Inside Geneva
Inside Geneva is a podcast about global politics, humanitarian issues, and international aid, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes. It is produced by SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland.
Inside Geneva
US-Russia talks on Ukraine: peace or appeasement?
On the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Inside Geneva has some big questions about the US-Russia talks this week on ending the war in Ukraine.
“Is this really a peace deal or is it just a deal about money? Or is it even some kind of capitulation or a power grab?” asks Inside Geneva host Imogen Foulkes.
What does US President Donald Trump want?
“Do you want to just stop the war, or do you want to win it? We don’t know what President Trump would consider a win. One suspects it’s a win that would be purely transactional in US interests,” says Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor for the New York Times.
Who will have to make sure that peace is sustainable?
“The US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin, but who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe,” adds Gunilla von Hall, correspondent for Svenska Dagbladet.
How can negotiations even take place without Ukraine?
“We will never be able to talk about peace and sustainable peace as long as the Ukrainians are not involved, because the grievances will remain,” says Laurent Sierro, journalist at the Swiss News Agency Keystone-ATS.
These are tough questions for the US, Europe and Ukraine. And what about the United Nations – does it have a role at all? Join us on Inside Geneva to find out.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's programme….
Speaker 2:It started before dawn. Ukraine woke to explosions around the capital Kiev.
Speaker 1:In the last several hours, Russia has invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 3:We stand with Ukraine now and in the future. That starts on the battlefield.
Speaker 2:Tonight in a radical break with the past the US and Russia agreeing to work together, the two sides discussing how to end Russia's war in Ukraine, but doing so without any Ukrainian officials present. We couldn't have imagined a better result after this session.
Speaker 4:But today I heard oh well, we weren't invited. Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. How are you approaching this? Do you want just to stop the war or do you want to win it? And that's the point. We don't know even what President Trump would think is a win. One suspects it's a win that would be purely transactional in US interests, which is bad news for Europe.
Speaker 3:Returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.
Speaker 6:Europe is expected to be responsible for the reconstruction of Ukraine, having troops on the ground to oversee a ceasefire. So the US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin, but then who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe. Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table.
Speaker 5:The answer to that last question, just as you framed it, the answer is no. We will never be able to talk about peace, and sustainable peace, as long as the Ukrainians are not associated with that, because the grievances will remain.
Speaker 1:Hello again and welcome to Geneva for our very special episode Three years since Russia invaded Ukraine. Events moving very, very, very fast, so we're recording this a few days before this podcast goes on air. Things may even have changed when we go on air, but what we're going to try to do is explore where we are now with that conflict with three journalists here in Geneva that I've been talking to about this for the last three years. They are Gunilla von Hall from the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor to the New York Times from here in Geneva, and Laurence Siero of the Swiss news agency ATS, also a longtime correspondent here at the UN, and we're going to try to unpick.
Speaker 1:Is this really a peace deal, or is it just a deal about money? Or is it just a deal about money? Or is it even some kind of capitulation or a power grab by countries that are already very powerful? And we're going to have a look at where it leaves the United Nations, perhaps also where it leaves European countries. A lot to talk about, nick. I think I'll start with you about Nick. I think I'll start with you. I do remember that when the day this war started, the day of the invasion, you, laurent, and I were discussing this. We know Western diplomats here in Geneva have told us privately, off the record, that they knew a peace deal would come in which Ukraine would lose some territory, and that maybe the NATO membership would have to go very far down the list of priorities. So why the uproar now about the United States saying this publicly?
Speaker 4:Well, I think it was just extremely disconcerting to see Defense Secretary Hegsworth casually discarding issues that could have served as levers in any negotiation on a peace deal no NATO membership for Ukraine, which preempt in any negotiation on a peace deal. No NATO membership for Ukraine, which preempts their choice as a sovereign government. No deployment of US troops to enforce post-war security guarantees. Any European troops deployed would not be under a NATO umbrella. I mean advertising hugely the rift between this position and the previous positions of NATO members. And then, perhaps an even bigger cause of whiplash was Trump's 90-minute phone call to Vladimir Putin. You know, we know that Trump shoots from the lip and we can't prejudge the course of the negotiations. And we've heard people around him saying you know, he's fully aware of all the levers he's got to pull.
Speaker 4:But contacting Putin in this way, after three years of isolating him as a pariah state for his invasion of Ukraine, chatting chummily about the great history of their nations, putting up on Truth, social, this sort of very jolly record of the conversation celebrating the fact that Vladimir Putin had endorsed his campaign slogan of common sense, no sense at all. That he was dealing with someone who had violated the UN Charter, butchered thousands of people violated committed numerous atrocity crimes. None of that was evident or reflected in any of the comments. It was easy to understand really why the Kremlin is euphoric, why NATO states are dismayed and the sense of victory already in their grasp within the Kremlin is not going to make it easier to negotiate a deal that Ukraine and Europe would consider respectable. So, I think, a huge source of concern and dismay among America's former allies.
