David Cameron is indicated as ‘C’. The pranksters, who impersonate former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, are given the “C” designation.
Q: Now. Good day. Good day. David, how are you there?
C: Where are you now? We have some problem, near the Donetsk region, because they are trying to capture some cities in the vicinity of Sloviansk. So. And we have problems in Kharkiv, so they choose two different, absolutely different ways of how to attack Ukraine. So I’m here and the situation is really terrible. Not so, not so happy.
C: Um, does American money and weapons make any difference? Is it starting to arrive?
Q: Yes, it’s starting to come, but right now it’s in very slow motion. The problem is, of course, that we have enough soldiers in battle, on the front. And now we begin the mobilization. But it’s still not enough.
C: What I want to say. Obviously I am in very close contact with Dmytro Kuleba and talk to him about all the things that are needed, particularly air defences, the arrival of American munitions, the campaign to ensure that other countries do what Britain has done and take up multi-year commitments. . Um, so I’m very close to them. It is very annoying that the American money has taken so long to arrive.
Q: How do you think anything will change if elections are held?
C: No, I think the opposition party is just as enthusiastic about defending and helping Ukraine as the Conservative Party. So I don’t think you’ll see a change. Obviously, if they win, there will be a new government. There will be some catch-up on some issues, but I think fundamentally they have been supportive of everything we have done. Um, because I would say we’ve probably been the most advanced government in, you know, multi-year money, storm shadow training, um, all aspects, security, um, uh, uh, businesses and partnerships, support in NATO , I think we’re probably, you know, one of the most enthusiastic allies. Um, but I think the Labor Party, if it wins, will continue with that approach.
Q: I spoke to David Lammy, so of course he’s not polite, but if I compare it, him and you. Of course he’s not so… he doesn’t have that experience. No.
C: That’s true. Um, that’s true, but I think that look, I think British politics is rigged. I think what we have to do is try to continue to encourage Americans to not just vote through money, but to make all the changes they can in terms of permits, in terms of training, in terms of type of commitment. Um, I think they, you know, aren’t as committed as they could be. Um, and I think that’s a priority. I also think that in Germany the Germans could do more, there is no doubt about that. So I think that should be a goal for Ukraine, to try to convince them. Um, the French are very excited now. As you know, Macron has made a big change. But I think there are some things to do to ensure that they are met.
Q: Yes. How do you feel about his statement that we did not expel? Some French troops may come to Ukraine if the situation were worse. He said he can send some…maybe the International Legion. And what is your opinion?
C: Well, I’m not sure. I mean, I really appreciate the fact that the French changed their minds, but I’m not sure it’s the right approach. I mean, I think the problem is that if you send foreign troops into Ukraine, you create a target for Putin. And then the question arises: what would you do if you were hit? Um, I think I’m very interested in the French enthusiasm, but I’m not sure they choose the right particular answer. There’s a lot of things they could do on top of that, you know, like we’ve done with Storm Shadow and other things. Like that, like that, but you know, we’re not going to fight with them about it. We don’t want to argue with them. We’re just trying to tell them privately to think about things we can do that are really useful for Ukraine but aren’t scalable.
Q: Another problem is, of course, the case of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States. And, if you know, I read something in the newspapers about your conversation with Trump and it could be something like newspaper rumors. But how do you do it?
C: No, no, it’s true. I had dinner with him and my goal was to convince him not to block the money for Ukraine, because obviously House Speaker Mike Johnson wanted two things. He wanted to vote the money for Ukraine, but he also wanted to keep his position. And I thought it was important to try to make sure that Trump supported him enough to do it, which is what happened in the end. But obviously, you know, it’s a struggle. The Republican Party is divided. There is a part that is not very supportive of Ukraine, not very supportive of what they see as, you know, conflicts abroad. Whereas, you know, traditional Republicans, you know, absolutely see the threat of Russian aggression and everything else. So, you know, it’s worked. It’s worked out, I think is the best way to put it. How are you spending your time, Pedro?
Q: What is your personal opinion of Trump? I mean, he said they’re trying to start peace negotiations when he’s president, on the first day of his presidency.
C: I think it’s hard to know what your personal opinion is. I mean, I think ultimately he will calculate in due course what is best for him. I think the key is that if we can make sure that Ukraine is on the front foot and Putin is on the back foot in November, then he will want to support the winning side, so to speak, and that’s what we have to ensure. And that is why the 60,000 million are so important. And that is why this summer is so important. But I think it’s hard to predict exactly what his attitude will be. But that’s the most important thing.
