Speaker 1: Kiyota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Russia is
Speaker 2: apparently ready to go to.
Speaker 1: War with Europe. Well, that's according to its president.
Speaker 2: Vladimir Putin met with US negotiators this week for about
Speaker 2: five hours to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. He's
Speaker 2: accused European leaders of trying to scover the peace talks
Speaker 2: with the US, saying they're tweaks to a plan to
Speaker 2: end the war were unacceptable. The Kremlin has apparently accepted
Speaker 2: some proposals to end it, although latest talks.
Speaker 1: Haven't yielded a breakthrough.
Speaker 2: Today on the Front Page, University of Waikato international law
Speaker 2: professor Al Gillespie's with us to run through what could
Speaker 2: happen next. Our first, tell me about this twenty eight
Speaker 2: point plan that Russia and the US have supposedly agreed
Speaker 2: to slash been talking about.
Speaker 3: It's difficult to work out which plan we're talking about
Speaker 3: in a sequence right now. It starts out with a
Speaker 3: twenty eight point plan that has effectively a broad agreement
Speaker 3: between America and Russia. It then turns to a nineteen
Speaker 3: point plan which is effectively between America and Ukraine. It
Speaker 3: then goes back to Moscow and it's somewhere between the
Speaker 3: twenty eight points and the nineteen points. But it's coming
Speaker 3: down to a few areas we can't get agreement on,
Speaker 3: which primarily are about territory, the security, force, and accountability.
Speaker 2: Well, it includes banning Ukraine from ever joining NATO and
Speaker 2: halving the size of the Ukrainian army. First off, what's
Speaker 2: the benefit of Ukraine joining NATO.
Speaker 3: Ukraine has a difficult relationship with Russia, and this is
Speaker 3: now in a full scale war. Well, there is very
Speaker 3: little trust or good faith between them. There was an
Speaker 3: agreement in nineteen ninety four when Ukraine gave up to
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons that its territorial sovereignty and its integrity would
Speaker 3: be respected by Russia, America and Britain, and that agreement
Speaker 3: was not worth the paper it was printed on, and
Speaker 3: so becaurse of the Russian invasion, they now feel that
Speaker 3: they need something stronger than just to promise of mister
Speaker 3: Putin to defend whatever is remaining of the country. If
Speaker 3: they go for a collective agreement, it would mean that
Speaker 3: an attack against Ukraine would be an attack against all
Speaker 3: members who signed that agreement, and that could either be
Speaker 3: European countries or it could be NATO itself. But mister
Speaker 3: Putin is clear he doesn't want Ukraine to be linked
Speaker 3: in any defensive alliance with any other country, which means
Speaker 3: it would be perpetually very weak and vulnerable to another attack.
Speaker 2: So the significance of joining NATO would mean that you've
Speaker 2: just automatically got the backing of all of its members.
Speaker 3: Strictly, an attack against one is an attack against all,
Speaker 3: so that means that all twin eight countries would respond
Speaker 3: at the same time. So if Britain was hit by Russia,
Speaker 3: the other twenty seven countries would come in and respond
Speaker 3: against the aggressor. And missus Zelenski would like that same
Speaker 3: guarantee given to his country because he feels that if
Speaker 3: you've just got a promise without security of other countries,
Speaker 3: you're vulnerable to another attank. That vulnerability is increased when
Speaker 3: you get demands such as reductions or restrictions on the
Speaker 3: size of the military that Ukraine may possess or the
Speaker 3: weapons that they can have in their arsenal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's talk about that.
Speaker 2: Halving the size of the Ukrainian army. That doesn't really
Speaker 2: seem like a fair trade. Why would that be on
Speaker 2: the table at all.
Speaker 3: That kind of condition where you restrict the scale of
Speaker 3: a country's forces or the weapons that they have, is
Speaker 3: what you get normally when a country is defeated in war,
Speaker 3: not in a negotiated peace agreement. It's the kind of
Speaker 3: thing that you would see after World War One or
Speaker 3: World War two. But what we know, of course is
Speaker 3: Ukraine has not been defeated, and in many ways it's
Speaker 3: told in its ground quite well.
