Ukraine Talks: Trump And Putin Could Be ‘Cooking Up A New Security Architecture For Europe’

It does look as if Putin and Trump are trying to cook up a new security architecture for Europe and from the Moscow's perspective what this would mean is Ukraine pretty much gives up Now then, for the first time and NATO possibly since February, moves back. talks are taking place involving Russia and the US aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. In the lead up to the talks, there have been fears the US will give in to Russian demands for Ukrainian territory, as well as to create a new what's called a new European security infrastructure. Speaking in Paris at a meeting of the G7, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an update on the progress of the summit. Looks like the talks in Abu Dhabi were very productive. I think the most important thing, obviously, there's a lot of work to be done in that regard. It's not like something that's on the verge of being solved in the next 24 hours or anything like that. Bu What's really important is that the Europeans are at the table. They'll be discussing with our people. They've been working very closely with Jared and Steve, who were there on every step along the way. And it's actually our goal at some point to expand this trilateral. So it's not just the U.S., Ukraine and Russia, but also that the Europeans be represented at that table directly with these talks. That's Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, speaking earlier in Paris. Now let us talk to Tim Marshall, the foreign affairs expert and author. Hello to you, Tim. Hello, John. Hi. So, Tim, we hear that Mark and Rubio are saying the talks have been productive. But, of course, in these talks, productive can mean anything or nothing. Yes, and it probably means nothing. Nothing. Very few people had high expectations going into this. I mean, what we can agree with Mr Rubio is when he said, you know, this is just the beginning. We're quite a long way from an agreement. And sadly, I think that's true. The two sides are still way, way too far apart. So it seems to me like a... Positive spin. It's two days of talks. You know, he's not going to write them off yet. When he said they were at the table, John, the Europeans, correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding was that they were in the preliminary meetings and then the Europeans were told to go away while the three sat down in the room. Yes, and I think the word from the American side was one of their senior officials said the European side can stay in their hotel room. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's the reality, isn't it? No matter what Mr. Rubio says. I mean, Rubio, it's interesting. He's one of the sort of more traditional Republican leaders. I mean, I know he's hung on to the coattails of MAGA and he would like to be president in a couple of years, but he does approach things in a more traditional manner. And therefore he says the Europeans at their table. But yes, the reality is the Europeans sent their chief. foreign policy types. Jonathan Powell is there, for example, the Britain's National Security Advisor. Gunther Sutter is there for Germany, very close to the Chancellor. But yeah, they all said their little bit when the cameras were in the room. And then they were told, if you want, you can go back to your hotels now because us three are going to start talking. So, you know, the Europeans are not really at the table yet. No. And Tim, is there any notion anyone seems to have And what this plan... Described as a new security architecture for Europe might actually look like. Well, your question is exactly why the Europeans do need to be at the table, because, you know, unless it's going to be a new Yalta, but this time without the British involved, Yalta being, of course, you'll know the Soviets, the Americans and the British, which carved up things in 1944 and 1945. At this time, the British wouldn't be at the table and nor would any other European. It does look as if. Putin and Trump are trying to cook up a new security architecture for Europe. And from the Moscow's perspective, what this would mean is Ukraine pretty much gives up and NATO possibly moves back from Eastern Europe. I'm not saying that places like Poland would no longer be in NATO, but under the new security guarantees or architecture, there might not be any NATO troops there. Yeah, so... It's not going to fly, nor is what is on the table at the moment just on Ukraine, which is basically the Ukrainians have to give up all the bits of the Donbass, which they have not yet lost because Moscow has annexed all of the Donbass. But that means they would pull out of all their defensive positions and there'll be nothing between those front lines and then the capital city. So, you know, I just, I don't see where the flexibility... That the American team is talking about comes from, and I cannot see how any European country would accept Russia and United States coming up with a new security architecture that they were not directly involved in. No, and we have heard President Trump say that Ukraine may need to change shape, was the phrase that he used, which sounded a bit like an echo of the... past attempts between Trump's team and the Kremlin to persuade Ukraine to give up unconquered territory. Yes, the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, a faraway country about which we know little from the famous phrase in, I think it was 1938, 1939, that didn't go too well. I can see if he just means Crimea, because most analysts think that as and when the final deal comes. Crimea may be written off and accepted de facto, if not de jure, that it's controlled by Russia now, but not the Donbass. And this is just completely anathema to the Europeans. They do not want to be left with a post-war agreement that the Americans and the Kremlin has cooked up. Which leaves Ukraine pretty much defenseless, the Americans completely disinterested and the Europeans three to five years from being in a position to really deter various forms of Russian aggression. Because any peace agreement with Ukraine is not just about Russia and Ukraine, it's about Russia and Europe. And so what then, Tim, is the... is the value of another set of substantially fruitless talks. I say substantially fruitless because they may come to some sort of agreements on prisoner exchanges and some of that, which is not without value, but substantially fruitless on the big issues dividing the two sides. To Russia and to Ukraine, what's in it for them? They both have to make it look as if they're trying to reach an agreement. And, um... And I can't see much past that. And I really, really hope I'm wrong. And I really hope this leads to something. And I really hope this flexibility that apparently is being shown, where one side could offer just a little bit of compromise and then the other one does, and they advance slowly towards some sort of agreement at some point next year. But I just don't see what there is to give. And so you can't just not show up, especially from the Ukrainian side. A, you need to be at the table to put your point of view and try to get the Americans to understand it. But B, you can't also be poking the bear, not that one, the Russian one, the other one that's in the White House, and looking inflexible. One of the things that's going on behind this, John, is that the Americans and Russians are talking economics. And, for example, the Americans are interested in Russian technology on floating LNG stations, liquefied natural gas stations, which they could use to get more oil out of Alaska. So, you know, behind all this, there are these big business deals that the current administration would like to sign with Russia, but realizes that maybe it needs this peace deal in the bag first. At the moment, I don't see a peace deal. Uh, anywhere near any sort of bag. No, I don't think anyone else does realistically either at this point. Tim Marshall, a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you.