Frontline Special: General Philip Breedlove
38:13 Share

We all want to enjoy food that tastes great and is sourced responsibly. But it's not always easy to know where your favourite foods come from. McDonald's works with more than 23,000 British and Irish farmers to source quality ingredients. Mike Allwood is a dairy farmer from Cheshire who supplies organic milk to McDonald's in the UK for its teas, coffees and porridge through Arla.

We're involved in a network which has been set up by Arla to look at the possibilities for farming regeneratively. One of the things we're doing here is moving our cattle and giving them a fresh piece of grass every day to help regenerate the soil. We're very lucky that we've had a long-term relationship with McDonald's and I think often people don't realise how seriously McDonald's take their relationships with farmers.

Change a little, change a lot. Find out more about McDonald's plan for change on the McDonald's website. This is an ad by BetterHelp. What's your perfect night? Is it curling up on the couch for a cozy, peaceful night in? Therapy can feel a bit like that. Your comfort place where you replenish your energy. With BetterHelp, get matched with a therapist based on your needs, entirely online. It's convenient and suited to your schedule. Find comfort this season with BetterHelp.

Welcome to the World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. I'm Alex Dibble, and I executive produce the podcast.

The World in 10 is partnered with Frontline, the interview series from Times Radio, available on YouTube, with expert analysis of the world's conflicts. At the weekend, we bring you Frontline interviews in full. Here's one from this week. I hope you find it interesting.

Hello and welcome to Frontline for Times Radio with me Kate Chabot and this time we are joined by former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Philip Breedlove. In his 39 years military service he's also held positions including Commander US European Command and Commander US Air Forces in Europe. He's a regular commentator on the war in Ukraine for us and it's great to see you again Philip.

November 2024 has been reported as the worst month on the battlefield for Ukraine since September 2022. And Ukraine's former foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, is quoted as saying Ukraine doesn't have the means nor the tools to turn the tables and will lose the war if that continues. Is that the stark reality that Ukraine is facing at the moment?

I would position the answer a little differently than you asked the question by saying that I believe he's correct. And this is a direct result of Western policy. We have not, we have not given Ukraine what they need to win this war. And in fact, a couple of months ago, as the debate was swirling in America, the

Our provisions, and when I say our, mainly United States, but also I'm making comment on all the West, our provisions had slowed down to a point where one of the battlefield reports we saw was that for every one round of artillery that Ukraine was able to fire back at Russia, Russia was firing 10 at them.

So Russia has two or three very, very positive, very dedicated suppliers of weapons, sending them weapons. And they are not suffering on the battlefield for more. And we in the West, through our policies, have definitely put

Ukraine through the ringer and that they really can't depend on when they're going to get their next shipment, how much that will be, and will it get to the front line in time to answer. So yes, I think there are problems and most of Ukraine's problems are because of our policy decisions in the West.

President Zelensky has conducted a mini reshuffle of his armed forces. He's replaced the commander of his ground forces and appointed a new deputy commander in chief. He cited the need to increase combat capability, introduce innovative approaches to personnel management. Are these exactly the kind of changes you'd expect at this stage in the war, almost three years in?

Well, I think that there's going to be continual adjustments. And to the defense of those who have been released, I go back to my first answer. The biggest problems that Ukraine have is really as a result of Western policy. But I do believe that President Zelensky, much like President Putin right now, they're desperately in need of ending...

on an upswing, on a positive note before this anticipation of some sort of negotiations as President Trump moves back into office. And so there is a lot of pressure on these two leaders now to better prepare themselves for what lay ahead.

And in that light, for the first time, President Zelensky has spoken publicly about ending the hot phase of the war with a ceasefire with the offer of NATO membership to the whole of Ukraine. It would accept the offer of the land it occupies and seek the return of the rest at a later date by diplomatic means. It's a theory. Is it a good one? Actually, I would have been more aggressive than him.

Some in the West are talking about the starting point of our negotiations is that Russia gets everything they want, everything they want. In my mind, that is capitulation. That is Afghanistan number two by the West. And so, you know, it's interesting in President Trump's book,

I bought it. I didn't read the whole book, but I was told you have to read chapter six in The Art of the Deal. And it talks about how you begin negotiations. And that is to set your bar very high so that you can negotiate back from it.

