It always feels dangerous to say it's
been a quiet week in diplomacy, but this
week the silence has been deafening.
After the fanfare of the summits in
Alaska and Washington DC, expectations
that a summit between Presidents Putin
and Zalinski could be imminent have
plummeted. And Donald Trump's new
two-week deadline for Russia to make
further concessions or to face massive
sanctions. It's a threat that many have
heard before. An interview in the
Western media by the Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov highlighted just
how far apart Moscow and Kiev still are
on issues from territory to security
guarantees.
>> The Ukrainians and the Europeans who
attended the meeting in Washington. They
try to distort what was discussed in
Anchorage between President Trump and
President Putin regarding in particular
the security guarantees. Why should we
be swallowing all this? I explained to
you, I never said that Russia must have
a veto on security guarantees, but
security guarantees must be subject to
consensus.
>> But it was yet another major attack on
the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, that's led
to numerous fatalities and damage to
both the EU mission and the British
Council, which has drawn the loudest
condemnation. So, as American patience
continues to be tested, will Trump's
latest ultimatum ring hollow? Or could
it actually help to bring the conflict
towards some kind of conclusion? Well,
to answer all of your questions, we're
joined by our expert panel.
>> I'm Vital Shvchenko. I'm James
Waterhouse.
>> I'm Olga Robinson.
>> And I'm Jamie Kimarasi. Welcome to
Ukraine Cast.
>> Ukraine cast from BBC News.
[Music]
Now, it's been a familiar theme over the
past several months, and we are now once
again waiting to see whether the latest
American deadline on diplomatic progress
can bear fruit. And with that in mind,
let's get straight to our first question
this week. It's from Robin in to who
says, "Why are EU UK leaders not picking
up the phone to Putin to lead on
diplomatic efforts to end this war?
Whether we like Putin and his regime or
not, he has made it abundantly clear
that he believes that Russia's security
requires a buffer between Russia and
NATO. Whatever doubts we may have about
Russia, it cannot be doubted that we
know exactly what Russia is doing is
looking for to achieve a long-term
peaceful resolution. Why does the EU and
UK think that Ukraine can win back all
of their lost territory even with EU and
UK support? This is not a question of
appeasement, but recognizing reality and
stopping thousands more people being
killed just to prove a point. Western
Europe is too close to Russia to leave
it to the US to lead on this when US
policy changes every day, if they have a
policy at all. Vitali,
>> well, it's not that they haven't tried
talking to Putin, uh, European leaders
and Ukrainian presidents as well. um
almost 25 years of trying to engage with
Vladimir Putin before they realize that
uh the the the point of talking to
somebody who who lies who doesn't keep
his word uh is becoming vanishingly
small. agreements reached with with
Russia guaranteeing Ukraine's security
uh recognizing Ukraine's borders. Uh
agreements reached with Ukra with with
the West uh on on um weapons reduction,
agreements uh on on various ceasefires,
agreements not to attack were all broken
by by Vladimir Putin. And this stuff
about
a buffer uh that he allegedly requires,
that's a lie, too. Uh what about the the
Baltic states and and Finland? They're
right next on Russia's border, their
member states. And yet, how often do we
hear from the Kremlin about the the
grave threat coming from from those
countries? It just isn't. At at one
point after Finland joined uh NATO in
2023, Vimir Putin said, "No, no, we're
not worried about Finland and NATO at
all. Let them in the year 2000." He
said, "Actually, Russia might join
NATO." That was right after it became uh
came to power in in in Russia. So, um I
I'm not buying this line about uh
Ukraine and NATO being a threat to
Russia. Ukraine's accession to NATO was
a very very distant prospect back then.
It's still very distant. It's an excuse.
>> James, the the proximity of of Western
Europe to the war. I mean, again, drawn
into focus by these attacks we've seen
in Kiev on the EU mission, the British
Council, those buildings damaged. But
what about the back channel discussions?
are there going on?
>> I agree like the this attack in Kiev is
sinister in in nature and timing, not
least after a lull, relative lull after
the Putin Trump summit in Alaska. I
don't think it's a fair argument. I
understand the argument about Ukraine's
European neighbors being there and
having to think about doing the doing
when it comes to um propping Ukraine up
and keeping it secure in the future. But
I don't think Europe or Ukraine thinks
it can liberate its territory. They
they've they've had to be clear about
that. There's also been a shift in tone
on Europe going its own way and say
getting on the phone directly to Putin.
