winter. Since last winter, Ukraine got some additional ear defense from partners, but of course it's never enough. Russia pulled out of the grain deal and Ukraine established it's own corrido to expert greens, and since then Russia constantly attacked Ukrainian port infrastructure. So Ukraine was asking partners to provide some additional defense for that particular region.
It's interesting you talk about things that have changed in recent times in Alberto. I'm interested in your view about the atmosphere at that meeting. I mean, I remember again when Sinsky first turned up in Brussels and it was February this year. Just the huge crowds, the feeling of a moment, all the officials, you know, rushing to see him. It contrasted a bit with what we saw at this NATO meeting. Can you talk a bit about that.
First of all, the main difference is that the first meeting was ahead of the counter offensive. There were very high expectations that through the counter offensive Ukraine would take back significant chunks of territory that Russia has illegally occupied. There were lots of promises and pledges. The big difference with the second meeting is, first of all, it was shortly after an attack on Israel.
We have breaking news out of Israel this morning where Hamas has launched a surprise attack within Israel's borders overnight first.
Which distracted lots of attention away from Ukraine. Even if it doesn't make much of a substantive difference on the ground to Ukraine, still, the countries involved in following events and their concerns are taken up by another war. And the second main difference is that a lot of those promises that were made earlier in the year are not being met by many allies. Is one of the reasons why the counter offensive has not lived up to expectations and the mood going into next year is not great.
There's been a rising sense of frustration in a way with NATO and some European states that was already building before the Israel Hamas war kicked off.
There was and there probably is still definitely some frustration on the Ukrainian side. So Ukraine wanted much stronger invitation to join the military Alliance. Some countries, most notably the United States and Germany, did not want to provide that strong invitation.
President Zelensky has accused NATO of weakness and uncertainty over the reluctance of some members to set a timetable for Ukraine to join the Military Alliance.
NATO leaders there is probably frustration that some of the promises around weapons and specifically artillery are not being met. And the bottom line is very simple. You cannot fight a war if you don't have artillery, and currently Ukraine is receiving less artillery than Russia is able to produce.
And speaking of artillery, Dasha, could you just describe a bit what actually happened in the outcome of the meeting and your observations about Presidents Lensky's reactions to the meeting.
Ukraine realized that it won't get as many artillery shells, and it's expected it adds lots of frustration on the battlefield as well. Ultily remains one of the key weapons in this war, because basically both sides are in trenches and they use ultiately a lot to attack each other. And of course this war that broke out in the
Middle East didn't help at all. We know that Pentagon sent some shells to Israel, which means less for Ukraine, and in general, as President Zelenski said, focus was shifting from Ukraine to Israel, and that's what was very frustrating for Ukraine and remains very frustrating for Ukraine. The level of concern was already very high when the Hamas Israel war started.
We know, of course that there are weapons that Israel needs that Ukraine also needs. We know that there are limits on the ability of defense companies to produce stuff at Spade or to ramp up at Spade. But realistically, how much is it diverting physical weapons away from Ukraine.
I don't think that many to make a difference on the ground in Ukraine. That's what most of the reporting suggests. However, what the reporting does also show is that there is a problem, particularly in Europe, but to an extent also in the United States, which is very simply put that European countries do not have significant stockpiles of artillery. They didn't have significant stockpiles of artillery in the first place, and it seemed that there is a mix of capacity.
Like you say, it takes companies time to ramp up. Let's not forget that Russia is in a war economy, so it is having twenty four hour a day shifts, seven days a week, all day. It is all that they are doing. Basically a third of their public expenditure is dedicated to the war and to producing these weapons and artillery, trying to get components wherever they can. It's
literally the primary focus in Europe. The primary focus is not the war in Ukraine, it will be voters concerns on the cost of living or other issues education, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But there is also an element of political will in the sense that, for example, a story that we did recently looks at the contracts that European governments have signed with these companies, and the contracts
are relatively small. They are small in terms of the amount of money that's being put into them, and they are small in terms of time frame. Companies have said, we need big contracts, long term contracts, because it takes time to build these things. Most European countries, especially countries in Western Europe, have not signed those contracts, have not put in those requests.
And why is that the case? Is it political will? In the Western part of Europe in particular? Is there a concern amongst some of these European nations that they've deplay did their own coffers so much that the first thing they need to do is actually shore up their own stock piles at home.
