Kiyota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Russia is apparently ready to go to.
War with Europe. Well, that's according to its president.
Vladimir Putin met with US negotiators this week for about five hours to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. He's accused European leaders of trying to scover the peace talks with the US, saying they're tweaks to a plan to end the war were unacceptable. The Kremlin has apparently accepted some proposals to end it, although latest talks.
Haven't yielded a breakthrough.
Today on the Front Page, University of Waikato international law professor Al Gillespie's with us to run through what could happen next. Our first, tell me about this twenty eight point plan that Russia and the US have supposedly agreed to slash been talking about.
It's difficult to work out which plan we're talking about in a sequence right now. It starts out with a twenty eight point plan that has effectively a broad agreement between America and Russia. It then turns to a nineteen point plan which is effectively between America and Ukraine. It then goes back to Moscow and it's somewhere between the
twenty eight points and the nineteen points. But it's coming down to a few areas we can't get agreement on, which primarily are about territory, the security, force, and accountability.
Well, it includes banning Ukraine from ever joining NATO and halving the size of the Ukrainian army. First off, what's the benefit of Ukraine joining NATO.
Ukraine has a difficult relationship with Russia, and this is now in a full scale war. Well, there is very
little trust or good faith between them. There was an agreement in nineteen ninety four when Ukraine gave up to nuclear weapons that its territorial sovereignty and its integrity would be respected by Russia, America and Britain, and that agreement was not worth the paper it was printed on, and so becaurse of the Russian invasion, they now feel that they need something stronger than just to promise of mister
Putin to defend whatever is remaining of the country. If they go for a collective agreement, it would mean that an attack against Ukraine would be an attack against all members who signed that agreement, and that could either be European countries or it could be NATO itself. But mister Putin is clear he doesn't want Ukraine to be linked in any defensive alliance with any other country, which means it would be perpetually very weak and vulnerable to another attack.
So the significance of joining NATO would mean that you've just automatically got the backing of all of its members.
Strictly, an attack against one is an attack against all, so that means that all twin eight countries would respond at the same time. So if Britain was hit by Russia, the other twenty seven countries would come in and respond against the aggressor. And missus Zelenski would like that same guarantee given to his country because he feels that if you've just got a promise without security of other countries,
you're vulnerable to another attank. That vulnerability is increased when you get demands such as reductions or restrictions on the size of the military that Ukraine may possess or the weapons that they can have in their arsenal.
Yeah, well, let's talk about that.
Halving the size of the Ukrainian army. That doesn't really seem like a fair trade. Why would that be on the table at all.
That kind of condition where you restrict the scale of a country's forces or the weapons that they have, is what you get normally when a country is defeated in war, not in a negotiated peace agreement. It's the kind of thing that you would see after World War One or World War two. But what we know, of course is Ukraine has not been defeated, and in many ways it's told in its ground quite well.
So I also understand it includes handing back most of Russia's frozen assets, to which the likes of course Frances Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Georgia Maloney have opposed. How has the war altered the balance of power between Russia, the US and of course European leaders as well.
The question of assets is a curious one because with the sanctions, we've put penalties on Russia for its illegal act, and part of the penalties is involved seizing the Russian assets. There is a serious legal question about freezing the assets and then disposing of the assets. The risk, and it's uncertain, is that if you dispose of them, you could become legally liable for them in the future when peace resumes.
So even though countries are feeling very angry right now at Russia and they want to use these frozen assets, there could be a payback or a penalty laid down the track. In terms of the cohesiveness of Europe, it's challenging right now. But as you probably would have noticed overnight that as the peace talks in Moscow they've grounded to another deadlock, we're seeing an increase of European country saying we will now give more money to the Ukraine
with regards to weaponry. And that expansion is not just with the European countries with a billion dollars, it's with Australia and New Zealand as well, And so overnight New Zealand's have said that we will spend an extra fifteen million dollars to support Ukraine and its military efforts. And that's on top of the humanitarian assistant and legal assistance and other types of help that we give. So countries are digging deeper to support Ukraine. They're not weakening right now.
When it comes to the frozen assets.
When talking about international law, is this unprecedented it's not unprecedented.
It happened in the nineteen eighties when Iran and America had a difficulty and their assets were then seized and attempts were made to see quest them. It ended up in a very large, protracted legal dispute because it's one thing to freeze the asset. It's another thing to liquidate it and then use it for another purpose. It's still someone else's asset, and so there's no clear legal answer on this, although both sides are saying that they have an answer, which is probably overstated.