You know, as the months have gone on
with Donald Trump, there has been
increased dialogue, cooperation in some
areas. And there's also been an
acceptance that they can't they simply
can't do it. They can't provide the
necessary military means to stop Russia
from from rearing up its it its
aggression in in the long term which is
why they are having to exercise this
diplomatic discipline. They are
following Donald Trump's lead. I've just
sat at a online European Union briefing
where we're hoping to get some details
on peace talks, the Zalinski Putin
summit perhaps, what America means by
its involvement in security guarantees.
And the short answer is they don't yet
know.
>> One of the most common subjects our
listeners get in touch about is
Ukraine's aspirations for NATO
membership. Obviously, we can't discuss
it every week, but uh I think this
question from Kieran could be a useful
refresher for us.
>> Hi Ukraine Cast. This is Kieran in
Tokyo. I'd like to ask about the general
acceptance of Putin's condition that
Ukraine does not join NATO since he does
not want any NATO countries bordering
Russia.
Isn't it an admission by Putin that he
will continue taking bites out of
Ukraine and other countries? Should this
not be called out in discussions with
him? I find it strange that this
condition is treated as acceptable when
it just leaves the door open to future
attacks.
>> Vital, you touched on this already, but
the question of why it's not being
called out.
>> Well, to start with, there are four NATO
member states right on Russia's border
already. uh Estonia, Latithania, and
Finland.
Uh listen, I I do think it's it's been a
red herring all along. It's never been
about uh Ukraine joining NATO. It has
been about capturing Ukrainian territory
and controlling Ukraine as a state,
social, political spheres, all of it. Um
so uh when Putin raises the prospect of
NATO expanding well there's a reason why
countries are asking to join NATO and so
many have and it's because of Russia's
expansionism. Ukraine has been told
repeatedly year after year that no no
you're not joining us. But the fact is
NATO membership has worked for other
countries in Russia's vicinity. Why not
Ukraine? Just a reminder, we are
recording this on on Thursday and uh we
are just hearing that the the foreign
office, the UK foreign office has
summoned the Russian ambassador over the
latest strikes in Ke. I wonder what you
make of that, James.
>> I mean, why now is is is the question.
And I suspect it's because of the
diplomatic backdrop because if the
British embassy if if the if the UK is
suddenly exercised by this Russian
strike, then why not the countless other
Russian strikes that rain down on
Ukrainian cities? You suspect that that
it doesn't want these diplomatic efforts
to be derailed. Albeit that the tracks
we're on are in a circle. We're not
going anywhere. at the moment, as far as
Europe's concerned, it's got Trump using
words like American involvement in
security guarantees. Um, he is he is
listening to them. They have his ear.
Um, and so if it takes a tough stance
against Moscow, air strikes like this
that that completely contradicts the,
you know, the applause that Putin was
met with by Donald Trump in in Alaska,
then it will want to talk that up and
present it to Washington as something
serious and something that should be
countered in some way.
>> And I guess we have the British Council
building this time being damaged.
>> Yeah. And that's unusual. I mean it's
it's unusual for such buildings um in
central areas of K to be damaged in this
way which I think is reflective of the
the typical Russian blend of of drones
and missiles all at once to overwhelm
air defenses and of course we've seen
you know according to officials in the
city two ballistic missiles slam into a
into a residential block. Make of that
what you will. Of course, Donald Trump
hosted that meeting in the White House
just after the Alaska summit. And it was
interesting. Finland was there, one of
those bordering countries to Russia
that's now a member of NATO. But
interestingly, a major European country
that borders Ukraine and has been
incredibly important in in the logistics
and in the support for Ukraine since the
war began was not there. And that's
Poland. and Margaret has been in touch
uh with the following question.
>> Hi Ukraine cast Margaret in east of
England here. I would just like to ask
about Poland. Firstly, how come it
wasn't represented at the White House
summit last week? And secondly, is there
a real concern about whether Russia
could attack Poland and what would
happen if it did? Thanks.
>> Well, Poland of course is in an
interesting political situation now. It
has in Donald Tusk a prime minister who
is
far more EU friendly has been friendly
towards uh Ukraine but a a new president
of course who does not come from the
same political
stable as him President Navroski and
these internal tensions in in countries
have a way of playing out on the
international diplomatic stage don't
they? I wonder what you made. Don't know
who want to takes this on. The
significance of Poland not being there
and where it stands at the moment.
>> Well, I think it's an an excellent
question from Margaret. Uh the answer to
that is I don't know. I've asked people
in Warso. They don't really know either.
I've had a look at an an article on the
BBC website about why uh Poland wasn't
uh there. I don't think I understand why
it wasn't still. Uh the reason why the
Polish uh president uh Alexander Stub
was there was possibly because the the
Finnish uh president was there was
possibly because he plays golf and he
can speak to Trump and Trump will
listen. So the people who came there
were you know possibly the people who
Trump was more inclined to listen to.