And now in the West, most are talking about setting the bar at giving Mr. Putin everything he wants and then begin negotiations. I think it's a very poor stance to take. And may I just add one more thing? I was...

chastise for this level of reasoning not too recently or very recently by some people I really enjoy and respect. I don't always agree with them, but I love differing views to sharpen my mind.

And they said, well, Mr. Putin is going to give us a ceasefire. And I said, Mr. Putin needs a ceasefire more than Ukraine needs a ceasefire. His army has been beaten up to the point that he's having to ask North Koreans to retake Russian land. And now we see some modicum of Middle Eastern fighters being introduced into

to help Russia. Russia is desperate for manpower and they need a ceasefire to refit and refurb. And Mr. Putin is doing a very good job of convincing the West that him giving a ceasefire is a concession. I tell you, rather, he needs it worse than we do. And we need to make sure we don't give it away in the negotiations.

So just two questions based on your answer there. When you say you would go further than what President Zelensky is proposing in theory, what would you suggest? How much further? Mr. Putin has to lose something in these negotiations.

Because he's asking Ukraine to lose everything in these negotiations. He's even asking for land in the four eastern oblasts that he hasn't taken yet. He wants us to capitulate and give him that land. And so I would start off with how much land is Mr. Putin going to give back in order to do his side of these negotiations?

We're going to see Ukraine is going to have to give up land. The whole world has already decided that. It's land for peace kind of thing. But what we need to do is start out the negotiations in a place where Mr. Putin has to lose land. It is important, I would tell you, in the large scheme of things, that Russians see that Mr. Putin has to give up land. It's extremely important.

And by that, what do you mean? I mean, what happens to Crimea? What happens to Kursk, for example? So this is really what we need to talk to Mr. Zelensky about. You know, for us to dictate Zelensky's terms would be would be horrible. We need to talk to President Zelensky about what he thinks the Ukrainian people can stand as far as an outcome.

And most commentators who have military background have said the same thing that I say over and over. Crimea is the most important land in this negotiation because if Russia remains completely in control of Crimea and continues to use it as a weapons platform,

to dictate terms in the Northern Black Sea and use it as he has in the past to cut the trade routes out of Ukraine through the Northern Black Sea and into the Mediterranean. This is horrible. So I think that...

When President Zelensky decides what is his terms and what his people can deal with, then we start talking from there. I have heard things like give away some of the Donbass, but get back the

the Crimea. I have heard various intonations of that. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Putin is going to have to give up land. His people need to see that he gives up land in these negotiations, or it's not going to go well for Ukraine in the West. Because there's an important precedent here at stake that you cannot just be seen to be able to take land and change borders by force.

Three times you've heard me say this on your show before. In 2008, the West's response was inadequate to task and we rewarded bad behavior by allowing Mr. Putin to hang on to land.

In 2014, the West's response was inadequate to task, and we allowed Mr. Putin to be rewarded for his bad behavior by giving him about 12% of the most important commercial parts of Ukraine. And now in 2024, we are...

According to some, we are setting ourselves up for a third time reward bad behavior. And just as you said, this is an important point that we cannot accept Mr. Putin amassing his land army, marching across internationally recognized borders and subjugating portions of his neighbors.

That behavior will repeat itself if we continue to allow it. And just one other thing you said, you said that President Putin needs this ceasefire. Do you think he is in a position that he wants negotiations now then?

He wants them on his terms. He's been very clear. I think the most demonstrative thing about this narrative in the last week or so, 10 days, is Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin had a conversation. Mr. Trump told Putin not to accelerate the problem, not to exacerbate the fighting and so forth.

And it's pretty clear that Mr. Putin has shown his contempt for that position because he launched now three or four of the largest raids of drones and long-range missiles into Ukraine.

Ukraine, and he's introduced North Korean forces where his forces are hurting. And now even we believe that there are forces provided via the Houthis that are fighting as well in this area. So Mr. Putin is desperate for manpower. He cannot stand another mobilization in his country because of the political pressures. And he wants this fight to stop

on his terms so that he can get well in his army. And then he'll be back. Again, we reward bad behavior, we reward bad behavior, and we reward bad behavior. He will be back. The British prime minister in his first foreign policy speech said Ukraine needed to be put in the strongest possible position before any negotiations over a peace deal. What needs to happen then?

