Kyota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald.
The War in Ukraine.
Has hit the one thousand daymark. On February twenty fourth, twenty twenty two, Russia invaded Ukraine and since then, hundreds of thousands of people have died, many more have been injured, and millions are displaced. It's been called the largest and deadliest war in Europe.
Since World War II.
This week, US President Joe Biden gave the green light for Ukraine to strike Russia with US made long range missiles.
It comes just nine weeks.
Before Donald Trump takes office, who on the election trail pledged.
To put an end to the war.
So after one thousand days, how all these missiles changed the war?
And what will a Trump peace deal look like? Today?
On the front Page, why cant Theo University International law professor Alexander Gillespie is with us to discuss if there's an end in sight for the conflict? First off, our one thousand days? Does it surprise you there hasn't been an end to this war yet? In fact, actually there doesn't appear to be an end in sight.
Does there.
A thousand days is a long time, and the war now has become almost like the First World War and the way we get used to it going on. But at some point you have to reach for peace because it is unsustainable in terms of the amount of actors on the side and the way it could escalate very quickly. I would have hoped it could have been solved before this point, but mister Putin has shown no willingness to negotiate, and he seems to almost have been waiting until mister Trump came to office.
What is the state of the conflict at the moment.
When we last covered it on the front page, soldiers had taken Cursk. Since then, has there been much ground covered or taken by either side.
The momentum of the war is in favor of Russia right now. They have managed to sustain themselves against the economic sanctions of the West. They've managed to increase their military and their advancing. As it comes towards winter, you're likely to see more attacks on the energy infrastructure of the Ukraine as they try to bring the way to
the war upon the Ukrainian people. On the battlefield, they are making incremental advances there is the possibility that up to twelve thousand North Korean troops may join them in the short term future if requested. And so the risk that you've got is that as the Russian side advances, that the Western support disintegrates, and that obviously is going
to we'll talk about with mister Trump. But if mister Trump leaves, whether the Europeans will maintain a steadfast offense of the Ukraine is questionable, and that has implications for countries like US, because we are also not neutral and we support the Ukraine.
Thousands of North Korean soldiers you mentioned have been sent to Russia in recent weeks.
Has there been any updates on this?
Part of the thinking seems to be that the allowance by mister Biden of the long range missiles is that it would be able to target the concentrations of these new troops if they came close to the battlefield, and so right now the intelligence would suggest that they are present and they are prepared, but they have not yet been deployed, and so normally that kind of step would be one if you were trying to escalate the conflict, which was quite possible. We may now.
See United States and Great Britain now directly taken quite in against Russia. It means that all militaries or yes and Great Britain are become a legitimate goals for the Russian Newsterlitary aviation would be creased by Russian nami, and some of the satellite or United State it bit and also could be attacked would be crashed.
You mentioned Joe Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with long range US missiles. First off, how significant is this step and what does it even mean.
It's a bit of a hard situation to explain because when we talk about long range, we're only talking two hundred to three hundred kilometers, and so these are not missiles that would be able to strike Moscow or Saint Petersburg. These are missiles that will only be able to strike a couple hundred compters over the border. And when I say over the border, I mean into Russia proper, not the annex territory or the occupied territory, but into actual Russia.
And so the targets are likely to be placed with your troop concentrations, where there are fuel stop files, where are the command bunkers. This will not alter the flow of the war. That this will not stop Russia. You will also see that if America makes this authorization that France and Britain, who have similar munitions, will probably love the Ukrainians to do the same as well. Again, it won't alter the scale of the war, but it will
escalate the war. And the risk here is that mister Putin sees this is an egregious act which is directly threatening Russia itself with weapons which are made in the West, and so we can expect a response from mister Putin, although we don't know what that will be. Part of the problem is that mister Trump, now that he is the incumbent president, has said, mister Putin, do not escalate this war. He has specifically requested that until he's in office.
But mister Biden now seems to have taken that step for him and escalated it before mister Trump can come into power.
So Washington's being accused of escalating the conflict by doing this.
Do you agree with that?
Yes, at some point you've got to reach for peace, and it's going to be a very difficult negotiation, and because there's a lot of concerns you've got to think about, like on what terms you would make peace. But before we get to the merits of what peace looks like, trying to de escalate the conflict, especially when you know any president is coming in whether you voted for him or not, is a sensible step. This is creating a scenario whereby the situation could get worse in the short
term future. And we don't know how it could get worse, but we can expect a reaction from mister Potin, and that may be the delivery of those twelve thousand North Korean soldiers.