Speaker 1:I think that reflects a lot of what I've been hearing from other people about this. That very important not least Ukraine, seem to be shut out of this discussion. Gunilla, you of course, have been traveling back and forth to Ukraine over the last three years Now. The last time I saw you, you were just back and you said that people were very tired of the war. But is this a relief to them, the way this is happening now?
Speaker 6:I think it is what Nick is saying too, that this was coming as a shock. The phone call and these sudden talks in Saudi Arabia and it's from Ukraine's point of view is seen very much as a betrayal. It is partly what he's saying, but then the way it is done, that is so clearly that Ukraine is, you know, ukraine, and Europe too. For that case, they are left outside this and they're basically told that we're going to give you a call and tell you what's happening so we can tell you the state of affairs, and Zelensky is just shut out. So I think, for many Ukrainians today, they're feeling betrayed, disappointed.
Speaker 6:Some, though, are feeling a little bit. There's a slight slimmer of hope and a little little bit of relief, because everyone wants the war to end. People are so tired. A lot of people I spoke to said that we have these missile strikes and we have these air raid sirens all the time, and the economy is falling apart, millions of people who have lost their lives or are injured, or they are refugees, and we just want it to end. And some people said actually just a few months after the full-scale invasion by Russia that there is no way we can win against Putin, against Russia, we should just cut a deal now, when we can, and then maybe we can change things later. But if we continue this road, people will die, people will flee, our country will be shattered, and this is what has happened. So mixture of feeling betrayed and feeling, maybe, that the end is in sight and whatever we have to give up. We have to give up in order to have some kind of peace and stopping the bloodbath.
Speaker 1:Laurent, this, seems, really makes me feel really depressed, because I know the day this war started, you and I you're Swiss, I'm half Swiss, swiss and British we suggested what Gunilla just said Ukraine can't win this. Maybe it would be better to do a deal now and wait till Putin dies, rather than the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who will die if this war goes on. Now it feels like we're kind of back where we started Ukraine can't win it. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. I mean, how does this work now?
Speaker 5:I think the diagnosis that we made at that time is still valid. But we cannot blame President Zelensky and the Ukrainians to try to defend their territory, and I think they're still willing to do that. So there is no guarantee that, even if a deal is secured by the US and by the Russians, the Ukrainians will just say, ok, we agree with that and we stop fighting. And some of the fighters are already saying that if President Zelensky himself sign a deal, they might be tempted to go on because they just don't accept the loss of the territories.
Speaker 5:But first one is that, yeah, the Western countries, apart from the US, will never admit publicly what we're discussing about, because that would give the impression that they let Ukraine down in a way, and they do not want to give that impression. So there is a moral component, and the difference is that Trump doesn't care at all about moral and he cares only about that transactional approach. And the other thing is that, yeah, now we felt that we really shifted from nothing about Ukraine without Ukrainians towards a new bilateral framework. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukrainians towards a new bilateral framework. And that's really a terra incognita for Europeans and they're angry for their own security. But they're also angry about a potential framework which could be used on other fronts on the international area.
Speaker 1:It strikes me this could set a really dangerous precedent where one country invades another and then at the end of it, the people who supported the country that was invaded then go to the invader and say, yeah, let's do a deal. I mean, this is surely part of the problem. It's the way this is being done, very transactional. I mean, I thought it was really really significant that the one US administration figure who went to Ukraine first was not the Secretary of State, it was not the Defence Secretary, it was the Treasury Secretary, scott Besant, and he went to Zelensky and said sign this contract. It was not the defence secretary, it was the treasury secretary, scott Besant, and he went to Zelensky and said sign this contract, signing away your rare earth minerals, and then maybe we can do something for you. I mean, this is just not. I mean I'm also wondering maybe somebody wants to come in there as well where it is the UN's conflict resolution role in this. Nowhere, they've not been mentioned at all.
Speaker 6:No, I just want to add what you say here about the mineral agreement, the rare earth minerals. It is incredible how that came up from. Zelensky proposed a little bit that deal but then when the US came and said you know you want a security guarantees, you sign this. And then Zelensky realized you know it's half of it's basically an economic colonization of Ukraine and he backed up. But the pressure is enormous on Zelensky to sign off and give away very, very important natural resources If he's going to get any kind of support from the US. It is blackmail.