Well, I completely agree with him. And this is what I and a pretty august group of former military people in America have been trying to work with our government to adopt a similar position. I think it means several things. One is not about forces, tanks, airplanes or anything. It's about policy.

The West needs to state a policy which says we are not going to tolerate you amassing your land army and at your will marching across internationally recognized borders and attacking your neighbors. It's not going to be tolerated, and we will support those who defend against you. And then a clear statement.

clear, publicly stated policy about support to Ukraine and what it means. No more of this will be there in as long as it takes. That doesn't mean anything.

We're going to be there as long as it takes to defeat Russia and expel them from Ukraine. That's a proposed position. That would be much more demonstrative than we take now. So we need a strong policy first. And then secondarily, we need to give Ukraine the tools that it needs. Ukraine has demonstrated over and over in this 10-year-long war that when they're given what they need, they can defeat the Russians.

And so we have to make the decision to do that. I support what your leadership in the UK is saying.

And the outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made his final visit to NATO headquarters this week, pledging to rush another $725 million worth of military equipment to Ukraine before the inauguration of Donald Trump. What more do you think President Zelensky can actually do between now and the inauguration to shore up the new administration's support?

Well, I think that it's going to be really important that we not allow a rift between Ukraine and the United States. I think it's really important that we, people who are not in the official government, but who talk to those in the government as this new

administration comes aboard, it's important that we advocate a position that says we cannot continue to reward bad behavior by Russia. We have to stop it at some point. And we need to talk to them about what we're doing to support Ukraine.

Very few Americans understand that people on the TV are really poorly informed or they're well informed, but they're mismanaging the message. They keep using this term, we're giving Ukraine all this money.

We're not giving Ukraine a bunch of money. This is not the Iran deal where we sent them crates and stacks of money. We're not doing that. That 700 plus million that they're talking about, the lion's share of that will go to U.S. companies who are building weapons that replace in our active force the weapons that are outdated or older that we are giving to Ukraine.

And so the money that is being given to Ukraine is actually going to American households, Walmarts, gas stations, car dealerships, and all the things that Americans spend money on because the money, the lion's share of it is paying for new kit going into our military to backfill what we are giving away.

And there's no question that the decision making of the support for Ukraine by the Biden administration has been painfully slow and lacking in strategy, as you've already expressed your frustration. Are we any closer to actually understanding what President Trump's foreign policy agenda will be on Ukraine? No. And well, could he add some actual urgency to the situation, do you think?

So one of the things that I think, whether you like the individual or not, one of the things we need to remember is that President Trump has actually been pretty successful in getting things done through the kind of maneuvering you're seeing him do out there right now.

A 30 second example. So everybody was in great woe and worry about his words about I'm going to pull troops out of Germany. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that in his last administration. Here are the facts. Here are three facts that are easily verifiable.

During that Trump administration, more American soldiers went to Europe. They didn't come out. The numbers in Europe increased. We started putting the forces in the three Baltic nations, in Poland, in Romania. And so...

Troop levels increased. Our investment in U.S. military infrastructure in Europe to receive forces and to address an issue of an attacking Russia increased. And our big exercises increased. In fact, Trident Juncture was one of the biggest exercises since Reforger. So for all of the things he said, actually increased.

the opposite happened. And what also did happen is now we have 23 nations in NATO who are meeting their investment goals. And more will happen in the next year. I've heard as many as four more will meet their goals in the next year. So for all of the

hard tweets or all of the tough language, our situation with our allies in Europe has improved as a result of what Trump did back then. So I think what we need to do now is look at his maneuvers,

See what he's telling Mr. Putin and how Mr. Putin reacts. See what he's telling our allies and how they react. And then we'll see how this plays out once he's elected or once he's installed. Sorry. Oh,

Oh, sorry. One thing he is in favour of and he's spoken about is European troops potentially becoming the peacekeepers in the event of an armistice in Ukraine. The former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called for it. The German foreign minister didn't rule it out. And there's news of an anonymous NATO official telling Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, discussions are happening outside the formal NATO structure between Paris and London about it. True or not?