Even though the missiles had already been sent to Ukraine. Why haven't they been allowed to use them? Why is there this authorization to use them?
The conflict, which is one of the most risky points that Europe has been in since the Second World War, is contained if you keep the amount of countries involved in the fighting to a minimum and you do not let the fighting go over the borders once it expands in terms of the number of belligerent or it expands in terms of geography, especially into Russia, the risk that you will get a bigger reaction, and so you're staying at that point where you will now provoke Russia to
do something more. One of the considerations that Russia may have is trying to strike these weapons systems before they reach the Ukraine over international waters or international airspace. I think that's very unlikely, but we don't know how mister Putin would react. If that did occur, then the whole ball game changes, or if he decides to strike them in a NATO country, it becomes a much larger conflict which could not be controlled.
So is it like an international law thing that if a country sends another country weapons made in the US or wherever, that they then need permission to use them.
The permission is already implicit in the way that they have been given. And so the Americans, the French, the British have all set have given them a number of munitions and weapons, and they have said, you cannot use these in Russia. You can use them in the occupied territory or the annex territory, but you cannot take that war over the ball because the risk is that Putin will respond in a way which is unexpected and may
provoke an escalation, almost a Domino type situation. Like one of the things that he has talked about, which I think is unlikely, is a nuclear reprisal. But we don't know how he will respond. But the point is right now is that there was a chance to calm it down, and Putin has been requested by Trump do not escalate this, and that meant do not deploy the North Korean soldiers.
And what you may see now is that as these missiles go and start hitting the Russian territory, he might decide, actually, I will use North Koreans, or I may use a new type of attack system, or I may target different areas in the Ukraine. None of this is calming the war down.
Donald Trump repeatedly pledged during his election campaign he'll be able in a goiate and put an end to the Ukraine War.
What are the actual chances of him doing this.
It's easy to make a deal within twenty four hours about what you want peace to look like. The difficulty is whether the belligerents on the ground are willing to accept those terms. If you accept that, the another of the issue is whether you accept the Ukraine to be divided and whether the remaining part of the rump of the Ukraine is allowed to join NATO. If it's allowed to join NATO, what remains of the Ukraine will become secure.
But if you allow the annex territory to be removed, you may have a chance perhaps a type of peace. The problem you've got is that to allow annexations that are done in war to exist, you've got to override the United Nations Charter, you've got to ignore the International Court of Justice, and you've got to put the International Criminal Court to one side. And so there's no discussion about war crimes, there's no discussion about territorial sovereignty, there's
no discussion about international law. But you make a deal, and so mister Trump could do that deal. Mister Putin may or may not accept that deal. It will depend with the NATO is part of the package. But what we have a concern with is the precedent value, because if you allow one country to annex territory military and violent means, it could spread. And so other countries in the world right now, which are interested in this debate, like Israel, will be following it very closely.
Right So in the short term it could be perceived as creating peace, but in the long term you've got other countries, like you said, watching very closely and thinking if it worked for Russia.
It might work for us, and all.
You got to do is hold out long enough. The way international law works is via negotiation, diplomacy, and peaceful resolution of disputes. You can't annex someone else's territory, and this principle has been clear since the Second World War. If you're going to have peace, you can't allow one country to take someone else's territory, force them to negotiate and then acquire it, because that becomes instability, and the global order would be integrain.
Your reporters asked me if I thought President Putin was small, right, I said, of course, he's smart, to which I was greeted with all that's such a terrible thing to say.
The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart.
But the real problem is that our leaders are dumb.
Dumb, so dumb.
Trump was known during his last term as president, has been quite friendly with Russia. He's also nominated Tulsi Gabbard to be his Director of National Intelligence, a woman described by one Democrat as being likely a Russian asset. What would a Trump negotiated peace deal look like?
I imagine if you were going to have a deal, which was this would be a deal which we have to be accepted by Russia and by America, and then the Ukraine would have to get dragged along, and then it creates difficulty for the Europeans of what they will do. But the essen to the deal would be that the occupied territory, especially in the East, would become Russian territory.
Charges of war crimes against Russians and including mister Putin, who is indicted at the International Criminal Court, would have to all be dropped. And then the third and most critical issue is whether the remaining part of the Ukraine is allowed to join NATO. Mister Putin says no, they can't join NATO and that was one of the major
reasons for the war. But the Ukrainians will say that is the primary condition of their if there was going to be a peace, because if they aren't allowed to join NATO, they will never have peace and security on their border. Well.
