Why has President Trump seized a Russian oil tanker?

0:02Jon Sopel:This is a Global Player original podcast. Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister either does not have the detail or does not want to give us the detail. But this is important. He should be calling. He should be calling an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. He should have spoken to President Trump by now. Now, this is important because if any such peace deal is breached, we would be in direct conflict with Russia. If the prime minister is committing troops, he must give more detail on how he intends to ensure our armed forces are fully resourced. It is a very good question from Kemi Badenok.

0:45Jon Sopel:But you can be sure the last thing Keir Starmer wants is to have to undertake new spending commitments, which might result in tax increases or spending cuts for other departments. But given what is happening in the rest of the world, surely Britain has to raise its defence spending.

1:04Emily Maitlis:Not least because the Prime Minister returned just yesterday from Paris from a meeting with other European leaders where he has committed to deploy potentially tens of thousands of British troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. is the truth with Donald Trump ripping up the NATO alliance that Britain and Europe's foreign policy, defence policy, looks like it's from a different age. Welcome to The News Agents.

1:38Jon Sopel:The News Agents. It's John. It's Lewis. And it is exactly one o 'clock, lunchtime. And as we're recording this, this may turn out to be absolutely nothing or it may turn out to be epic and it's kind of hard to see anything much in between. It may turn out to be that this is the last podcast you ever listened to. Yeah, but we are seeing reports from Reuters that US special forces are intercepting a Russian flagged tanker in the Atlantic waters between Britain and Iceland. And apparently this tanker, which was Venezuelan, but now has a Russian flag painted on it, has a Russian military escort, submarines, escorting this tanker and apparently surface vessels as well.

2:25Jon Sopel:And US special forces apparently trying to intercept it.

2:31Emily Maitlis:Yeah, this seizure clearly could be a massive conflagration with Russia. It might diffuse into nothing. But clearly, as we've been talking about with the Venezuela crisis for the last few days, there is a big, big geopolitical angle which goes beyond the Western Hemisphere. Russia has been involved in Venezuela. China has been involved in Venezuela. And we also saw overnight Donald Trump put on Truth Social that part of the price he's extracted from the Venezuelan regime or what's left of it is between 30 and 50, I think, million barrels of oil every single day, which Trump tweeted to great fanfare is going to be shared, he said, between the American and Venezuelan people.

3:11Emily Maitlis:It's going to be sold on the international market for the benefit of both countries. Not entirely clear exactly what the ratio is going to be between Venezuela and the United States. That in itself is pretty amazing. I mean, it's kind of the United States acting almost like international pirates in this regard, extorting, extorting the resources from a country in that way very rapidly after an American backed coup d 'etat and being completely open about it. That is astonishing itself. But of course, this also adverts to the Russian angle, which is that they have themselves been benefiting or has been suggested they may have benefited from some Venezuelan oil over the years or at least had the connections with the Venezuelan regime.

3:46Emily Maitlis:And you've got this what was a Venezuelan ship currently becoming a Russian ship. And apparently the Americans going after it as a result.

3:53Jon Sopel:So we are watching this space because honestly, if it is the case that US special forces try to land and it is resisted by Russia, that is a major confrontation. And I suppose what this more generally paints to, because actually the meeting that took place in Europe yesterday over security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, it did have present there Trump's special envoy, Steve Wyckoff, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which does suggest that there is American buy-in to this idea of security guarantees. So you start thinking, well, maybe the pendulum has swung back and that America maybe is a bit more pro-Ukraine than it was and not so kind of feeble in terms of its willingness to take on Moscow.

4:43Jon Sopel:But I think what this all underlines is just the total uncertainty of world affairs, that you knew where America stood and you could guess where America would be on any number of given issues and roughly who your friends were and who your enemies are. but with Greenland now and the threat of action but yet contradicted by Ukraine and now possibly the idea that a Russian tanker is being intercepted by Americas we just don't know where we are yet we do know that the British government seems to be making big undertakings in terms of defence in terms of what we would commit to in Ukraine in the event that a ceasefire is reached.