Is it sensible to explore this option? Well, in a certain sense, it's absolutely sensible. It puts Russia on notice that if they keep behaving poorly like they are, if they keep making these horrible decisions about what they're doing in Ukraine like they are, they may soon see European forces in Ukraine. Now, we need to be academically honest here.

Mr. Putin is going to see any force from Europe in Ukraine as NATO in Ukraine. It will be hard to say this is not a NATO force. You know how many, the majority of the NATO and EU sort of overlap between the organizations and whatever name we put on top of a European force in Ukraine is

Putin will see it as a NATO move. And that's problematic. So I...

I welcome the conversations. There will have to be some enforcing mechanism. I'll be critical of your nation and my nation and remember or remind everybody of the Budapest memorandum where we, our two nations, were a part of four that assured Ukraine of their sovereignty and their sovereign borders. And we have failed that.

We have failed to do that, to live up to the Budapest Memorandum. And so whatever happens next to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and existence as a nation into the future, it's going to have to be demonstrative. We already have the Budapest Memorandum in place. We don't need to go back to that level of intent.

And it was the 30th anniversary of the signing of that Budapest memorandum this week when Kiev agreed to elunke its nuclear weapons in the treaty initially signed by the US, the UK and the Russian Federation. Of course, Putin threw that out the window, didn't he, when he invaded Ukraine? I'm just wondering...

You know, in response to this anniversary, Kiev's foreign ministry has dubbed this memorandum a monument to short-sightedness and security decision making. Is that fair, though? I mean, is it a fair assessment? Because in 1994, it was a very different Russia, wasn't it, that signed it?

I'm sorry to disagree. I don't think it was a different Russia. I think it was a maneuver by the Russia that really never changed. I don't think that Russia ever intended to be a part of actually doing the assurances. It was just another step, another way to take advantage of the West. And may I also say,

It's one of the saddest and least proud things my nation has ever done because, frankly, the memorandum was written in a way not to be a treaty.

We didn't ever use the word guarantee. We used words, slimy words like assurances and things. And I'm not even really sure my country ever intended to really live up to it. It's a really sad moment in the statesmanship of my country. I won't speak for yours. No. Well, that's a very sad perspective on it.

Well, 30 years on, Ukraine now says nothing short of NATO membership will do to guarantee its security. Not assure it, but guarantee it, it says. I mean, it seems like a long way off as we stand today. I think you might agree with me on that. If that's the case, then what? Well, something is going to have to be built that Mr. Putin sees across the fence and says they're serious.

And to me, that's going to be hard to do unless there's actual force on the ground. Because we've remembered, just like we talked about, we've already given them a Budapest memorandum. And you see that our performance in respect to that memorandum is horrible, is poor, is short, it's not complete.

And so whatever is built next has to be fulsome, complete, concrete, measurable, visible, so that Mr. Putin sees that. If we do anything else other than that, it's more of the same. Again, Mr. Putin needs to refit and refurb, and he will. It'll take four, maybe five or six years because his army has been beaten up incredibly by

But he'll be back unless there is something there to stop him. I don't know if we talked about, well, some manner of force on the ground, some manner of building a response capability that is punishing him.

an ability to match Putin's ability to inflict pain on Ukraine. Ukraine needs to have a similar ability to inflict pain on Russia. And we need to give them the policy to allow them to do that. Because Mr. Putin, I mean, you know, I think it was Lenin. Historians will check me. But I believe he said that when you approach your enemy, fix your bayonet.

and pressure bayonet into your enemy's belly. And if it is soft, keep pushing. If it is hard, withdraw and reconsider. And so I would tell you that since 2008, Russia has been pushing the bayonet further and further and further in, and they haven't met any real resistance from the West yet.

I'm just really interested to hear your perspective on the resurgence of fighting in Syria. It came as a surprise to the outside world, perhaps not to the Syrian militants, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who prepared for it and seized this opportunity when President Assad's backers, Hezbollah and Russia, preoccupied with conflicts elsewhere, namely in the Middle East and Ukraine. What impact do you think Russia's heightened involvement in the Syrian civil war might have on Ukraine?