I think there is an argument to make that those coffers were very slim to begin with. What the war has shown is that Europe is completely unprepared for a war like the one that is being fought in Ukraine, so a war that we had not seen on European soil for decades. Most of the stocks that have been sent to Ukraine have actually come from Eastern European countries, relatively speaking, and from old Soviet type stocks because those countries had larger stocks because they are closer to Russia
and more scared of Russia. On your first question about the political will, I do not have a definitive answer to that, because at the end of the day, only Macron, Maloney, Shorts Sanchez can answer that question. One theory that I've heard is that most of these countries are more interested in investing money in next generation fighter jets in the weapons that they might need for the battles that they
might one day fight. So they're trying to find the balance between investing just enough to send to Ukraine, but not enough to fully meet those requirements because probably they still believe that they will never need to use them.
It's interesting, though, Alberta, because the last two was that we've seen of late to very much involve what you think of his old school traditional equipment, including again artillery and ammunition. And to that point, Dasha, Ukraine itself is trying very hard to ramp up its own industry, very aware that it's so reliant on the US and European nations. Can you talk a little bit about those efforts to
build the domestic armaments industry in Ukraine. How is that going and what challenges are they facing.
Ukraine was a huge producer of weapons during the Soviet period and it remained actually one of the world's weapons exporter after the use of sukolops. But all those plants, they were first producer Soviet types weapons, and Ukraine wants to switch to the NATO type new weapons. Technologies were lost. We don't have that many engineers now. So Ukraine realized after this full scale invasion that it cannot allow itself to rely that much on the partners and is now
seeking to increase its own production. While the government is very reluctant to give us any details or what they have achieved. Recently, President Zelenski had a meeting and where he said that he's quite pleased with the pace how much Ukraine managed to produce this year. President Zelenski is sure that actually Ukraine can find money to build its own plants and to produce those weapons. Drones appeared as
the one of the key elements of this wall. And again if last year Ukraine managed to produce and to get quite many so called FPV drones, relatively cheap drone that carries some explosive devices. Russia looked at that and Russia is very good at putting production at a huge level pretty quickly, and now Russia produces lots of those FPV drones, and yeah, Ukraine cannot cope with that unfortunately.
After the break how the twenty twenty four US presidential election could shape the future of the war in Ukraine. Earlier on, we were talking about the very immediate term, which is the recent meetings with NATO, coming into the winter in Ukraine and the outlook on the Battlefeld, especially
with the Israel Hamas conflict going on. But let's talk a little bit more about stuff that's slightly further out, including the US election late in twenty twenty four, because it could impact support for Ukraine Alberto, depending on whether it's Joe Biden or potentially Donald Trump back in the White House.
I think if we look at lots of the issues that we've toald talked about so far, producing artillery and providing more weapons longer term commitments, many of these will not come to fruition next year. It is more likely than not that there won't be a decisive breakthrough in the fighting next year because of this lack of capabilities and manpower being another big unknown factor. So there is lots of concern in parts of Europe, in Ukraine two
about what happens in the United States next year. The US is the number one ally and partner, and no other country or block of countries can match its support. So what happens in the US matters fundamentally, and it's probably the number one variable in terms of what of how this war will end or may end one day.
I'm curious, Dasher on that note, how much is Donald Trump being talked about in Kiev respect of the return of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee possibly a Republican president again? Are you hearing his name a lot in Kiev? How worried is President Zinsky and his inner circle that he might return?
People are whispering about him. I heard from some law officials that maybe you know there will be no aid for Ukraine at all if Trump takes the seat, and then what And.
You've talked about how Ukraine is pressing the US under the current administration, at least with Congress to try and get more of this aid committed asap.
It's very unclear how Ukraine will be able to finance its budget next year. Ukraine finances the war using its own money from Texas, but the rest like salaries, pensions, hospitals, education, everything comes from the money of the partners. And again the is the key provider of that aid, together with the European Union, and for the time being, there is no clarity whether the US will give Ukraine what Ukraine expects to get. And second question is of course about
weapons and military at the moment. Actually, as you know, there is this stalemate on the battlefield, and Russia steps up pressure in several parts of Ukraine, particularly in the eastern Donyezk region, and people of course think that Russia will try to advance feather and the question is what Ukraine will have and its possession to be able to fight back.
Alberta, can you talk a little bit about just what is holding things up?