Trump famously isn't a fan of NATO or at least how much money the US pays to fund the military alliance. Are there bigger issues and concerns in.
Europe about what his presidency might mean for their security.
He is ambiguous about NATO and he appreciates the importance of purity, but he expects all countries to spend more on their defense. In every country, and that includes New Zealand will need to spend more than than two percent. The problem the Europeans have is that the American support for the Ukraine is over fifty five percent of the military aid, and so if America suddenly pulls itself back, then the retreat and the difficulties that the Ukrainians have
now could become much worse. In the short term, you'd have to fill that gap. And so the European to have to work out if America walks away and stops giving made will we increase our aid or will we follow America's lead? And that's a question that New Zealand, like Australia, must also face as well, because we will either follow the Europeans and keep given with the Ukrainians assistance, or will follow the Americans and withdraw what we've gone.
Well, there is that concern come January, isn't there that the US will discontinue its support in sending military support And it's Ukraine's biggest arms provider, isn't it.
Fifty five percent at least of what's gone into is coming from America. If mister Trump walks away from the Ukraine, and at the moment he's not legally obliged to protect the Ukraine. The Ukraine is not a NATO member, But if he walks away, then the defense of the Ukraine will crumble, or a large part of it will crumble. And that means that the other countries which are currently holding up the Ukraine and have a much stronger interest in it, like the Europeans, will have to nearly double
what they're doing just to maintain the status quote. Whether there's that kind of appetite is questionable.
What do you make of Biden giving the green light for those missiles to be used just nine weeks before Trump takes office a.
Very unuseful and dangerous provocation. Even though mister Trump may not have been the preferred candidate for many people, he is the victor of the American election and he has a pathway towards peace, and so a good faith effort would have been not to undermine that. Even though we may not agree with the resultant election, we have to support that presidency, give it the best chance. There will
be peace eventually, and it will be difficult. But what mister Biden has done is escalate a difficult situation and made it worse. Had the Russians utilized the North Korean troops, then maybe that would have been arguable. You could have expanded it, but they were not. At that point, Putin was under a strict request from mister Trump, do not escalate. Putin seems to have done that, although he was starting
to expand his drone attacks. But now Biden has given that escalation, and that increases the risk because we don't know how Russia will respond.
Now, is there really more of a chance of ending the war under Trump? And if not, what comes next?
You can end the war, but the question is on what terms you're willing to end the war. You know, if if Zelenski just said, okay, you can have the eastern part of the country and I won't pursue considerations of compensation or war crimes, and I won't sue trying to join NATO, you would have an agreement by Christmas. But for the Ukrainians who have been fighting for the last thousand days, who want their independents, who want the territory bank, who want international law to be respected, who
have lost thousands of soldiers and thousands of civilians. They're going to say, well, what was it all for? What have we been fighting for? What have we tried to defend? And so for them, making a peace deal will become harder. But at the same time, if Trump walks away from them, they've got to make a peace deal, and that may be a very difficult deal to swallow, not just for them but for us, because it's not just the Ukrainians.
It's the principle of what peace looks like. Because if you can annex other people's land, if you can start to take territory which isn't yours, your opening a floodgates, and ultimately where you are is a world of power not law.
Do you think Putin thought that Ukraine would last any longer than a thousand days.
I think Putin thought that the whole invasion would be over within a few weeks, and he attempted that strike very quickly at KI. I don't think he envisaged that the West would be so strong and united in its solidarity to defend the Ukraine. The Ukraine defense is important not just in terms of military defense, but also ideological
defense against these types of autocratic actions. I think, though, he's played a much longer game, and that that game has involved not just the military reaction, but also economic realignment. And so this means that due to the sanctions, Russia
has managed to break itself off from the West. It's now pivoting towards much more other countries, and it doesn't need the West so much more in the future, and so much of that glue that gives peace in terms of economic globalization, whereby we trade and we become friendly and we exchange between countries, is starting to disappear. And that means that in the future, I think Russia is more likely to be aggressive than it has been in the past because it doesn't need the West as much
as it did. So even if you make peace now with Russia, the question is what happens next. Who's the next neighbor who'll be targeted? And the Europeans feel that, and that's why you're seeing this expansion of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Countries which for decades felt that they could live with a strong and slightly aggressive Russia no longer feel that safety, and that's why they're reaching for
the alliance. And the big question is will the Ukraine and are under a peace steel be allowed to join NATO.
Thanks for joining us, al.
You're welcome, Chelsea.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also a sound engineer.
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.