this hour.
>> It's an honor to have the president of
Ukraine with us. We've had a lot of good
discussions, a lot of good talks and I
think progress is being made, very very
substantial progress in many ways.
>> If I can first of all thank you for
invitation and thank you very much for
your efforts uh personal efforts to stop
killings and stop this war. President
Zilinski seemed to be visibly holding
his tongue sitting in his new suit next
to President Trump in the Oval Office
yesterday after the disaster of the last
time the two met there. Zilinski kept
his counsel, but I thought you could
practically see his knuckles whitening
uh when he was forcing himself not to
respond to Trump's praising of Putin and
his affirmation that the US is done
spending money on Ukraine. Even barbs
about his clothing and and the lack of
elections were taken on the chin this
time by Zilinski. Here's the moment that
the same reporter who questioned
Vladimir Zilinski about his lack of suit
last time was called on by Trump.
>> President Zilinski, you look fabulous in
that suit.
>> I said, you look good.
>> I said the same thing. Yeah.
>> Isn't that nice? That's the one that
attacked you last time. See, now he's
>> I remember that.
Uh, no. My first question for you in the
same suit.
>> You see, I changed your
>> There's a lot of anger there. The
substance of the extraordinary wartime
crisis summit seems to be that a meeting
between Putin and Zilinski looks more
likely. Trump saying peace could happen
in the next 7 to 14 days, but that
Ukraine would have to buy weapons from
the United States. The Financial Times
reports a $100 billion deal funded by
Europe would see Ukraine buy US-made
weapons. The Kremlin says it would
reject any NATO forces in Ukraine, but
the US hasn't ruled out providing troops
there. Trump called Putin yesterday
afternoon. Zalinski says he's ready for
a trilateral meeting possibly in the
next week or two. It's still very much
all up in the air, but does President
Trump deserve some credit for getting it
to this stage? Sben Wallace is the
former defense secretary between 2019
and 2023. Has written extensively about
this issue. Indeed, a piece in the
Telegraph today. Thank you very much
indeed for coming on the program. Sen,
um your thoughts on what you saw heard
from yesterday's meeting?
Uh well the plus side is it didn't
descend into uh the sort of rot vile
bully scene that we saw in the Oval
Office last time and Zalinski was uh
given his place as he should do as a
president fighting to defend his country
from a brutal regime. I think uh also it
showed Trump had to in a sense give way.
he had to entertain the European
leadersh originally. You know, in
Trump's mind, this was all about him.
Well, it usually is all about him in his
mind. And that, you know, he was going
to be the great deal maker. And I
remember ages ago writing a piece saying
that unless the people who've got skin
in the game are actually in the room, uh
if you remember that rather odd Saudi
summit where the Russians turned up, sat
a room for hours with the Americans,
then you won't make any progress. And
and so at the very least the people
who've got skin in the game, Europe
because it's our security as well as
Ukraine Ukraine who are fighting and
dying. Uh and it was you know joined
currently the most powerful man in the
world. So there's a plus there. There
was no negatives. Um you know Trump was
very careful not to rule things in and
not to rule things out which was
uncharacteristic of him. But I also
think that uh you know we've got to a
stage there potentially there might be a
summit between Putin and uh President
Sinski. We'll see. Nothing else has been
firm. Uh and I there's quite a lot of
speculation in the media about troops on
the ground etc.
>> Um the one thing that's constant in all
of this, Tom, is that Russia rarely
changes its tune. To be fair, for for a
regime that spends most of its time
lying and deliberately spreading
propaganda, when it comes to its
geopolitical positions, it it doesn't
change. It's been very clear it won't
tolerate NATO troops or European troops
on the ground. Even though it's not its
country, but it it just determined to
not do that. He's been very clear Putin
throughout that he wouldn't have a
ceasefire. Uh he hasn't got one. uh and
throughout uh Putin continues to lay
claims to the wider oblasts of Daesque
etc. and refuses to give and and none of
us have seen any indication of any give
at all. What we've also seen is that
Putin seems to be more on the side of
Russia than the West and our democratic
values and Zilinski which does worry me
if
>> you mean Trump. Sorry, Ben. Do you do
you mean
>> Donald Trump?
>> Yeah, sorry.
>> Sorry. Yeah, Donald Trump. Donald Trump,
if you notice, he takes the Russians
lines. He he tries to view Putin almost
as greater than any of Zilinski and you
can see in all that I mean one of those
ridiculous rotters in the Oval Office
asked Zilinski of when will you stop
sending Ukrainian men to their deaths.
Well that's very easy to answer. That's
when Putin stops illegally invading. And
when your country is invaded you don't
send people to war that they funny
enough do their duty, join up and defend
their nation. Well, one of the things
you seem to worry about certainly in the
pages of the Telegraph this morning is
that we are on you, your you quote you
here, on the cusp of another 1938 Munich
conference that Trump plays a kind of
what Chamberlain role in waving around a
bit of paper saying I've secured peace
in our time. The reality being Putin
ignores it.
>> Yeah. I mean the if if
Trump uh and he's talked about land
swaps previous to this summit. If Donald
Trump uh conceds Putin's demand to not
move the front line or give Putin the
most important part of Daesk from a
strategic military point of view, that's
the sort of big belt, the forest belt
>> uh up in the north west of the country.