Q: Yes. Another case is the NATO summit. And yesterday I read that Secretary Blinken said that there will be no invitation for Ukraine to this summit. And it is a bad sign for us because…
C: I know. I think, I think, look at her, there won’t be, I mean, there won’t be an invitation because the United States won’t support it. Um, so what I said to President Zelensky is let’s try to get the best possible language on NATO support for Ukraine. But no, we should not have a discussion between NATO and Ukraine before the summit. So let’s do the best we can. Um, a bridge to membership. Membership is irreversible, irrevocable, let’s get what we can. And then let’s make sure we go to the conference together, because we can’t afford to have some sort of public discussion about where Ukraine stands vis-à-vis NATO in the run-up to the July summit. Um, I think that’s sensible. I am sure that I support Ukraine’s membership in NATO. I’ve always done it and I’m sure it will happen, but this time we’re not going to make it. That’s why I think it’s important not to argue about it.
C: Yes. So you mean that Ukraine should be a member of NATO, but when will the conflict end?
Well, I supported Ukraine’s membership in 2008. Um, so. But I think the problem is that we are not going to convince the United States to send an invitation to this conference. So we have to do the best we can, and NATO’s mission for Ukraine is important. I mean, that is valuable for Ukraine. Um, and I think we can have very strong language about Ukraine’s irreversible process of joining NATO.
Q: Yes.
C: Not as much as you and I would like. I know, but it is. We have to make the best the enemy of the good or. Sorry, we shouldn’t make the best the enemy of the good. Yeah.
Q: Well, I mean, the other issue is sanctions, of course. So I heard that I learned that you also support that all Russian assets should be. And I learned that now only some people get out of their profits. Right now. Yes, but who knows? I think this is.
C: Well, again, I think we’re as always on the more enthusiastic end of the spectrum, wanting as much as possible. But the G7 finance ministers met yesterday and I think the best thing we can do, where we can achieve unanimity, is to use the unexpected interest and turn it into money that Ukraine can, can, um. , pay the interest on a loan that, which was less than all the sovereign assets, but it will still be, you know, maybe up to 50 billion dollars. Um, and we can also say, I think it’s very important to say that the underlying assets, um, are not going to be unfrozen. They won’t be, you know, so we’ll keep the argument for the future that these assets can be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine. But I think the idea of the windfall, the 50 billion, is not bad. It’s just not as good as I would like. But I think that’s where I think. I think that’s where the G7 will go.
Q: Yes, and the Russians are already trying to steal some Western assets that they have, but it is. Yes, I’ve seen it, of course. Is different. Sometimes I read stories by Medvedev.
C: He always says the craziest things. I think he’s just trying to stay with Putin. Hmm. But that’s the most important thing. If you have any connection to Trump, the most important thing to convey to him is that the Putin of today is much more extreme than the one you know, the one you were dealing with at the time of Minsk, or the one Trump was dealing with. And I think we have to convince Trump of this. Trump thinks it is easy to reach an agreement, but that is not the case because Putin wants much more. And I think he, Trump, needs to understand that.
Q: Maybe you want to keep the Baltic states close at hand… it’s, it’s dangerous.
C: But I was recently in all the fanatics and Kazakhstan are convinced that Putin wants a piece of northern Kazakhstan.
Q: You told them that Putin wants to capture their state. So they were afraid?
C: Yes, they are also the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he said. He said it is difficult because of our long border with Russia. But you know, he said, I feel like Ukrainians are, you know, he put it that way. He said that Ukrainians die for Kazakhstan. They are putting their lives at risk to stop Russia. And that benefits us.
Q: Could you tell me a little about what Trump responded about the Ukraine situation?
C: He said he said that, um, he said he thought that. Putin only wanted Crimea and Donbas. And I said, that’s wrong. And he agreed.
Q: And you agreed that that’s fine with you?
C: I think well, you never know if he agrees, but I think so. Believe. Well, he allowed the money to pass. So that’s a good sign. And I see good positives.
Q: I see positive signs with Armenia now that Armenia is turning towards the West.
C: Yes, yes, that has been a real defeat for Putin. Um, and apparently also Putin, when people tell him, you’ve let Armenia down, he gets very angry. So I think it’s a very interesting sign of waning Russian power. Um, but, look, I think we all have whatever contact we have with the Republican Party, we have to reinforce our friends in the Republican Party, people like Lindsey Graham who are pro-Ukraine. And we have to… try to resolve, determine which ones are on the margins and which ones can be convinced, because all of that will have an impact.
Q: And you proposed to bomb Moscow directly! Yeah.
C: Don’t believe everything he says. Yes, okay. I’m fine. Let’s stay in touch. And it’s good. Keep in contact.
Q: Thanks friend. Good to see you. How nice to see you again. And I remember our first meeting with Lord Hague… When I remember it.
C: We came, we worked very closely together. It was. It was good to see you. Thank you very much. Keep in touch.
Q: Thank you. Well. Thank you. Bye bye. Have a great day with your family.
C: Okay. Bye bye.
