Kielder.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The countdown to the Putin Trump summit is on. The two leaders are due to meet in Alaska to discuss what peace could look like in Ukraine more than three and a half years after Russia's invasion. While Trump has spoken to Ukraine's Voladimir Zelenski ahead of the meeting, European capitals remain apprehensive that a resolution will come from it and a
rallying behind Kiev. So is this latest development in fact a development at all or just posturing by two men desperate to be seen to be doing something Today. On the Front Page, KIWI journalist Thomas Martch joins us from Ukraine to take us through who is the latest on the front lines and behind the scenes. So, Tom, we know that Trump and Putin are set to meet in Alaska on Friday local time. But first off, what's the significance of Alaska?
It does seem a bit of an odd choice at first. The reasons are primarily geographic. It's quite hard for Putin to go anywhere at the moment because he's wanted by the International Criminal Court, So any countries that have signed up the International Criminal Court have an obligation to basically arrest him and hand him over. Now the US has actually is not and has never been his signatory to that court, so it is technically safe for him to
meet in Alaska. It's also something that when you choose these kind of locations, you often want to choose something that's kind of like equidistant for both leaders. For Putin it's just a straight flight from Moscow. For Trump it's a straight flight from DC. They kind of meet about
in the middle. But it's also got some interesting historical significance as well because it was sold by one of the Russian czars I think was Alexander back in around eight I think it's eighteen sixty seven from Russia to the United States. So when we're talking about powerful people carving up spheres of influence and you know, handing over territories with a swath of a pen and stuff like that, there is some interesting historical legacy to it.
Now, it has Vladimir Putin given any details on what the Kremlin is asking for.
So what they say it. So they first announced their conditions basically last year, and they were Ukraine has to withdraw from all of the four major oblasts where the Kremlin controls that significant amount of the territory, that's Hassan, Zaprasia, Donetsky, Nahask and Ukraine has to agree to never join NATO, has to completely basically get rid of its armed forces. And there are other things as well, about like Russian language, you know, trying the right of the Russian language in
government institutions, not particularly important stuff for them. The really important stuff is over territory. And it does seem that, at least according to reports, there was one of the Wall Street Journal that said that these demands have slightly lessened, which is that they're now dropping the idea for Ukraine to withdraw from the remainder of her Son and Zaparisia.
And you know, those are very very major cities that the Kremlin has been pushed back from, so it would be very very strange for them to be handed over. And that what they're asking for now is the rest of Dnetsk Oblast, which if you look at it on a map doesn't look huge and you might wonder why that territory is so important or so we're fighting for the problem is that Danetsko Blast is the most heavily
urbanized and heavily fortified part of the country. So if Ukraine would have hand that over, they would be handing over what they call like a fortress belt. It's these cities, about four of them in a row, that are just like trenched and mined and barbed wired and just like
these kind of ultimate defensible outposts. And so the problem with those demands is that were the Ukrainians to give that over, not only would they be losing a large chunk of their territory and the civilians that go with it. If the Kremlin ever decided to come back in five or teen years down the line, like it did in twenty twenty two after the twenty fourteen war, Ukraine would be fighting from a much weaker position because it would
have given up its most defensible territory. If you look at it on a map, after denis Goblast to Ukraine's major cities, it's pretty much just straight shooting.
I think I believe he wants to get it over with. Now, I've said that a few times. Then I've been disappointed because they have like a great call with him, and then missiles would be lobbed in Tikiev. For some other place, you'd have sixty people laying on a road dying. They said, that's cold, that's cold. But it's a violent war. Five to seven thousand people a week, a day, and you
know there's nobody from here. They're all Russian and Ukrainian people and some people from the city's much more on number. But still those missiles do damage and they kill a lot of people.
So Trump is giving the impression that there will be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both. It's hard to believe that this kind of betterment would be achievable, though, right.
It's a very odd turn of phrase. And the reason for that is that one the Kremlin has shown absolutely no willingness to withdraw from anything except for tiny parts of land potentially Ensumi or harkyvobe Blast. It doesn't really that were basically attempted incursions that never really win. Timmywhare and they own like tenklov as a farm land here and there, or like half a ruined village or something
like that. Now, the worry is that one Steve Whitcoff, Trump's envoy, went to Moscow and basically apparently there was a mistranslation and he came back saying that Vladimir Putin was actually willing to offer up much more than he actually was. And so it seems like if there are land swaps, they would almost always they would be more likely to be in the Kremlin's favor. You know, Ukraine giving up that large part of Denise Goblast that I
was talking about. So that could be like a real stickler in the negotiations because people in Ukraine are saying, well, like Donald Trump, who are you to say what territories we're going to hand over or swap or not.
Yeah, that leads me on too. I wonder what Zelenski's thinking about all this. Has he mentioned what he thinks of the Trump Putin meeting.