Speaker 1:If he's going to get any kind of support from the US. It is blackmail. Nick Laurent, where do you think this is peacemaking that Gunilla has termed blackmail? Where is Guterres in this?
Speaker 4:I don't think the UN has any part in this at all. But I mean, I think what's so disturbing which is a point that Laurent made earlier was that, you know, ukraine isn't even involved, but also Europe. I mean, it's hardly news that America's priorities are pivoting towards Asia and away from Europe. We hear that Marco Rubio's first 10 international calls after starting as Secretary of State didn't include any of America's European allies. But the buildup to these talks could hardly have been less propitious. I mean, with Hegsath's very stumbling performance in Munich and Vance's Vice President, vance's extraordinary statement, the fact that he goes from laying a wreath at Dachau to cozying up to the hard right parties whose antecedents are with the people who built Dachau and who are deeply anti-Semitic. I mean it was an extraordinary performance. And then a statement full of distortion and half-truths.
Speaker 4:And lies actually, and lies, which really just opened up the divisions between Europe and the United States, and it's hard to see how demonstrating the gap between America and its NATO allies somehow strengthens America's positions when it comes to negotiating with Putin. And I think the other concern also is that although President Trump and his acolytes like to proclaim him the greatest deal maker on the planet, the fact is that his international record isn't very good. We saw the agreement that he negotiated with the Taliban, which again was over the heads of the Afghan government, and that was a major contributor to the debacle that followed. We saw how he was kind of played in the rather fruitless negotiations or discussions with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. I don't think many people would bet on Trump coming out on top in a negotiation with Putin.
Speaker 5:As you said, nick, the basic of a negotiation is not disclosing to your interlocutor, the stakeholder. You're negotiating with the concessions that you're ready to make, and Trump already gave the impression to make concessions about everything President Putin would like to see happening for Russia. So what do you negotiate then? Because everything has been pretty much negotiated already by these concessions. And answering to the question of where could the UN stand with that, it's really difficult, because the only language that Trump is understanding is the language of the deal, and for him, deal means bilateral agreements between only two stakeholders. And if you look at what Marco Rubio said after the meeting in Riyadh, he just added that, yeah, at one point the Europeans and the Ukrainians will be associated, but the main framework will remain high-level teams between Americans and Russia. So that means that there won't be any change in that boundaries, because this is precisely the core component of a negotiation, the way it is understood by President Trump.
Speaker 6:I think also that you know what is this deal going to be all about? Because, in a way, from your point of view, it's seen like, I think, the the UN first of all is completely out of the picture. The UN is not going to have anything to deal with this. I think, unfortunately, it's going to be the US and Russia. They're going to make up, they're going to present this in one way or another to Zelensky, to Europe, and the really upsetting thing for Europe here is that we're going to be presented with almost a fait accompli and, at the same time, europe is expected to be responsible for the reconstruction of Ukraine sending troops to Ukraine, having troops on the ground to oversee a ceasefire. So the US will take the decisions together with Russia, with Putin, but then who is going to do the real work afterwards? It is Europe. So we are just being told, basically, and then we're going to be expected to pick up the pieces, and this is very upsetting for Europe and for Ukraine of course.
Speaker 1:And also I mean there's another transactional element in there, this push for Europe to spend more on defence, which they can't make their own fast enough. So who are they going to have to buy it for? Guess where? America, particularly Britain. Their defence systems are already quite interoperable, britain and the US. So this is again. It's all flowing back to US coffers. Well, maybe I'm very cynical about it, but I've never maybe this is very subjective I've never particularly felt that the transatlantic relationship that is being portrayed now is that America has protected Europe for 70 years. It has always been a two-way street. We were, when I was very young, a teenager, I was worried we were becoming the US's nuclear missile carrier in Britain. With cruise missiles we would have been the targets first. That was in America's interest. Exeth and JD Vance to speak so disrespectfully of a continent, the one in the world, which still tries to really uphold and respect international law and human rights.
Speaker 6:Yeah, at the same time. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think he has some points about Europe, and I think that's something the Europe, eu and Europe realizes now. We have to be more united, we have to pay more for defense, we have to contribute more than we do in relation to GDP per capita, so it's really Europe has to beef up the spending on defense. I think it's been a realization that we have more to do in Europe, also uniting. I don't think, though. You know there's also this talk about having European force, european army, eu army. I think that, though, is far from being anything realistic.
Speaker 1:Lauren. Where does Switzerland sit in this, it being neutral, and the one European country that seemed not to express discomfort with what JD Vance and Pete Hexeth had to say in Munich was Switzerland's president Karen Keller Suter.