Speaker 2: So I also understand it includes handing back most of
Speaker 2: Russia's frozen assets, to which the likes of course Frances
Speaker 2: Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Georgia Maloney have opposed. How has
Speaker 2: the war altered the balance of power between Russia, the
Speaker 2: US and of course European leaders as well.
Speaker 3: The question of assets is a curious one because with
Speaker 3: the sanctions, we've put penalties on Russia for its illegal act,
Speaker 3: and part of the penalties is involved seizing the Russian assets.
Speaker 3: There is a serious legal question about freezing the assets
Speaker 3: and then disposing of the assets. The risk, and it's uncertain,
Speaker 3: is that if you dispose of them, you could become
Speaker 3: legally liable for them in the future when peace resumes.
Speaker 3: So even though countries are feeling very angry right now
Speaker 3: at Russia and they want to use these frozen assets,
Speaker 3: there could be a payback or a penalty laid down
Speaker 3: the track. In terms of the cohesiveness of Europe, it's
Speaker 3: challenging right now. But as you probably would have noticed
Speaker 3: overnight that as the peace talks in Moscow they've grounded
Speaker 3: to another deadlock, we're seeing an increase of European country
Speaker 3: saying we will now give more money to the Ukraine
Speaker 3: with regards to weaponry. And that expansion is not just
Speaker 3: with the European countries with a billion dollars, it's with
Speaker 3: Australia and New Zealand as well, And so overnight New
Speaker 3: Zealand's have said that we will spend an extra fifteen
Speaker 3: million dollars to support Ukraine and its military efforts. And
Speaker 3: that's on top of the humanitarian assistant and legal assistance
Speaker 3: and other types of help that we give. So countries
Speaker 3: are digging deeper to support Ukraine. They're not weakening right now.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the frozen assets.
Speaker 2: When talking about international law, is this unprecedented it's not unprecedented.
Speaker 3: It happened in the nineteen eighties when Iran and America
Speaker 3: had a difficulty and their assets were then seized and
Speaker 3: attempts were made to see quest them. It ended up
Speaker 3: in a very large, protracted legal dispute because it's one
Speaker 3: thing to freeze the asset. It's another thing to liquidate
Speaker 3: it and then use it for another purpose. It's still
Speaker 3: someone else's asset, and so there's no clear legal answer
Speaker 3: on this, although both sides are saying that they have
Speaker 3: an answer, which is probably overstated.
Speaker 1: What should be the answer.
Speaker 3: The answer is that there should be a penalty for
Speaker 3: any country which legally invades another country, and there should
Speaker 3: be accountability for those crimes and for that act. But
Speaker 3: increasingly what you're seeing with international law is that we're
Speaker 3: moving away from penalties and accountability just so we can
Speaker 3: get peace. And so we're seeing that also with regards
Speaker 3: to the regards of peace plant which is a good deal,
Speaker 3: but part of the deal is that there we no
Speaker 3: accountability for the crimes committed by either the State of
Speaker 3: Israel or by hamas alleged crimes. But you're seeing that
Speaker 3: same approach with regards to the Ukraine that to get peace,
Speaker 3: that you'll push accountability to one side, and potentially the
Speaker 3: costs of reconstruction as well. And so everything's got murky,
Speaker 3: and we're no longer in a principled world. We're now
Speaker 3: in a negotiated outcome.
Speaker 4: He also said this, we are not cleaning to go
Speaker 4: to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this
Speaker 4: one hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to go
Speaker 4: to war with us and starts, we are ready right now.
Speaker 5: Well shortly after the meeting ended, a top Russian official
Speaker 5: posted a single word on social media productive punctuated by
Speaker 5: a dove and an olive branch.