But Poland is is a a very notable
emission.
And what I've been told by people who
are in in Warso is that the they can
detect a shift in attitudes towards
Ukrainians
in that Ukrainians don't feel as welcome
anymore. And the president Carl Navroski
recently uh vetoed a bill uh on on um uh
payments to Ukrainian refugees uh social
security payments to Ukrainian refugees.
>> A million since the war began.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And now Polish payments for
Starling Starling communication systems
used by Ukraine. They're also under
threat. So to some it feels like
Poland's kind of stepping slightly
further away from helping Ukraine. Will
it be attacked by Russia? Well, if the
Western response continues to be so so
weak, that is basically an an invitation
uh to attack because what will the West
do? Who knows? Maybe
>> it's interesting because there there has
traditionally been total agreement
across the political
sphere in Poland, you know, that Russia
is a threat. There's never that's never
been uh doubted. You know, you had the
nationalist law and justice party, of
course, the two brothers who uh have
been the the the Kachinsky brothers who
have really been the the power either in
place or behind the throne. One of them
of course died in a plane crash. Um
which you know in Poland at least they
sort of have blamed Russia for. Um so
it's interesting to see the development.
>> Yeah. When I was in uh Washington I got
to speak to Machek a correspondent from
Polish TVN
and he also said that things are
shifting in Poland when it comes to to
Ukraine. Well, actually on the kind of
slight flip side of it, um Poland was
famously not present in the White House,
but where it is where it features really
prominently is in Russian influence
operations because we see fake videos
produced by um a variety of Russian kind
of covert influence um operations on
social media on regular basis like it is
one of the big targets um Poland and
what we often see and have seen over the
last at least a year or so, if not more,
um, attempts to portray Ukrainian
refugees in Poland as being kind of
unruly and barbaric or scammers and
people like doing some dodgy things and
that they really need to be expelled.
Um, and I think that's it might not be
as prominent
in the White House, but it clearly is
like the eyes of the Russian media
operation are clearly on Poland as one
of the big targets.
>> So, they're working those operations by
the sound of it possibly.
>> I think you can be you can be both wary
of Russia's threat and become
increasingly disassociated with what you
know, Ukraine's fate. And I suspect that
might be what's going on uh in Poland
with the passing of time.
>> Interesting. Um plenty of food for
thought there. Uh thanks to to Margaret
for that question and to Tad in Texas
who wrote in with uh a similar one as
well. Now last week we discussed how
President Zalinski's long-term
leadership is viewed in Ukraine amid
continuing Russian attempts to to
question his legitimacy. And today,
well, the boot is on the other foot
because Bruce in Alaska asks, "Is Putin
legitimate?" Putin challenges Zilinski's
legitimacy, arguing that elections
haven't been held, ignoring the
Ukrainian constitution. But the Russian
constitution limits the president to two
terms in a row. Midvide filled in the
one-term gap between Putin's second and
third terms. Putin changed the
constitution from four-year to six-year
terms, but did not remove the two-term
limit as I read it. Putin is now in his
fifth term with no gap between either
his third and fourth or fourth and fifth
terms in office. He appears to be in
violation of the Russian constitution.
>> Well, all we know is that he's been in
in charge of Russia since the year 2000.
Basically he is a stickler for protocol
and rules and he normally tries and
makes sure that uh you know uh there are
different paragraphs and uh articles in
place to justify whatever he's doing.
But what's important is that he's in
charge. He is the one uh and medv he was
chosen because he was safe. Everybody
else is still there in in the Russian um
political elite. they're there because
they don't really pose a threat to
Vladimir Putin. The moment you uh do
mount a challenge, well, you are under
threat yourself, which is what happened
to Yoran who led that mutiny and then he
got killed in a plane crash. So, uh
Putin, he's made sure that he's the only
one.
>> Well, also let's not forget that the
majority of the Russian population it
still supports Vladimir Putin. Uh, and
also I mean if you talk to some of the
pro Kremlin types, they would just say,
"Well, he's our president. We support
him. It doesn't matter. It they don't
even talk about how long he's been in
power." They don't they don't really
mind. Uh, and when it comes to the
Russian opposition, obviously they've
been saying that he's has not been
legitimate for years now, ever since he
swapped with Midv in 2011. Um, but
that's a tiny minority. Um, vocal but
tiny minority. What about I suppose the
meat of this question from from Bruce
about the Russian constitution? What
does it actually say now?