The main issue seems to be that debate has become a political issue. So there are parts of the Republican Party whose argument very simply puts, is why are we sending money to Ukraine when we don't have enough money
for or people here in America. And I think it will become increasingly difficult beyond this specific debate once the election campaign begins, because American elections tend not to be very sober affairs, and so you can already predict that there will be candidates who will use this as an issue, and it will say, why are we paying Ukrainian teachers when American teachers in my state don't earn a lot of money, so on and so forth. Ukraine's fate will
get tangled up in those political debates. In the European Union, the issue is slightly different in the sense that you
have two main issues. One is you have some countries like Hungary who are blocking the funding, and then you have a technical debate where it's being caught up in the larger EU debate about its budget and increasing that budget, and there is a debate on whether the whole budget should be increase and secondly how it should be structured, and thirdly if the money that goes to Ukraine should
be grants or loans. Some countries are arguing, we've given lots of money to Ukraine bilaterally, and so we believe that that money should be counted towards the overall pot and so on and so forth. So it's a mix of issues, but I think the bottom line, beyond the technicalities is that it's got caught up in politics really, and.
You mentioned Hungary and Hungary's objections equally at the same time, you know, not all countries in Eastern Europe, but taking that line, and there remains quite a strong support for Ukraine, particular in the Eastern flank. For a bunch of reasons.
The Hungarian case is unique in the European Union in the sense that you have other countries who may have specific issues. For example, because I don't know, they're super dependent on Russian oil, they don't want certain sanctions because they need to keep import in oil. You have certain countries who are super dependent on gas or other imports and they don't want to cut ties because of that.
The Hungarian case is unique because no other European country is effectively undermining some of the support that europe is trying to put for Ukraine. Be it they are blocking the European Peace Facility and Dispersements for that. That's a fund that reimburses countries that have provided Ukraine with weapons. There is a backlog there now. They say that they want to block the progress in Ukraine's European Union membership. They say that they don't want to send more money
to Ukraine. They don't want more sanctions, they want to remove some of the sanctions that exist. And if you look at the types of measures that they want to remove or change, they are not measures that directly impact the Hungarian economy. The question why is Hungary so pro Russia is a question to which I do not have an answer. I'm afraid coming up.
Could Ukraine be pushed into premature peace talks if Western aid diminishes. We've been talking in this conversation about the challenges for Ukraine as this war goes on, and you know what we're seeing as the challenges in keeping support from Europe, the US and elsewhere. Dasha, can you talk a bit about what that might mean in terms of prodding Ukraine or Ukraine feeling it has no choice but to go to the negotiating table.
Ukrainians so far have demonstrated as strong will to fight till the very end, and till the very end it means that Ukraine restores its borders of nineteen ninety one, and in that way, Ukrainians believe, basically this is the only way how it can ensure that Russia won't attack again. Because they had a kind of a frozen conflict since
twenty fourteen in the Ukraine's still easternmost regions. This experience with a frozen conflict that tend into a massive, full scale invasion tells Ukrainians that frozen conflict is not the way out. However, especially after Ukrainians discovered what Russians did near Kiev in places like Butcha or Irpin or Boradanka that became known throughout the world.
Horrific scenes in Butcher today with the towns may saying they've discovered at these two mass graves as Russian troops left areas around the capital Kiev, and we should.
Obviously Krinians were very angry, very upset with Russians and kind of had this determination to fight with them. However, as the time passes, apart from all the challenges that come from smaller than expected aid from Western partners, smaller than expected supply of weapons, et cetera, et cetera, there is a fatigue here as well. Every day we have lots of funerals. If you visit a random cemetery in a random small town or village, you will see too
many new graves. Unfortunately, there are people who are fighting already for most two years and their families they want them to be back home. The problem is that mobilization at the moment is not going well. Those people who wanted to join the army, they basically joined it. In twenty twenty two, when Russia just started invasion, there were huge lines to military centers as people wanted to sign up for the army. Now it's a completely different situation.
We are now facing the second winter of the invasion. People do expect another massive attacks at Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Still, majority of people say that they are not ready for any territorial concessions to Russia in exchange for peace. It depends on where you live, right, if you live in western Ukraine, it's easier for you. If you live in the south of Ukraine, of course it's harder for you.
So those people who live in the east or in the south, they are more willing to compromise with Russia.