Speaker 2: When it comes to consequences and penalties, though, what do
Speaker 2: you think is the right way forward?
Speaker 1: Because we saw and this is.
Speaker 2: A vast generalization I'm thinking of here, but Nazi Germany
Speaker 2: obviously was born from the smoldering ashes of World War
Speaker 2: One and the Treaty of Versailles and the penalties that
Speaker 2: were put upon the German people as a nation.
Speaker 1: So what would be a middle ground here?
Speaker 3: A middle ground would have been the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 3: at which we created at the end of the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 3: and the assumption was was that no one, no matter
Speaker 3: how big or small they were, would be held accountable
Speaker 3: for the crimes that they committed, including eventually the crime
Speaker 3: of aggression. And we all signed up for that, well,
Speaker 3: most countries understood that they signed up for that. But
Speaker 3: by the time we get to the twenty first century,
Speaker 3: you find that these rules only apply to the small players,
Speaker 3: not to the large players. And so there's a degree
Speaker 3: of impunity in the world right now where countries like Russia,
Speaker 3: China and the United States will more or less do
Speaker 3: what they want without being held to account and that
Speaker 3: is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. And that
Speaker 3: makes it difficult for small countries like New Zealand, which
Speaker 3: rely on a rules based order, or Australia as well,
Speaker 3: because then you find that countries feel if they've put
Speaker 3: enough power, they will do what they want to do.
Speaker 3: And then we've got the additional risk that if we
Speaker 3: make a bad peace steel now with Ukraine, one, you're
Speaker 3: only going to make it difficult for the next generation
Speaker 3: and they'll be bitter and angry and come back. And
Speaker 3: two you've got the precedent problem where other countries will
Speaker 3: follow the same sane route. I think that they can
Speaker 3: take someone else's country without repercussions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean thinking of that as well.
Speaker 2: And in terms of an international rules based order, do
Speaker 2: you think we'll ever be able to see another Nuremberg
Speaker 2: trials for example?
Speaker 1: I mean that was or have we since?
Speaker 3: Really we saw some impressive trials with regard to the
Speaker 3: former Yugoslavia Serial leone Rwanda. We've had some individual cases
Speaker 3: before the International Criminal Court, but they've all been minor
Speaker 3: then none of them have involved the superpowers. We had
Speaker 3: a very positive period of growth in the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 3: but we've seen two decades of going backwards. It will
Speaker 3: take a long time to rebuild that kind of confidence
Speaker 3: and good faith until you can get to that point
Speaker 3: where all countries are accountable right now, where it's about
Speaker 3: trying to defeend the architecture that we've got, let alone
Speaker 3: trying to build new ones.
Speaker 2: What do you think Russia's stated conditions for peace, you know,
Speaker 2: from NATO guarantees to recognition of con over occupied territories.
Speaker 1: What does that reveal about Moscow's endgame?
Speaker 3: They are looking for a victory that They've been very
Speaker 3: clear from the beginning that non membership of NATO is
Speaker 3: critical to them where it's expanded, and it's showing an
Speaker 3: increasingly strong putin as with regards to the demands of
Speaker 3: a territory, because now they demanding territory that they haven't
Speaker 3: even conquered, let alone what they've a legally annex. They're
Speaker 3: now saying, we actually want the more than what we
Speaker 3: even hold, and this would suggest that they're feeling confident
Speaker 3: in what they can negotiate for. They're not on a
Speaker 3: back foot, and you're seeing that the level of threat
Speaker 3: continue to grow, and so the retoric about being prepared
Speaker 3: for war with Europe at the same time as making
Speaker 3: excessive demands suggests that they are not in a weak position.
Speaker 2: What kind of security guarantees are there left for Ukraine
Speaker 2: bar a full NATO membership you could try to go for?
