Putin is already at the maximum position here. Is is there is there something worse that could come then? You don't feel there's something worse that could come?
Well, the nightmare scenario is that Putin would escalate to tactical nuclear weapons or something of that kind, but I think that that's a far-fetched scenario at the moment. But barring that, I I really can't see too much more that Putin uh might do in the future that he hasn't already been doing. Firstly tonight, President Putin has promised revenge for the latest Ukrainian drone strike.
In a surprise call with President Trump earlier today in a post on his truth social platform, Trump said that the call lasted about an hour and 15 minutes and that the leaders had discussed Ke's Kev's audacious weekend drone attack on long range Russian bombers. Pio has also spoken to the Russian president today. Vladimir Putin told him that he was committed to peace but stressed the need to eliminate the root causes.
This is shorthand really, isn't it? for the removal of a pro-western government in Kev. Well, let's speak to Michael Kimich, who's a former adviser on Ukraine and Russia to the US State Department during the Obama administration.
Michael, good evening. Been kind of grappling tonight with what revenge means. What do you think that means?
Well, it's hard to know because Russia has been throwing everything at Ukraine for so long that it could in the end really just be bluster from Putin. I mean, he's been he's been attacking civilians. He's been attacking civilian infrastructure, bombing cities, bombing hospitals, bombing schools.
So perhaps with a bit more intensity than in the past couple of weeks and months, but um you know, in a sense, Putin is already at the maximum position here. Is is there is there something worse that could come then? You don't feel there's something worse that could come?
Well, the nightmare scenario is that Putin would escalate to tactical nuclear weapons or something of that kind, but I think that that's a far-fetched scenario at the moment. But barring that, I I really can't see too much more that Putin uh might do in the future that he hasn't already been doing. Do you think it's played a role in talks in Turkey this week?
Do you think that those talks would have been any different had that attack from Ukraine not happened? I don't think so. I mean, the talks lack a process, they lack a structure.
They lack an agenda. I mean, putting it very simply, I think Russia doesn't want to make peace and Ukraine doesn't want to surrender. And so, in a sense, they don't have all that much to talk about.
So, of course, the attacks uh on the Russian aircraft give Ukraine a boost of morale, and that's significant, but I don't think that there's a huge impact on the talks themselves. Okay. Uh we're obviously talking about a a Trump Putin phone call tonight.
How would you, Michael, assess Donald Trump's current relationship with Vladimir Putin? It's somewhat bizarre because on the one hand, and this was evident in the truth social post to President Trump today, he's remarkably uncritical of President Putin, although a week or so ago, Trump did refer to Putin as crazy. Uh but there's very rarely a critical word from the White House when it comes to Russia.
And at the same time, US continues to support Ukraine militarily. Uh and um US continues to be a part of NATO and to be a part of the transatlantic alliance. And so all the structures, the old structures uh are there and they're in many ways serving Ukraine well.
So the optics and the rhetoric are one thing. You get the neutrality of President Trump uh in in that domain uh in the domain of military action. It's precisely what Biden did before Trump.
And so it's quite confusing to characterize. He didn't say this on his truth truth social post, but would you Michael have expected Donald Trump to encourage Putin or talk Putin down or encourage restraint during that call? It's possible.
I mean, that's certainly a message that Trump has sent already in a number of public contexts that Russia should scale back and there's been many talks of ceasefires and even agreements to initiate ceasefires and then they haven't come uh to pass. But it's very light. It's a very light touch from Washington and certainly a much more moderate language than you see from London or from Berlin or from any other of the capitals of countries supporting Ukraine.
Okay, we'll return to the United States in a moment because there's been a very interesting meeting today, a defense meeting surrounding Ukraine in Brussels. Uh, defense ministers from across Europe and and the US were there and the US made a a pretty stark demand of NATO allies. Um, which we'll come to in a moment.
Just before we move on from phone calls, Putin also spoke to Pope Leo as well today. Um, the Pope reiterated his willingness to host peace talks at the Vatican. Do you think that that's a realistic prospect, Michael?
And do you think it would be helpful? Would it move us on any in any way? No, it's it's not realistic at all.
Much more realistic is Geneva or uh or maybe Vienna or some place in the Middle East. But uh I don't think that Russia looks at the Vatican as the right venue. And it's also the case that Pope Leo is more outspokenly in support of Ukraine than Pope Francis was.
And so I think not only is the venue not right for Russia, but the the Pope is not quite right either in this in this regard. Well, and so that that's interesting. You think it's not right for Russia is is the problem.