What should be the answer.
The answer is that there should be a penalty for any country which legally invades another country, and there should be accountability for those crimes and for that act. But increasingly what you're seeing with international law is that we're moving away from penalties and accountability just so we can
get peace. And so we're seeing that also with regards to the regards of peace plant which is a good deal, but part of the deal is that there we no accountability for the crimes committed by either the State of Israel or by hamas alleged crimes. But you're seeing that same approach with regards to the Ukraine that to get peace, that you'll push accountability to one side, and potentially the costs of reconstruction as well. And so everything's got murky,
and we're no longer in a principled world. We're now in a negotiated outcome.
He also said this, we are not cleaning to go to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this one hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to go to war with us and starts, we are ready right now.
Well shortly after the meeting ended, a top Russian official posted a single word on social media productive punctuated by a dove and an olive branch.
When it comes to consequences and penalties, though, what do you think is the right way forward?
Because we saw and this is.
A vast generalization I'm thinking of here, but Nazi Germany obviously was born from the smoldering ashes of World War One and the Treaty of Versailles and the penalties that were put upon the German people as a nation.
So what would be a middle ground here?
A middle ground would have been the International Criminal Court, at which we created at the end of the nineteen nineties, and the assumption was was that no one, no matter how big or small they were, would be held accountable for the crimes that they committed, including eventually the crime of aggression. And we all signed up for that, well,
most countries understood that they signed up for that. But by the time we get to the twenty first century, you find that these rules only apply to the small players, not to the large players. And so there's a degree of impunity in the world right now where countries like Russia, China and the United States will more or less do what they want without being held to account and that
is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. And that makes it difficult for small countries like New Zealand, which rely on a rules based order, or Australia as well, because then you find that countries feel if they've put enough power, they will do what they want to do. And then we've got the additional risk that if we make a bad peace steel now with Ukraine, one, you're only going to make it difficult for the next generation
and they'll be bitter and angry and come back. And two you've got the precedent problem where other countries will follow the same sane route. I think that they can take someone else's country without repercussions.
Yeah, and I mean thinking of that as well.
And in terms of an international rules based order, do you think we'll ever be able to see another Nuremberg trials for example?
I mean that was or have we since?
Really we saw some impressive trials with regard to the former Yugoslavia Serial leone Rwanda. We've had some individual cases before the International Criminal Court, but they've all been minor then none of them have involved the superpowers. We had a very positive period of growth in the nineteen nineties,
but we've seen two decades of going backwards. It will take a long time to rebuild that kind of confidence and good faith until you can get to that point where all countries are accountable right now, where it's about trying to defeend the architecture that we've got, let alone trying to build new ones.
What do you think Russia's stated conditions for peace, you know, from NATO guarantees to recognition of con over occupied territories.
What does that reveal about Moscow's endgame?
They are looking for a victory that They've been very clear from the beginning that non membership of NATO is critical to them where it's expanded, and it's showing an increasingly strong putin as with regards to the demands of a territory, because now they demanding territory that they haven't even conquered, let alone what they've a legally annex. They're now saying, we actually want the more than what we even hold, and this would suggest that they're feeling confident
in what they can negotiate for. They're not on a back foot, and you're seeing that the level of threat continue to grow, and so the retoric about being prepared for war with Europe at the same time as making excessive demands suggests that they are not in a weak position.
What kind of security guarantees are there left for Ukraine bar a full NATO membership you could try to go for?
A to approach is one you have troops which are non aligned which would be able to be positioned in Ukraine in a kind of like a buffer zone, and that would mean non NATO countries of which you might find that New Zealand could become a potential applicant. The alternative approach is what we did with Belgium in the nineteenth century and the whole country is declared neutral and
other countries guarantee its security. But of course, as you may recall the problem with doing that with Belgium, and is that led to World War One because another country just has to go through it eventually in nineteen fourteen, and so you could declare Ukraine neutral, but whether it was honored as it was not honored in nineteen ninety four is a big question mark. And right now very free countries, especially in Europe, have faith in the word of mister Putin.
What do you make of European leader's reactions to Putin's calls, and you know, the other day he did mention something along the lines of they're ready to go to war with Europe steadfast.
I think think Europe is becoming galvanized in a unique point of history. It's been pushed by two different factors. On the one hand, you've got the threat of Russia and on the other hand you've got the uncertainty of America. And I think for a long time Europe has relied upon America to do all the lift or the heavy weight or the heavy carrying. But now they've got to do it for themselves, and they're showing a greater independence and willingness to do it.