5:24Emily Maitlis:Indeed so So Keir Starmer, along with Emmanuel Macron and President Zelensky and other European leaders were in Paris yesterday. And they signed a political declaration or a declaration of intent to deploy forces to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal. They said that following a ceasefire, allies from more than 30 nations, but led by the UK and France, will establish military hubs across Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons, military equipment to support Ukraine's defensive needs. This is a statement from the coalition of the willing. It would be European led with the involvement of willing non-European members and the proposed support.

6:01Emily Maitlis:And this is a bit cryptic, but it said the proposed support of the US. And it wasn't just European leaders there because US special envoy Steve Wyckoff told the news conference that President Trump strongly stands behind these security protocols. protocols. It's all a little bit vague. It's built on efforts that Macron and Starmer have led on over the course of the last year. It's, as I say, builds upon that. But what it seems to suggest is that ultimately, if there were a ceasefire, Britain, along with others, would be committing, who knows, it's unclear right now, but tens of thousands of British troops to the Ukrainian border, wherever it might eventually sit, which is thousands of kilometres long, in an attempt to deter the Russians from breaking the ceasefire.

6:51Emily Maitlis:This would be an enormous undertaking, an absolutely massive undertaking, because you're not just talking about giving the Ukrainian support for what they need. You're talking about swelling Ukraine with so much military hardware and European military capability, backed up potentially by the United States, to not just enforce a ceasefire, but deter the Russians from breaking that ceasefire. And the questions obviously abound about how many troops would be necessary for that, what would happen in the event that the Russians decided to test that ceasefire and fired upon British soldiers, French soldiers, what that would mean in terms of conflict with Russia, and exactly what sort of guarantee or security support for these protocols the US might provide?

7:37Jon Sopel:Well, let's just do a very simple comparison. Get a map of Europe out, look at Kosovo on that map, and look at the Ukraine-Russia border on that map. Kosovo is a tiny little pinprick compared to the Russia-Ukraine border, which stretches for 2 ,000 kilometres. When we were providing security guarantees, we, the British, were providing security guarantees to Kosovo after the Balkans war, it involved 50 ,000 troops. That is for a tiny, tiny area. And you compare it to what might be needed. Now, the circumstances are not identical and you're going to have other countries involved, hopefully as well.

8:19Jon Sopel:But you realise the scale of the undertaking you're talking about, about securing a border where Russia will prod and will push and will seek to examine weaknesses. because if there is a ceasefire it's hard to believe that Vladimir Putin is going to say okay yeah I tried but I failed and I'll just accept the status quo now forevermore that is not going to happen and so potentially you are putting British troops in harm's way and potentially having to fight and then what about other conflicts that might arise around the world where Britain might have to defend its interests this feels I have to say John I think what um

8:57Emily Maitlis:I think there's a common link between um a lot of the stories we're seeing at the moment both with Greenland and NATO, but also this, which is, I think we're increasingly just living in the realms of kind of European security fantasy. Yeah. And the British and the French governments in particular acting, I would say, as if in a different reality, really, a different set of political and military realities to the one in which we find ourselves. Just take the Ukrainian stuff first before spooling back to Greenland. For a start, in what world will the Russians ever accept this? The whole genesis, if you're Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin constantly, it's not just about territory.

9:30Emily Maitlis:We always think with Putin it's about territory. it's not principally about territory. Vladimir Putin always talks about the root causes of this war, which in his head, I think completely wrongly, and is a sort of misreading of history and has a deep imperial arrogance to him, which we're seeing a lot around the world at the moment. But his reading is that Europe has been involved and meddling in Ukraine for a long time. Ukraine is a security threat to the Russian homeland. Again, sound familiar? and that therefore he should and must intervene in Ukraine to permanently neuter that government and be assured at the very least that it is a neutral government, i.e.