Well, I think that Russia is on a very tough crucible here. They are struggling now to maintain their effort in Ukraine, remembering that they have had to ask North Korean forces to retake sovereign Russian land. That would be like us asking you guys to come over here and defend us in America. I mean, that is an admission of a real problem.

And now even as we see some Middle Eastern people fighting. And so I think that these rebels have seized the opportunity. They see a Russia completely distracted with Ukraine. And they see what keeps...

Syria, the way it is, is Russian might, Russian military. And now that Russian might and military is leaving, being used in other places is certainly drawn down. And so they've taken advantage of the situation and it's worked extremely well for them. Bashar al-Assad can't count now on the depth of

of Russian ability to rescue him. Yes, I guess Russia could come to the aid of Bashar al-Assad, but that would mean taking from Ukraine, and I think that'll never happen. I think that Russia is myopically focused on just disassembling the nation of Ukraine.

And as you see, he sort of started voting with his feet. We believe that the naval base at Tartus is seeing some withdrawal. We've seen one of the major Russian, former Russian airfields already overrun, another one soon to be overrun. And Russia is doing very little by way of going back in there to guarantee those. And so I think we see that Russia's policy decision is Ukraine first.

And therefore, Mr. Assad has got some real problems. Someone's written in a British newspaper only today that the naval base in Tartus in Syria, if Russia is forced, if it loses it,

that that will actually diminish its ability to project influence in the Mediterranean. And that might put it in a position where in the war in Ukraine, it might say, well, how are we going to project that influence into the Mediterranean? We need to do it by opening up the Bosphorus Strait. We can't do that while we're at war with Ukraine. So that may actually influence their influence.

attitude towards negotiations and a ceasefire. Have you heard that talked about or do you think it is a credible argument? No, I haven't heard that connection. I've heard a different connection, and that is that

We may soon see the Russians putting immense pressure on the Turkish people to change their policy. Like it or not, the Turks have been relatively even keeled as it comes to the Montreux Convention, and it has hurt Russia,

in ways that we'll really understand later that they can't use that particular route to refurbish and replenish their Black Sea fleet. So this is an issue.

Again, that Russia will have to work out. And you're right, and I agree with your people who are thinking about this. If they lose Tartus completely, it will vastly change their ability to maneuver and have influence in the Eastern Med.

Can I ask you a question about a NATO alliance member, Romania? Some potentially significant developments there could have geopolitical consequences. On Sunday, Kalin Georgescu is expected to be voted in as president of Romania. He's a far right pro-Putin NATO sceptic who came from nowhere.

to win the first round of voting. Romania's Security Council has now declassified documents saying this happened after one of Russia's most sophisticated election interfering campaigns ever in a foreign nation. How seriously does this need to be taken by the West? You've got a presidential candidate going from almost no support to favourite to win, thanks, it would seem, to President Putin. Well, we need to be extremely concerned

I think that we've sort of not really engaged at the level we need to in defending against these gray zone efforts. Some Russia likes to urge, excuse me, NATO likes to call them hybrid efforts. We have to become more involved as an alliance in, in,

outing talking openly about this war that Russia is carrying on. A recent piece in the international press which talks about as many as 100 incidents in Russia or in Europe across the last several months attributed to Russia as they try to slow down support through Ukraine. And so Russia is fighting

I must tell you that I hear some people use the following word when they talk about our relationship with Russia and they talk about strategic competition. I said in front of our Congress and I've said multiple times that if we are competing with Russia and Russia is fighting us, we're losing.

That's a play on words, but the point meaning that if we're still thinking about this as some sort of competitive environment,

And clearly, Russia is fighting, and they're fighting in very sophisticated ways, as you just discussed. If they are fighting and we are competing, we're losing. We need to change our posture in relation to Russia's gray zone or asymmetric means indirect methods are the words that Gerasimov uses if we don't change our approach and

and start imposing costs on Russia in these areas, it's not going to go well for us. Romania has a huge border with Ukraine and hosts a NATO air base that's expanding to become the bloc's biggest in Europe. If Georgiou does win, what does a Putin-friendly president next door mean for Ukraine? And are there any implications for NATO's preparedness, do you think, for any further Russian aggression in future? Well, the short answer is yes, it is a concern.