Putin Putin will decide it's not right for them. Correct. I think it doesn't work for Russia, you know, at all.
Right. Okay. because of of course Cathol Catholicism is obviously uh very prominent in in in Russia and plays a key a key role they will be they will what would what would his objection be well his objection would be uh that uh it's two western institutions the Catholic Church and then there's also church politics in Ukraine that play a pretty important role in the war on the Russian side that the Russian Orthodox Church has ambitions in Ukraine uh there's a small Catholic population in Ukraine that historically was persecuted in the Russian Empire in the Soviet Union.
And so there's a way in which Catholicism has a slightly toxic quality uh in the Russian political context or the Russian nationalist context and that probably matters for Putin. Okay, let's speak about this um this meeting then. There were several defense leaders including the US.
The US saying that the UK and other NATO allies must agree to spend at least 5% of national income on defense and security and the the the the demand is starting now. I can feel Rachel Reeves and Karma wincing at the prospect of having to meet 5%. Is that realistic?
No. uh you know the the NATO uh Wales summit I've now forgotten in which year several years ago uh a pledge was made to 2% and only a couple of European countries have hit that mark. Um and that's quite recent uh that they've that they've gotten there.
Um there is a new urgency though, isn't there? And and there does appear to be a new urgency which fits the United States's demands of Europe. That's correct.
But you know new urgency is one thing. 5% on defense. 5% of GDP on defense is a huge uh is a huge sum.
And also it's typical of the Trump White House. We can turn to tariffs in this regard to, you know, make very bold statements and put out huge numbers uh and then to scale things back. And so it would have to be looked at at best as a negotiating position from Washington as a way to prod Europeans to spend more, but not as a realistic number.
But I wonder if it's even that. is sort of so extravagant that um it may encourage people simply to talk past each other. Okay, Michael, appreciate your insights tonight.
Thank you so much. Michael Kimage, he's a former adviser on Ukraine and Russia to the US State Department during the Obama administration opportunity to made the brief in Senate. But what I definitely know that as I said that our cooperation is continue we are discussed uh the uh next steps and just during these two days we have the opportunity to talk and in white house in the state department and in in the hills we need more air defense it's still very big problem for us because we can't uh uh protect our And in a difference, as I said in my speech, in the difference of the Russians, we uh uh work for against the especially military objects.
Unfortunately, Russia continue attack our civilians. We are very appreciate that nevertheless of the lot of circumstances, President Trump uh continue to work and continue to demonstrated that he really want to end this war. uh you know in this way uh it's uh it's not uh simple way and uh it's uh necessary that really Russia will start to demonstrate the political will we don't stop we will not stop uh to try and to make our best and we believe that uh and now we have the coalition of the many country who is help us uh to bring uh our children to home definitely again three years it's long period of time but believe that Ukrainian nation Ukraine we're leaving we are continue to fightings the what happened in the last weekend demonstrated that we are strong enough.
We are able to achieve just and lasting peace. We account very much for continuous support of our partners first of all of United States. And I think the end of this war, the just and lasting peace, it's a very important not just for Ukraine because we defend not just our freedom and independence, we defend Europe, we defend free world in our continent.
And this is a very important to not lose after this three more than three years the faith uh that Ukraine able to win this war and it was uh very helpful and very I think successful. Our first priority is uh air defense defense systems and the ammunition and rockets for air defense. First of all to protect our territory, our cities and uh our objects of critical infrastructure from the uh from the sky.
And of course we still need uh to keep uh our um um our platforms I mean uh from the our which we get from our partners uh operational so we need some uh parts to to maintain to sustain them and of course it's artillery rounds. Thank you, Pablo. Uh, Russia's oil and gas exports.
It's not just Russia problem. These supercharged profits enable Kremlin to unite its partners around itself through cooperation, strengthening Iran, North Korea, and China. Russia purchases machinery components for UAVs and ammunition materials from China.
In return, Russia sells China advanced military aircraft, hundreds of aircraft engines, and armored vehicles. The same goes for Iran and North Korea. Moscow sends dozens aircraft, helicopters, and advanced missile technology.
Tan and Pyongyan provide Russia with millions of artillery rounds, alter systems, drones, and ballistic missiles. The weapons that Russia and its allies produce today is directed against Ukrainians. However, tomorrow these weapons may make their way to other parts of the world and be used against the soldiers from the US or from one of the militaries of our partners.
B system.