And do you think Putin has underestimated their ability to band together and.
Do this, Yes, I do, I do, But I think the Europeans now face what they can see is a very severe threat on their border, and they are galvanizing in a way which we haven't seen for many generations.
That and galvanizing when you say, putting more money towards Ukraine's sovereignty.
So yesterday they pledged a further billion dollars in military assistance. That's on top of the additional money that they've already given.
And then you will find also that they're rapidly developing, building and reinforcing their own military, and so military budgets across Europe have all expanded rapidly in recent times, and so they're much more conscious than they would that they've got to look after their own defense and they cannot rely on They want American help, but they're at a point right now where they're recognizing that mister Trump is not always the most stable of partners, and so they're
willing to go a step further for themselves. Countries like New Zealand and Australia are in the same boat, and we too are increasing our military spend. And this is a difficult thing to do because every dollar you spend on a piece of military kit is a dollar you don't spend on education, or a dollar you don't spend on housing or on schools, And so that opportunity cost is hard, but the risk externally is great.
You don't know what the Kremlin's doing. I can tell you that they had a reasonably good meeting with President put We're going to find out. It's a war that should have never been started, and were if I were president, we had a rigged election. If I were president, that war would have never happened. It's a terrible thing. But I thought they had a very good meeting yesterday with the President Putin. We'll see what happens. It's you know, when I was in this office and I talked you
about no cards, I said, you have no cards? That was the time to settle. I thought that would have been a much better time to settle, But their wisdom decided to do that. They have a lot of things against them right now.
I read a piece in the New York Times analyzing the Ukrainian recruitment ads and.
How they have evolved over the course of the war.
Right, so the beginning saw wars, you know, soldiers fighting zombie like figures, a battle crier or call to arms type of thing. Since then they've kind of progressed into playing on people's pride to defend their country. You know, an officer on the phone talking to his mother, she's proud that he's enlisting.
That kind of thing.
And new ads don't even show weapons or officers iddling babies and you know, playing with dogs and things like that, sitting on a beach operating a drone. What do you think this says about enlisting in Ukraine but also the course of I think it's an interesting if you step back and look at the evolvement of these ads. Are they perhaps finding it quite difficult to garner that national pride or do you think that the Ukrainians are doing quite well in that respect.
Both sides are under stress in this war, but one of the under economic stress, under military stress, and they're under manpower stress. I used the word manpower loosely. The amount of soldiers that you've got to replace each month is over twenty thousand, and trying to keep this kind of figure going on a continue rolling basis is a very difficult ask and so Ukraine itself has not got
a problem with people. Young men often will try to avoid conscription and they will try not to do their service, and so you've got to find a way where you can make it attractive for them. But it's unsustainable and belong to if you keep feeding young people into these military machines. The Russians don't have quite the same restraints. Ukraine does have a restraint in miteria. So they've got to find ways which it looks more appealing to the young men and young women rather than what it is,
which is often a very terrible situation. But yes it's a concern and they have to work hard trying to keep their numbers up.
Now we know that talks have stalled. What happens if they just completely collapse.
Well, we go back to the battlefront, and the traditional pattern of wars is that you try to negotiate until one side gets an upper hand. And the way that they're going to get an upper hand is that they're either going to grind their way through, which seems unlikely, especially if the new weaponry continues to come through from Europe and its supporters, or you try to change the tactics or the weapons are being used to get that advantage.
That's where the risk is because different are used on the battlefield, or the battlefield expand rapidly into say Russia will hypothetically, say a long range misself from Ukraine hit Moscow. Then things can go sideways quite quickly. It's contained at the moment, but it's fragile, and the risk is that to try to get that breakthrough, they will try new tactics and new weapons which could make things split out of control.
What do you think the likelihood of Putin actually beginning a war where Europe is it's.
A very irrational thing to do. I don't think it's a likely thing to do. But often the larger wars happen through irrational or accidental methods or mistakes, And when you've got armies which arebuptressing each other and bumping into each other on a regular basis, you escalate those risks each day. A war with Europe is potentially the Third World War. I don't think that's going to happen. I
think that's quite unlikely. It's in no one's interests. It's irrational, but in war, mistakes happen, and when tensions escalate, the risks multiplied.
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 enzidherld dot co dot nz. 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 tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.