Speaker 3: A to approach is one you have troops which are
Speaker 3: non aligned which would be able to be positioned in
Speaker 3: Ukraine in a kind of like a buffer zone, and
Speaker 3: that would mean non NATO countries of which you might
Speaker 3: find that New Zealand could become a potential applicant. The
Speaker 3: alternative approach is what we did with Belgium in the
Speaker 3: nineteenth century and the whole country is declared neutral and
Speaker 3: other countries guarantee its security. But of course, as you
Speaker 3: may recall the problem with doing that with Belgium, and
Speaker 3: is that led to World War One because another country
Speaker 3: just has to go through it eventually in nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 3: and so you could declare Ukraine neutral, but whether it
Speaker 3: was honored as it was not honored in nineteen ninety
Speaker 3: four is a big question mark. And right now very
Speaker 3: free countries, especially in Europe, have faith in the word
Speaker 3: of mister Putin.
Speaker 2: What do you make of European leader's reactions to Putin's calls,
Speaker 2: and you know, the other day he did mention something
Speaker 2: along the lines of they're ready to go to war
Speaker 2: with Europe steadfast.
Speaker 3: I think think Europe is becoming galvanized in a unique
Speaker 3: point of history. It's been pushed by two different factors.
Speaker 3: On the one hand, you've got the threat of Russia
Speaker 3: and on the other hand you've got the uncertainty of America.
Speaker 3: And I think for a long time Europe has relied
Speaker 3: upon America to do all the lift or the heavy
Speaker 3: weight or the heavy carrying. But now they've got to
Speaker 3: do it for themselves, and they're showing a greater independence
Speaker 3: and willingness to do it.
Speaker 2: And do you think Putin has underestimated their ability to
Speaker 2: band together and.
Speaker 3: Do this, Yes, I do, I do, But I think
Speaker 3: the Europeans now face what they can see is a
Speaker 3: very severe threat on their border, and they are galvanizing
Speaker 3: in a way which we haven't seen for many generations.
Speaker 2: That and galvanizing when you say, putting more money towards
Speaker 2: Ukraine's sovereignty.
Speaker 3: So yesterday they pledged a further billion dollars in military assistance.
Speaker 3: That's on top of the additional money that they've already given.
Speaker 3: And then you will find also that they're rapidly developing,
Speaker 3: building and reinforcing their own military, and so military budgets
Speaker 3: across Europe have all expanded rapidly in recent times, and
Speaker 3: so they're much more conscious than they would that they've
Speaker 3: got to look after their own defense and they cannot
Speaker 3: rely on They want American help, but they're at a
Speaker 3: point right now where they're recognizing that mister Trump is
Speaker 3: not always the most stable of partners, and so they're
Speaker 3: willing to go a step further for themselves. Countries like
Speaker 3: New Zealand and Australia are in the same boat, and
Speaker 3: we too are increasing our military spend. And this is
Speaker 3: a difficult thing to do because every dollar you spend
Speaker 3: on a piece of military kit is a dollar you
Speaker 3: don't spend on education, or a dollar you don't spend
Speaker 3: on housing or on schools, And so that opportunity cost
Speaker 3: is hard, but the risk externally is great.
Speaker 6: You don't know what the Kremlin's doing. I can tell
Speaker 6: you that they had a reasonably good meeting with President
Speaker 6: put We're going to find out. It's a war that
Speaker 6: should have never been started, and were if I were president,
Speaker 6: we had a rigged election. If I were president, that
Speaker 6: war would have never happened. It's a terrible thing. But
Speaker 6: I thought they had a very good meeting yesterday with
Speaker 6: the President Putin. We'll see what happens. It's you know,
Speaker 6: when I was in this office and I talked you
Speaker 6: about no cards, I said, you have no cards? That
Speaker 6: was the time to settle. I thought that would have
Speaker 6: been a much better time to settle, But their wisdom
Speaker 6: decided to do that. They have a lot of things
Speaker 6: against them right now.
Speaker 2: I read a piece in the New York Times analyzing
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian recruitment ads and.
Speaker 1: How they have evolved over the course of the war.