Speaker 5:I think there is a will by the Swiss government to try to keep all the channels open both with Moscow and Washington, and Moscow is already quite angry with the sanctions that were taken by Switzerland. So that means that the Swiss government doesn't want to make Donald Trump angry and or the Trump administration angry with it. But the problem is that and the reaction of the Swiss president to Gideon's speech is a perfect example of that is that for now they haven't been able to clearly find a way to position themselves towards that new administration in a way that would both be appropriate, with the goal of being that middle ground and keeping all the channels open and, at the same time, trying not to give the impression to endorse such speeches. And I think the comparison that the Swiss president made by saying that this was a typically Swiss minded speech and the plea for direct democracies is just a massive blunder and irrelevant, because there is no direct democracy at the federal level in the US and there is no tradition of coalition government that you could find in Europe or the kind of government encompassing a lot of different political parties that we have in Switzerland.
Speaker 5:And the other thing I would like to add on that is that the last weeks and months have been an important diplomatic defeat for Switzerland, because Switzerland invested massively on that process that led to the Burgenstock Summit last year, and all about that was one yes, to include Russia, but to have a framework that will be inclusive, with all the different countries associated. And there, number one, we end up with a meeting in Saudi Arabia and not in Switzerland anymore, as it was the case for Biden and Putin. So, first defeat for Switzerland and number two, all that work, that multilateral work that was done by Switzerland to have everyone on board and to try to build a consensus around a plan for a potential negotiation, has just been reduced to nothing by Trump, because he's not interested in that kind of format.
Speaker 1:I did hear also, though, that, of course, one of the reasons the meeting of these two big autocratic beasts, trump and Putin, for Saudi Arabia is that, I mean, if Putin were to come somewhere like Switzerland, switzerland would have to arrest him. Yeah, I mean, he's an indicted war criminal. So I mean it would be quite a dilemma, wouldn't it, to say we're the peacemakers, but we're going to have to arrest you.
Speaker 5:I'm not so sure about that, because there are exemptions that can be granted by the ICC, and actually the question was asked directly to the former president, viola Amert, in the Bergenstock and she answered that if President Putin comes to Switzerland to negotiate a peace deal, these exemptions could apply and apparently there wouldn't be any reason to not letting him come to the Swiss territory and then arresting him so he could come and he could take part to a negotiation. That's the conclusion that the Swiss reached, but it seems that legally, these exemptions are possible with the ICC.
Speaker 1:As we said at the beginning, the events are moving really, really fast. But people I've talked to who do know a bit about peace building and conflict resolution say over and over again this is not going to be easy, it's not going to be a snap deal, but if it is it would set very bad precedents of might makes right for all sorts of despots and autocrats. I mean, we have conflicts all over the place. We have DRC, we have Sudan place. We have DRC, we have Sudan. We can't predict. But just a final analysis. Do you think, gunilla I'll come to you first that Ukraine is going to get a voice eventually?
Speaker 6:in this, can we get a stable piece out of this? I think maybe Ukraine will get a very, very, very small piece of this cake. I think basically they will have to, unfortunately. I think they will have to accept what Russia has occupied so far 20% of the country. I don't think it will be part of the Russian Federation formally, but I think Ukraine will have to give that up. I do not think they're going to get any promises of NATO membership. I think there will be some kind of massive security guarantees given from Europe, perhaps also with the US, perhaps in exchange of an agreement about the minerals.
Speaker 6:I think there could be a demilitarized zone somehow in Ukraine and who will be guarding that one Europe? Probably, perhaps soldiers from troops from Arab countries or from India. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be the case and Zelensky has to accept that. Then it's going to be an election, also probably in Ukraine, and then Zelensky risk really losing it because his people might feel also that he went into this war and he didn't win anything and he might just be ousted. And then the scary thing could be that there is someone else who's going to be in power in Ukraine who is pro-Russian, and this is what Putin would like, because then he could increase his influence. And this is what Putin would like because then he could increase his influence.
Speaker 6:And then, of course, me being Swedish we just joined NATO we're very worried about Russia. Scared People in my country are scared of Russia. We feel like we are in a hybrid war situation with Russia today, like Finland is feeling too. We have incidents in the Baltic Sea every other week. There's a big, big worry, and if there is this deal that I think that I'm just outlining, just speculating for Ukraine, there is a worry in the Baltic states especially, but also in Finland and Sweden. What happens next? Is this going to encourage Putin to do something similar in the future?
Speaker 1:Nick and then Laura. Where do you see this going? What are the perils and pitfalls?