I think that, and I know the Romanians very, very well and deeply, and Niko Csuka, a former leader in that country, is now leading a portion of their legislative body. These are rock solid people who have the right intent and understanding of where we are. So it is concerning that a new president has been elected.

And we now have to address that. Yeah, ordinarily. And I think that we have to address it. And we have to make sure that these efforts that Russia has made to shift the voting population, we need to get in front of that.

No one president is going to make a country turn on a dime. But as you know, there are already one or two other countries in NATO that Mr. Putin very much has his thumb on. And so he's doing what he always wants to do, which is break apart NATO. And now he's working very hard to break NATO apart from the inside.

Once, we're not there yet, but once we take this seriously, we'll begin to do our own work. And that's what we need to think about.

Just finally, the head of Britain's armed forces, Admiral Tony Rattigan, gave a lecture this week where he said we are entering a third nuclear age, one of proliferation, with countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea and China all posing a threat. If you were Supreme Allied Commander of Europe now, what message would you be trying to press home about the biggest threats to our way of life at the moment? Well, you're not going to like my answer about the nuclear business.

I think that, you know, I was asked by some of my students at one point, what is our policy about this, that, or the other? And I asked them, okay, let's take a few minutes. You Google the policy on Taiwan. You Google the policy on Korea, North Korea. You Google the policy on Iran, et cetera, et cetera. And it's pretty easy to find out what we write down about these policies and say about these policies, right?

But I reminded my students about something that my mother taught me when I was a young man. And that was people don't care what you say. They care what you do. So we have said a lot of things about our policies towards these problems. And but sadly, unfortunately,

When it comes to nukes, what the world sees is you threaten the West and specifically you threaten Washington, D.C. with nukes and they back up. They back up.

And so I think that is igniting an intense desire in many places to say, what we need is a couple of nukes to threaten American bases or American land masses, or at least Europe with, because we see what that does to decision makers in those countries. And so I think by our sort of

less than adequate policy positions in these countries where conflicts are going on now, it encourages the world to say, man, I need nuclear capability. And oh, by the way, it would not surprise me if we don't hear more about some of those people on our side of the fence leaning further into nukes as they see the sort of

inconsistency between Western replies and Western policy. We have these grandiose policies that said these things, but our actual on the ground replies are far short of them. And I think that's something our opponents want to affect. And that's something that's going to be very interesting to see how President Trump in office will react to that. I agree with you. One to watch. Let's talk again. General Breedlove, good to speak to you. Thank you so much for your time.

Thanks, Kate. See you again soon, I hope. You've been watching Frontline for Times Radio with me, Kate Chabot. If you'd like to be the first to get exclusive content, you can sign up for membership with the link below. You can also listen to Times Radio for the latest news or read it on thetimes.com. My thanks to our producer today, Louis Sykes, and to you for watching. Bye for now.

We all want to enjoy food that tastes great and is sourced responsibly. But it's not always easy to know where your favourite foods come from. McDonald's works with more than 23,000 British and Irish farmers to source quality ingredients.

Sophie Bambridge grows quality potatoes for McDonald's Iconic Fries in Norfolk. I think McDonald's are one of the biggest supporters of British farming. They have a real commitment to British potatoes. The Sustainable Fries Fund is a collaborative investment by McCain and McDonald's to help us understand and try different growing techniques.

for potatoes so that we can understand what we can do to help reduce our impact on the environment but still produce a good quality potato. It helps enable us to try things without having the risk and cost of potentially it going wrong. The support from McCain and McDonald's is really useful to us. Change a little, change a lot. Find out more about McDonald's Plan for Change on the McDonald's website. We all have dreams. Dream home renovations...

Dream vacations or sending our kids to their dream colleges. But finding straightforward ways to turn those dreams into realistic goals, that's where things get tricky. Merrill understands that. That's why with a dedicated Merrill advisor, you get a personalized plan and a clear path forward. And having the bull at your back helps your whole financial life move with you.

So when your plans change, Merrill is with you every step of the way. Go to ml.com slash bullish to learn more. Merrill, a Bank of America company. What would you like the power to do? Investing involves risk. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, registered broker-dealer, registered investment advisor, member SIPC.