And does that open the door potentially for Presidents Lensky to edge towards that if there is that slight shift in public mood, that fatigue that you talk about coming up to the second year mark of this conflict and people saying well okay, especially in the East and the south where it's been grinding that war. You know what, We're tired of it and if we can just negotiate something that makes it stop. Does that open the door for him to potentially get towards negotiations.
For that, it needs to be more people willing to compromise. So far we haven't reached that critical level. One of his key goals is to ensure that Russia will want to tag again. That is forcible, they believe, either through the NATO membership or through some security guarantees, so that Ukraine is now negotiating with its partners.
It's interesting on security guarantees, of course, because so far what we've seen is the US and Europe say very clearly they're not going to commit to putting man Pau on the ground in this conflict. And speaking of that, Alberto, are you seeing shifts again in the tone from the US and some European leaders which are edging towards the idea that Ukraine will need to agree to negotiate before too long.
There is definitely a darkening of the mood in the sense that the situation on the ground has not changed. There is the realization that it is unlikely to change decisively next year. There's a big concern about the potential of Trump returning. So that's the first question to ask, would it be better to talk now or to risk it when Trump is in office. Fundamentally, to have peace talks, you would need Ukraine and Russia to want to talk, and both sides to come to the conclusion that time
is not on their side. Until that happens, it is very unlikely that there will be talks. From Russia's perspective, I am guessing that Putin believes that at the very least he should wait and see what happens in the US election. And from Ukraine's perspective, it has made clear that it does not want to lose more territory, and once first security guarantees that this can never happen again.
A better I mentioned Vladimir Putin and perhaps the feeling that he can wait to see how the US election cycle turns. But also he's got his own election coming up, possibly early next year, and the prospect very much of another term for Vladimir Putin in Russia, which must give him the sense perhaps that time is on his side in this one.
Yes, I think if you look, now, I think it's not a big scoop to say that Putin is going to win the next election if you look at the situation now. His view, and it is probably backed by facts, is that time, at least until the US election, is on his side because he has more artillery. Russia has been able to produce more artillery than Europe and the US combined. Second element in terms of time, which he will see is in his favor is that Russia has
way more people. Russia broadly speaking, has been able to replace the number of losses it has had on the battlefield. And then put in seas what's happening in America, And he said, I'm going to wait and see how this plays out.
Dasha. We've talked a lot about where we are now, We've talked quite a bit about where we might be in a year from now. But in the next couple of months, what should people look for when it comes to the conflict itself.
Ukraine promised to continue its advances as much as possible during wintertime. Ukraine is expecting to get those F sixteen earplanes as soon as early twenty twenty four. F sixteen is another milestone for Ukraine. However, again that's what Ukrainians are very much concerned now, what will happen with the energy infrastructure. According to Ukraine's intelligence plus a guest, so
we have the same from the Western intelligence. Russia still manages to produce around one hundred missiles a month, and Russia has not attacked Ukraine with many missiles for a long time, so it means that it should have quite a decent number in stockpiles as of now. Ukrainians are very much concerned that as soon as the temperature will plunge around to minus ten or something like that, when it would be really cold, then Russia would launch those
two hundred missiles at once. That it will allow Russia to overwhelm Ukraine's ear defense system, which is for example in Kiev, thanks to our Western partners, is pretty solid.
I do think. Also it's worth mentioning that there are lots of unknown variables that could also change dynamics, because, for example, we've said several times lots of the challenges are about political will. The flip side of political will is that politicians change their current positions. We've seen countries say we will not send tanks, we will not send this weapon, we will not do this, and then they do.
On Russia itself, there are unknowns. We saw when Pregosion did his rampage towards Moscow ultimately unsuccessful, but not many people had predicted that. And the bottom line is when you are spending so much economic resource fundamentally on one thing, which is war, you cannot do that forever. Russia is highly dependent for components on China. Eighty percent of EU
sanctions evasion is now taking place through China. Little tweaks in China's attitude towards that could have an impact on Russia's ability to keep making the drones, the missiles, artillery, because Russia depends on other countries helping it to get around sanctions to be able to produce those weapons.
Thank you, Dasha, thank you, Alberto, thank you, thank you. Thanks for listening to us here at the Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, Boomberg CarPlay, or wherever you listen. And we'd love to hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of the Big Take is Vicky Virglina. Federica Romanello is our producer.
Raphael mcili is our engineer. Original music by Leo Sidron. I'm Roslind Matheson. We'll be back next week with another Big Take. Have a good weekend.