Speaker 2: Right, so the beginning saw wars, you know, soldiers fighting
Speaker 2: zombie like figures, a battle crier or call to arms
Speaker 2: type of thing. Since then they've kind of progressed into
Speaker 2: playing on people's pride to defend their country. You know,
Speaker 2: an officer on the phone talking to his mother, she's
Speaker 2: proud that he's enlisting.
Speaker 1: That kind of thing.
Speaker 2: And new ads don't even show weapons or officers iddling
Speaker 2: babies and you know, playing with dogs and things like that,
Speaker 2: sitting on a beach operating a drone. What do you
Speaker 2: think this says about enlisting in Ukraine but also the
Speaker 2: course of I think it's an interesting if you step
Speaker 2: back and look at the evolvement of these ads. Are
Speaker 2: they perhaps finding it quite difficult to garner that national
Speaker 2: pride or do you think that the Ukrainians are doing
Speaker 2: quite well in that respect.
Speaker 3: Both sides are under stress in this war, but one
Speaker 3: of the under economic stress, under military stress, and they're
Speaker 3: under manpower stress. I used the word manpower loosely. The
Speaker 3: amount of soldiers that you've got to replace each month
Speaker 3: is over twenty thousand, and trying to keep this kind
Speaker 3: of figure going on a continue rolling basis is a
Speaker 3: very difficult ask and so Ukraine itself has not got
Speaker 3: a problem with people. Young men often will try to
Speaker 3: avoid conscription and they will try not to do their service,
Speaker 3: and so you've got to find a way where you
Speaker 3: can make it attractive for them. But it's unsustainable and
Speaker 3: belong to if you keep feeding young people into these
Speaker 3: military machines. The Russians don't have quite the same restraints.
Speaker 3: Ukraine does have a restraint in miteria. So they've got
Speaker 3: to find ways which it looks more appealing to the
Speaker 3: young men and young women rather than what it is,
Speaker 3: which is often a very terrible situation. But yes it's
Speaker 3: a concern and they have to work hard trying to
Speaker 3: keep their numbers up.
Speaker 2: Now we know that talks have stalled. What happens if
Speaker 2: they just completely collapse.
Speaker 3: Well, we go back to the battlefront, and the traditional
Speaker 3: pattern of wars is that you try to negotiate until
Speaker 3: one side gets an upper hand. And the way that
Speaker 3: they're going to get an upper hand is that they're
Speaker 3: either going to grind their way through, which seems unlikely,
Speaker 3: especially if the new weaponry continues to come through from
Speaker 3: Europe and its supporters, or you try to change the
Speaker 3: tactics or the weapons are being used to get that advantage.
Speaker 3: That's where the risk is because different are used on
Speaker 3: the battlefield, or the battlefield expand rapidly into say Russia
Speaker 3: will hypothetically, say a long range misself from Ukraine hit Moscow.
Speaker 3: Then things can go sideways quite quickly. It's contained at
Speaker 3: the moment, but it's fragile, and the risk is that
Speaker 3: to try to get that breakthrough, they will try new
Speaker 3: tactics and new weapons which could make things split out
Speaker 3: of control.
Speaker 2: What do you think the likelihood of Putin actually beginning
Speaker 2: a war where Europe is it's.
Speaker 3: A very irrational thing to do. I don't think it's
Speaker 3: a likely thing to do. But often the larger wars
Speaker 3: happen through irrational or accidental methods or mistakes, And when
Speaker 3: you've got armies which arebuptressing each other and bumping into
Speaker 3: each other on a regular basis, you escalate those risks
Speaker 3: each day. A war with Europe is potentially the Third
Speaker 3: World War. I don't think that's going to happen. I
Speaker 3: think that's quite unlikely. It's in no one's interests. It's irrational,
Speaker 3: but in war, mistakes happen, and when tensions escalate, the
Speaker 3: risks multiplied.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, AL, You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 2: in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.