So there was a lot of of discussion over will Zelenski come, will he be an anchorage that day? Will he have anything to do with it? And it's looking more and more likely that no, he won't have anything to do with this particular meeting. And he has basically said the reason we can't withdraw from Donetsk is that Danette is going to be a springboard for a future Russian attack. I should say this is not just hypothetical, right,
you know, this literally happened. The Russians took Crimea in twenty fourteen, and Crimea became a springboard in twenty twenty two for the most successful Russian attack of the entire war, which took really large parts of southern Ukraine.
Yeah, he's also said that it's a personal victory for Putin, and I saw that it came out that the meeting is Putin's idea. It all looks like good press for Vladimir Putin at this stage.
So yeah, so this is the thing. Right, we're back in twenty twenty two. It's completely you're completely right there.
Back in twenty twenty two, the kreminin effectively became kind of stracized by the world, right, you know, ban from sporting events, cultural events, banking systems, cut off, huge sanctions imposed on the works, and effectively what being in America and shaking hands of the US president and like as like a partnership of equals looks like is it looks like it's now you're welcoming them back into the fold. You're like, okay, you're a respected partner with whom we
can do business again. And that is in and of itself a major concessions concession and the negotiations already. It also looks bad because, as I said, Donald Trump and his advisors don't seem to have a particularly good grasp of the battlefield dynamics or the even the geography or
the culture of the various regions they're talking about. So it really does look like we're back in nineteen forty five, and it's Churchill and Stull and kind of drawing lines over countries and giving, you know, noting down the percentages of dividing up the world into spheres of influence.
Again, what is the reality of a meeting between Putin and Zelenski at this point?
So it's it's difficult because the two leaders absolutely despise each other. And one of the other problems is that neither side is in a catastrophic enough military possession where they're willing to sort of give it up, right, Like, the Ukrainian defense is pretty strong, the Russians have taken enormous casualties, but the Russian economy and the Russian military industrial complex seems to have enough kind of slack in it to support this kind of year, this level of war.
Effort this level of operations for like another year or two, and you know, there's there's been a lot in Ukraine now about a Russian penetration of Ukrainian lines around Pakrovs and we don't quite yet know how serious that is, whether it's just, you know, a bunch of Russian guys got much further in the lines than they expected, or
whether the Russians have actually made a significant breakthrough. What it does do is it does give Vladimir Putin the idea that he's got battlefield momentum, however slow it is, and that he can achieve his goals by military means. What Ukrainians, I guess I'm hoping for from this summit is that Donald Trump can convince him that it's going to be more painful to achieve his goals through military means than just banking whatever small wins he has now
and kind of calling it quits. But I'm not incredibly optimistic.
Is there any evidence suggesting that Putin is willing to compromise or retreat even or does the Kremlin remain kind of steadfast in its position at the moment.
So there is the little bit of leeway that the Kremlin has given has been saying that there are the two provinces that it's not going to require withdrawal from those. Now, those provinces were like Hrsan and Zupparisia, like especially those cities, they were virulently anti Russian. They never had you know that the Kremlin had never said anything about them before the start of the war. They were generally considered the Kremlin's most outlandish demands and they they have been retracted.
So it does seem like there is a tiny bit of wiggle room. But at the same time it does you know, Vladimir Putin and you know, top Russians will constantly come out and say things about how like Ukraine doesn't really exist and Russia should get to a Dessa and you know, Russia's borders have no end and stuff
like that. So what I think people are still on the tossing up is are these signs that he's genuinely willing for a compromise or is he willing to come to some sort of ceasefire conditions That would just mean that he will think that he can then have another light at the apple in five or ten years time.
That's what everyone in Ukraine is really worried about not so much specifically where the final battle lines might be drawn in this round of fighting, but how do you stop this kind of invasion happening again?
How do you stop something like this invasion happening again.
So, look, a lot of Ukrainians have sort of lost faith in sort of Western institutions. So for instance, you know, at the start of the full scale war, the big thing was NATO membership. You know, Ukraine needs NATO membership, then the cast iron guaranty of Article five. I now talk to Ukrainians, and I've speaking of spoken to people in the Baltic States as well, who say, look, we're no longer convinced that NATO is all it's cracked up
to me. We're no longer convinced that the US would necessarily honor an Article five arrangement and you know, come full throated to our defense if we were invaded or we had a Russian incursion or something like that. So so you know that, I mean, the idea of European peacekeepers had its flaws and its difficulties, but it was at least one way for European countries to have genuine
skin in the game in protecting Ukraine. The only other way, as the Ukrainians have found, is unfortunately, the model where you just have an extremely strong standing army like they have in South Korea, like they have in Israel for all its issues, like they have in a number of countries where they expect that war could break out, that you just have to have an extra you know, everyone
has military service. The country's just full of weapons, and there's minefields all over the borders, and it's not a particularly pleasant way to live, but it might be the only way to survive in this kind of new world order.