Speaker 4:Well, I think it's really hard to say. I mean, it's very difficult to second guess how the Americans are going to negotiate this agreement. People around the Trump administration emphasize how aware he is of the economic muscle he has to bring to bear on the Kremlin, particularly in relation to oil prices, but it seems to vary from day to day. During the election campaign, vance said I don't care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other. But then in his interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, he said you know, we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence. Trump's special envoy for Ukraine said in Munich that the US wants a sovereign Ukraine. But there was an interesting moment where, in one of the meetings in Munich, where a Ukrainian MP asked Keith Kellogg, who is Trump's special envoy to Ukraine how are you approaching this? Do you want just to stop the war or do you want to win it? And he said Keith Kellogg replied well, it depends how you define a win.
Speaker 4:Well, and that's the point, we don't know even what President Trump would think is a win. One suspects it's a win that would be purely transactional in US interests, which is bad news for Europe. And then I think another point that one has to bear in mind is that this is not the only issue that is going to complicate European relations with the US in the next few years. I mean we have, you know, america's withdrawal from the climate accord. We have America pulling out of the WHO. We have America declining to participate in the Human Rights Council. We're seeing it essentially turning against the multilateral system. We see President Trump endorsing a solution for Gaza that would absolutely flout every known international law. So you begin to wonder really, what is left of the multilateral system and the international legal protections that have been so carefully built up since World War II, and I think it's very, very difficult to see how Europe and the US align on these issues.
Speaker 1:Laurent, it is going to be very hard to kind of trust the United States, isn't it After this. It's so unpredictable. The suggestions some of them come across are so outrageous.
Speaker 5:You're right, and the thing is that if you want to try to trust the US and to be trusted by the US, you will have to play by Donald Trump's playbook, which is trying to show him what the added value in terms of investments could be for the US. And once again this afternoon the conclusion of the Russian-US meeting in Riyadh is that we want to launch again a great cooperation in order to open ways for investment. So they don't even talk about settling the conflict just for peace, but it's already in the narrative settling the conflict to open investment, us investment in Russia again. So the European countries will have to play by that playbook, but I would say that we will never be able to talk about peace and sustainable peace as long as the Ukrainians are not associated with that, because the US and Russia and I think the bet of President Zelensky is probably to try to secure that minerals deal in order for Trump to consider that, if he wants to be sure to benefit from it, he will have to send some troops to secure Ukrainian soils where he's going to get some earnings with that.
Speaker 5:But for now they're really maximalist in that approach. They say we won't send troops. The Russians now say we don't want any European troops and the Europeans are divided. So for me, that's the biggest concern who's going to be in charge of these security guarantees if all the stakeholders are going in opposite directions? Regarding that particular question and I would end by enlarging the scope of the analysis If we don't deal in an appropriate way with that situation, what will happen next?
Speaker 1:So many questions, so much concern and uncertainty, and, caught in the middle, a country, ukraine, which was invaded by its neighbour, has lost territory, lost loved towns, villages, theatres, parks and homes and, of course, tens of thousands of lives. A country that thought it had an ally in the United States and now feels abandoned. What does that mean for future regressors? What does it mean for old alliances, for respect for international law? We've tried to answer some of your questions here today, but it's an unstable world out there and things are moving very fast, not necessarily in the right direction. My thanks to Gunilla, nick and Laurent for their time and perspectives. If you've got another burning international topic you'd like us to discuss, drop us a line at insidegeneva, at swissinfoch, and just before we go, here's some news about a new podcast series out now from Swiss Info.
Speaker 2:Hi, I'm Angela Saini, a science journalist and author. I've written four books exploring humanity's fascination with science as a solution to social problems social problems and I'm the host of Lost Cells, a thrilling new investigative podcast that will make you question the promises behind private stem cell banking. This gripping podcast follows the stories of families from Spain, serbia, italy and many other countries as they embark on a global quest to find the one thing they need the most life itself. Will they succeed in their search for the stem cells that they pinned their hopes on? Tune in to Lost Cells, an original Swiss Info podcast. To find out, listen on Apple Podcasts, spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1:That does sound pretty interesting. Do join Angela Saini when Lost Cells comes out. And, of course, do join us next time on Inside Geneva. We'll be back with our occasional series of books to make you think, talking to renowned human rights defender Ken Roth about his new book Writing Wrongs, and international law professor Andrew Clapham about his book called simply War. It has just won the prestigious Paul Reuter Prize for major contributions to our understanding of international humanitarian law. That's out on March 4th. Before that, if you want objective clarity about conflict, climate change, human rights, international law or any other of today's global challenges, then take a look at our previous episodes and subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Imogen folks. Thanks for listening to Inside Geneva.