10:09Emily Maitlis:not aligned with the West, even if it's not, but ideally aligned with Moscow. In what world do we think that Putin, therefore, will go way, way further than any of that and not only not have a neutered government in Kyiv, but also have British, French, NATO, American, who knows, troops literally operating from within Ukraine. That would be completely the opposite of what he wanted to achieve. The only way in which he might have accepted that is if he'd been beaten or had come close to be beaten or at the very least even had a stalemate. But right now he thinks he's winning an enormous economic and human cost, but he thinks he's winning.

10:50Emily Maitlis:So I have not heard from Keir Starmer and, you know, Kenny Baden-Ock was sort of pressuring on this today, but I have not heard any compelling account from any British minister or French minister or European minister how you get from A to B, which is the Kremlin acceding to that. And that is before you get into the actual requirements that you would need, which would be enormous to actually patrol this border.

11:11Jon Sopel:And just one other thing to add into that mix. This is all contingent on the United States providing reconnaissance of capability. So the satellites in the sky, intelligence, drones to patrol the border to see where Russian positions are at any given moment. And that requires a full on U.S. commitment. Would you believe anyone giving you a full on commitment now from the Trump administration that this is going to happen? I think you'd probably be a little bit wary of it. And I think you'd be a little bit sceptical of it. But even if you get all of that, even if you get all of that, what we are spending on defence and the way our defence forces seem stretched and the limits of our capability do not seem to match what we're talking about in terms of the commitment that we might make to Ukraine.

12:06Jon Sopel:Well, indeed.

12:07Emily Maitlis:I mean, there have been various studies undertaken on this, because obviously, as I say, Starmer and Macron have been talking about proposals akin to this for a while. There was an interesting, I mean, slightly disturbing study from the Breuwald Group, which is a research think tank into these things. And they said, at an absolute minimum, just to, if you're just trying to sort of provide some of that deterrence and help the Ukrainians sort of police their position in the ceasefire, you'd be probably looking at about 150 ,000 European troops. That's just European troops, never mind the Ukrainian troops that would be necessary.

12:35Emily Maitlis:That's the other thing would have to be probably pouring enormous amounts of money into Ukraine to help them to kind of reassemble their armed forces and their military and economic infrastructure. And actually, they said that if you were talking about a real continuous defended border posture, they say, you know, screening forces, prepared positions, strong points, reserves close enough to repel any attack and have a counterattack, then you could be looking between 200 and 400 ,000 troops. You know, we're talking about World War One size armies here, you know, really massive defensive, like nothing that we've seen since.

13:05Emily Maitlis:I think the UK army is 73 ,000 people. I think at that point, yes, exactly. Exactly. So, you know, you'd probably be looking at some form of either aggressive military recruitment from the UK or even, I don't know, even some form of conscription. Who knows? But the point is, is that if it's credible, if it's real, then we would have to be looking at a transformed military posture in this country and indeed across Europe. And despite the fact that the European, the EU, they are rearming, there are significant defence procurement programmes going on in the EU. It takes time. It's slow. But I haven't seen any credible suggestion that we could be getting up to those sorts of figures.

13:37Emily Maitlis:And if we were getting up to those sort of figures, the government has pledged to hit 3 % of GDP of military spending by 2034. I mean, that would have to come forward so rapidly in both time and in percentage. You know, I don't know what that would mean in terms of GDP percentage, but I mean, you'd probably be looking at, I would imagine, at least 5%, if not more. and you're talking therefore of tens of billions of pounds that would have to be financed either through cuts in other departments or increases in taxation. When you consider the political difficulties this government has had with both of those issues just to keep the show on the road in terms of public finances and public spending and trying to get the NHS in order and so on, that would be a conversation with the British public that would require profound, I think, political courage and honesty.

14:26Emily Maitlis:And so far I haven't seen much sign of it.