Then what he does is he allows Putin to
consolidate, go away, rearm, and he has
a perfect strategic springboard and
geographic position to further invade
when he wants to. It also fixes troops
uh western troops if they are
potentially deployed from Europe in one
part of Ukraine to police a Putin
ceasefire rather than a Ukrainian one
while he goes off and rearms and then it
sets up what we call a strategic dilemma
is that at the moment none of our forces
are big enough to be able to have
alternatives elsewhere. So you have
thousands of troops fixed in Ukraine and
Donald Trump starts eating away at
Estonia or uh Finland, then we're in
difficult place.
>> I know it's a very difficult question to
answer quickly. What would you want to
see to have done differently?
>> I think I would like to have seen uh
first of all a very clear statement from
the United States uh that uh security
guarantees will include US uh forces or
troops alongside Europeans. I would have
liked to have seen Europeans
be much more specific about their
investment in defense seems to be the
only investment seems to be European
money into American defense. uh from the
the Washington briefing was actually
what we need to do is put our money
where our mouth is uh and continue to
stand firm and united with Putin that to
be fair European leaders were very clear
not with Putin sorry Zalinski European
leaders are very fair in making sure
that their language matched President
Zalinsk's the problem was there's still
doubt because President Trump's language
seems to be matching that of President
Putin's and that is a worry because a
non-united front is the very thing that
Putin wants a sort of division and that
emboldens him.
>> Very good to have you on. Thank you for
your time. So Ben Wallace is the former
defense secretary. Listening to that at
7:13. Matthew Bartlett, Republican
strategist and former Trump appointee to
the State Department in the first term.
Thank you for coming on the program. Mr.
Bartlet, your view of yesterday and
whether you think your former boss
deserves credit even if we haven't got
anything concrete out of it necessarily.
>> Yeah. Hey, good morning Tom. Um and
yeah, you know, um I could opine about
the credit that Donald Trump should get.
That is absolutely not the point. This
is not about Trump. Uh this is about
potentially um ending a war and a peace
deal and just candidly speaking
directionally. This is headed in a far
better direction um than it has in
years. Um President Trump, you know, had
the meeting with President Putin um
consulted with the Europeans prior to
that. Um there are reports that even
pushed back against Putin on the
Daesque. Um whereas Putin wanted all of
it. He said then maybe we should end
this meeting. Putin supposedly relented.
Um had a tremendous day here in
Washington. Um it is shocking to hear
Sir Ben, but I'm not going to comment on
that. Um I think
>> uh just preposterous to hear him say
that Trump pared Putin's lines. Really
don't want to get into partisan nonsense
or whatever. Let's just focus on what
did happen, which was the seeds of a
security agreement. A shocking again
probably never before seen non-NATO talk
of of of French troops, British troops.
Trump not even ruling out US troops, a
security agreement in there. Um the
notion of Zalinsky potentially being
open um to to again um you know, the
very painful concessions that may be
needed. more importantly saying very
bravely that he is ready to meet
Vladimir Putin. It seems as if again um
there is a united front um of those that
are eager to make peace a very very
difficult process yet it is far
preferable um to just the the the the
horrific uh status quo right now. So
again in Washington and we'll see what
happens next. But as as Sen was trying
to make the argument for, in the same
way that a peace agreement was good in
1938, uh, with some land handed over to
Nazi Germany and and and Hitler saying
he wasn't going to invade any further in
1938 that was good, but obviously it
precipitated something that was
absolutely catastrophic. You reject that
comparison.
>> A a very naive and potentially dangerous
comparison. I mean, let's just be clear
here. If Vladimir Putin was Hitler,
viewed as such, we would all have our
armies in Ukraine. We'd be rolling tanks
into Moscow. This would be a massive
escalatory war um that I don't think is
in anybody's interest. Uh so again, feel
free to take an offensive posture. feel
free to. It's just again the realities
of this um are are brutal or painful and
the notion of this is Hitler is just and
this is World War II and we're going to
have some sort of military conquer um
win is is is just you know fantasy. Um
it's just not the case right now. Um uh
you know this is going to be a war that
is going to be end diplomatically. And
again peace is sometimes just as hard uh
to do as as war is. But let's just be
cleareyed about this. Let's also
remember that the Europeans uh last year
bought a record level of LG gas from you
know Putin from Hitler if you will. So
again this is complex uh you know uh
inflammatory rhetoric potentially makes
it worse all around. I would agree to
that. Putin is evil. Putin is a
murderous invading dictator um who has
taken land at the barrel of a gun. Yet
we are forced, we the world, if you
will, are forced to find a way to end
this. Um, make safeguards to ensure this
doesn't happen. And again, I think
directionally speaking, it's a better
place.
>> It's Matthew. Thank you. Matthew
Bartlett is a Republican strategist and
former Trump appointee to the State
Department in his first term. I wonder
whether you think is that not
unquestionably the case. It is much
better, isn't it, to be talking about
maybe a peace deal in 7 to 14 days and
Zilinsky meeting Putin and and a
security arrangement, even though if
we're paying for it, and we are,
apparently, according to the Financial
Times, $100 billion to buy US-made
weapons to help Ukraine defend itself
should the worst come to the worst, plus
maybe some boots on the ground in
Ukraine. That's to be worked out. Is
this not in a better place than it was
two years ago, a year ago, 6 months ago,
pre-Trump? this is now in a better place
to maybe make peace or you worry about
the nature of the peace that is being
made with a much more sympathetic to
Putin president in the Oval This