>> Well, the thing is they've nullified um
Putin's they've changed the constitution
and uh they've nullified um the terms
Putin's terms. So it's uh it was called
so he started from scratch. So So
technically he is legitimate but things
have been done to make it
>> a reset as one former US administration
talked about. But it's it's a the clock
has been reset
>> effectively. Yeah.
>> Right. And just a thought, Bruce from
Alaska. You didn't bump into him. Did
you meet him?
>> Maybe, but I didn't recognize him. So,
next time in Alaska, I'm pretty sure he
would have recognized you. Yeah.
>> Next. Next time you're in Alaska.
Exactly. Exactly. Um whenever that is.
Um well, we're going to turn to another
country, another big international power
and what its role in all this might be
because we heard this week that Vladimir
Putin will be among those who will be
going to China's Victory Day parade next
Wednesday and that means his
relationship with President Xi is once
again under the microscope and that's
something that has inspired this
question.
>> Hello, it's Kevin Hall from Boston in
Lincolnshshire.
Is it true that President Gi took
tactical nuclear weapons off the table
for the Russians at the beginning of the
full-scale invasion? Do we consider now
as we are at this critical point in the
peace negotiations?
Whether Putin would actually use one,
they have them in their arsenal to gain
further advantage in his peace dealings.
James, I'm sure as someone who's been
living in key of you have reflected on
the possible use of tactical nuclear
weapons. Thoughts on President Xi and
what he may or may not have said to
President Putin?
>> Yeah, I mean I remember Kevin when um uh
Vladimir Putin was especially rattling
the nuclear saber, wasn't he, in 2022
threatening to use a so-called tactical
nuke which would wipe out a small city.
Um there were reports of um one being
deployed in the east and I remember we
had to relocate from um um KVB Zinski's
home city in the south. We had to push
further west just as a precaution and
that by then we had started packing
radioactive suits um which was
interesting and now if you stay in a
hotel in Ukraine it's not uncommon to
have one uh laid on for you in the
wardrobe. Um but I remember equally uh
later in 2022
uh Beijing unusually spoke out of course
it's for him very reluctant to condemn
the war but it spoke out saying look
it's we don't see it as helpful uh that
a nuclear power would make such threats
in this way
>> there was a lot of signaling going on
there wasn't there I think the B
administration top officials they were
picking up the phone to their Russian
counterparts and letting it be known.
Yeah, absolutely. And and and I think
this is the standoff we found ourselves
in all along. I mean, the the the the
question mark over nuclear weapons, of
course, we take it seriously. I think
the the relative chance of them being
deployed are still slim because of the
the costs, not least with an attack like
this, but also what it would mean for
for the Kremlin. Um because the West,
you would suspect, would want would have
to uh escalate in some way. Um but the
the theme of nuclear weapons and who has
them and whether they'll use them has
run throughout this war. It is why you
don't see Western boots on the ground in
Ukraine and is why we have seen the West
have to grow in so much confidence to
give the military aid that it does
today. But it it it is still why
Vladimir Putin felt able to wage this
war in the
>> Xi Jinping is one of the very very few
people who Putin has very good reason to
listen to I'm not sure about Donald
Trump but Xi Jinping definitely because
China is buying almost half of Russia's
crude oil exports uh India uh 38%. So
when China says something
Putin listens and also let's not forget
about all the parts that are being
imported to Russia from China that
Russia is using in its defense industry
and various uh ways of circumventing
financial sanctions as well. China's
been helping with those too.
>> What about a Chinese role in
negotiations? We haven't heard anything.
And at the beginning of the war, they
were very involved, weren't they, in
putting across their own plan and trying
to insert themselves into some kind of
>> Oh, we say plan. It was It was more like
a a very vague vision, wasn't it?
>> We'll call it a vision. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, China is not exactly an
independent mediator. They they've got a
lot of skin in the game. For which
reason Ukraine says, "No, no, we don't
want Chinese uh peacekeeping or
mediation or whatever." But look, if if
China was interested in making uh this
this stop or somehow reigning Putin in,
they they could easily do that by just
stopping buying the oil.
>> Great. Well, look, thanks all of you. Um
just before we go, uh we we are doing
some research to find out how you can
improve the podcast. And if you want to
have your say, just uh enter uh
bit.ly/ukracast ly/
Ukraine feedback into your browser. And
uh to make it even easier, we'll also
drop a link in the description. We'll be
back with a new Q&A episode next week.
But in the meantime, why not subscribe
to Ukraine Cast wherever you get your
BBC podcast for plenty of extra
analysis. Thanks very much for watching.
Bye for now.