Zelenski himself has insisted that all conversations about Ukraine must be with Ukraine present. Europe has backed him up on that. A quick reminder, though, a moment like today, a virtual conference with Trump and European leaders and President Zelenski setting out positions, does echo what we saw back in May when a ceasefire was demanded by Europe and Ukraine and Trump was on the phone to his European allies saying he'd impose sanctions with them if Putin didn't go along with that suggestion.
And Tom, you're in Ukraine now, whereabouts in the country are you?
I've been living in Kiev for the last three years now. So look in Kiev, like everyone is pretty used to like things that Things that can appear sort of very shocking on the mirror or on TV are often not necessarily that shocking to the eyes of Ukrainians who've lived through countless air raids, who've seen the battlefield situation go
up and down for years and years and years. Now there's everyone is no one is sort of inclined to surrender, but everyone is more exhausted and more annoyed and more more sort of despondent than they were before, even if there is still no real appetite to sort of surrender large parts of the country to Russia.
And in your book Dogs or the Dogs of Mariopol, there are some pretty incredible stories of just everyday Ukrainians stopping their studies, putting away their things and just checking on some some army gear. I mean is that it just speaks to the I guess the resilience of Ukrainians at this point.
Is that what you found, Yes, so that the whole the whole point in that was about. You know, it's the forging of Ukraine's iron generation, and this is one of the things that I said. That's that like so many of the people that I met in Ukraine, you know, were had you know, they had really good careers, really good educations. You know, they were you know, intensely well educated and patriotic, and they were the ones who sort of down tools, put on body armor and went to
the front lines. That is an extremely inspiring story, but it's also a very tragic story because in large parts a lot of Ukraine's most promising and successful, especially young people,
were the ones who ended up being killed. So there is that kind of sort of dual element of this kind of great heroism that this kind of like really horrible sacrifice at the same time, and when the war does eventually inevitably come to an end, it's going to be a really difficult thing in society, you know, how you deal with the memory and the legacy of.
What's happened, and once the war ends, hopefully what that will do to future generations, in the future of the country as a whole.
Yeah, that's well, I think one of the things that it's already quite evident tension society now, but it's the tension between the truths have been on the front line for you know, three years, you know, after ten years if they fought in the First War sometimes and the men who maybe stayed in the home cities and like you know, hit for mobilization squads and like didn't join up in the war. There's the tensions between, you know, because we're women were the only people who women and
children were the only ones who could leave. The women who stayed in their home cities, and the women who left and went to Europe or the UK or Canada or wherever. That tension between you know, did you really go through the war? I remember once driving past a recruitment sign in Harkiv Oblast. It said, you know, daddy, what did you do during the war, And it's like a man like twenty years in the future, like holding
his infant son. I thought that was like a really kind of interesting and probably quite effective psychological marketing campaign. But it really does speak to because there's going to be so many soldiers who come back from the front line at the end and they look around at people who whether they left and then came back or just
stayed in their cities the whole time. They're going to be like, we fought and watched our friends died and sometimes got maimed and utilated, and we're all psychologically traumatized from sort of four or five However many years it is a full scale war. What do you guys, you know, where was your sacrifice and all this?
What could New Zealand do better?
I mean, I've got to be honest. One of the things that I have consistently been annoyed about from the start is that New Zealand has almost I think the Defense Minister has been once but no New Zealand. Why are they know, never any New Zealand officials that are visiting Ukraine. All Australian prime ministers have done it all the UK you know prime ministers have done it. Joe Biden did it when he was US president, you know, Earthula Vondle and you know did it as president of
the European Commissioned several times. And especially is I remember I talked to a University of Target expert about this, whose name unfortunately skates me, but it's he was like New Zealand's you know, strength is in its soft power
and its diplomacy. We're never going to to be a military superpower, but our we sort of project our values in our soft power, And I'm like, why is New Zealand in no way trying to get trying to have some kind of voice in the negotiations for instance, It just seems that their issue was almost sort of entirely disappeared from New Zealand political discourse to the extent that it ever was there. So I think even just some
kind of rhetoric from politicians. You know, why when Christopher Luxon is on a European tour, why does he not just come to Ukraine? I know the Ukrainians, for instance, have been trying to get a New Zealand Prime minister for ages and they've had no luck. Just Sender and Chris Hipkins, which we were they were told note which is not interested and you know why not? I just don't understand it, Like every other world later has done it. Why why are the key we sort of not picking up a slack here?
Thanks for joining us, Tom.
No worries please.
As always, that's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidhrald dot co dot MZ. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.