14:28Jon Sopel:And also, it just feels that it's so far off that, you know, if we're talking about a ceasefire that is 90 percent there and it's just the final 10 percent you've got to get agreement on. And Donald Trump, as we know, is impatient and would like to see the ceasefire as soon as possible. Then you're talking in the next few months. Commitment. And, you know, I say I gave that number ballpark figure. I think the British armed forces, the British army is 73000 people. and as you said Lewis you need you know what is it 150 ,000 minimum yeah of European forces I mean Britain can't send its whole army because obviously it needs to have reserves because you've got to you know circulate the troops they're going to do a tour of duty and then they need to be replaced I mean this is an incredible undertaking I just feel I listened to it all last night of the draft agreement in Europe of what they would do to provide a security guarantee and i thought that sounded great this is good progress and then you think about what it means in real terms and you think it's fantasy land we're nowhere near any of this and surely zelensky who's a very smart and shrewd operator must look at british defense spending i must look at french defense spending and look at what our capabilities are and our ability to deploy forces

15:48Emily Maitlis:i've already transferred some of that capability to ukraine for very good reason but it's been

15:52Jon Sopel:it out yeah so does he really believe that this is going to provide a guarantee along a border that

15:58Emily Maitlis:stretches for 2 000 kilometers this is what i mean about living in um competing realities or parallel realities i think we're living in a competing reality in terms of military spending because we're just massively overestimating actually what the british military's capabilities are now you know much reduced even by comparison we've been talking about the iraq war quite a lot this week much reduced even by comparison to 2003 you know in 2003 british army was you know a minority partner in it or a junior partner in it, but it was still a substantial sort of military commitment that was made. I think it would be difficult for Britain to sustain even a commitment like that now because the armed forces have been hollowed out under the Conservative Party principally, but under governments of both colours.

16:34Emily Maitlis:But also, I think in terms of, as you say, John, that the attitude and disposition of the Trump administration. Look, Baden-Ock had had Starmer on the ropes today about a few things at Prime Minister's questions. One was, you know, it's clear that despite the huge investment that Starmer has made in the Trump relationship, it's clear he hasn't spoken to Trump. You know, Starmer has no influence right now over the White House or over Venezuela or Greenland. No one else in Europe does. There are huge questions over the potential, you know, Ukraine commitments, as we've been talking about. And the lengthy defence spending commitments, you know, up to 20, 30, 34 seem like they're from another age.

17:06Emily Maitlis:But the truth is, is that what was Badenock saying? Her remedy in that was let's have a NATO meeting. What would the point be, John, in having a NATO meeting when the principal problem is that basically the United States, the biggest player within NATO, has gone rogue. The truth about the geopolitical situation for Europe right now is that no one has got an answer for the problem or to the problem of the US going rogue because there is no answer to it. Because it fundamentally upends the basic security and political assumption that every government in every European country has had since 1945.

17:46Emily Maitlis:There is no answer to it. It is an impossible, certainly in the short term at least, it's an impossible conundrum to solve.

17:52Jon Sopel:It's an impossible conundrum to solve because we don't know, as you rightly say, and we don't know whether what seems certain today changes tomorrow. And, you know, we started this podcast talking about these reports coming in that America was trying to intercept this kind of tanker which is now Russian flagged and apparently with a Russian military escort of submarines and surface ships. Apparently now we're hearing that the Russian surface fleet didn't get there in time and that the Americans have now boarded. That's according to the Reuters national security correspondent. The Russian flag vessel now known as the Marinara has been boarded by US military and Coast Guard personnel.

18:37Jon Sopel:Where does this go? We don't know. We'll be back after the break.

18:45Jon Sopel:News you can trust and the conversations that matter.

18:49Emily Maitlis:With award-winning journalists at the heart of the stories from the UK and around the world. Breaking news here in Edinburgh.

18:55Jon Sopel:I'm Simon Marks. My American Week is next.

18:58Emily Maitlis:Reporting from the heart of Cardiff.

18:59Jon Sopel:Discover how today's story affects your life. Listen on our free Global Player app or the new LBC app. LBC, leading Britain's conversation.