The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Andrew Coyne: a phony peace deal for Ukraine could put all of Europe at risk

Episode Date: August 19, 2025

Rudyard and Andrew unpack the latest meeting between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders that seems to have yielded no real progress in resolving the war in Ukraine. Trump indicated a willingness to offer security guarantees, but if Ukraine isn't admitted into NATO, will an Article 5 type protection promise carry any weight? What did Trump promise Putin on Friday that scared European leaders to drop everything and fly in for this emergency meeting? And why can't everyone see that Trump - on every major point - is on the side of Russia? A phony peace agreement could put all of Europe at risk and influence China's calculation vis-a-vis Taiwan. And finally, why are world leaders - including Canada's Mark Carney - so willing to engage in false flattery of Trump at great cost to their own credibility?Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Never in my lifetime would I have supposed that in a conflict like this, I could imagine a U.S. president trying to play some kind of mediator role in this. I would prefer that they just simply be four-square for Ukraine. But I could imagine them disappointing me and playing a mediator role rather than simply defending Ukraine. But Trump is not even doing that. He is on the side of Russia. Welcome to our regular monk dialogue with Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, joining us from the nation's capital. Andrew, great to be in conversation with you this week. Good to talk to you. I'm going to jump into the news that is literally breaking around us as we record this episode of Monk Dialogues with you.

And that is the series of conjections. I don't know, ejaculations that have come out of the White House with this beating between Zelensky, the European leaders, the major powers, and Trump. So, Andrew, if it sounds good to you, what I thought I would do is just go through some of what we're taking away from these virtually live reports and get your reaction to them. How does that sound? Sure. Number one, let's start with possibly some positive news. It sounds like, Andrew, that President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to consider security guarantees for Ukraine, should we ever be in a situation whereby some kind of. kind of peace agreement was obtained with Russia, even some discussion from some of the European

leaders, again, not Donald Trump's words, but the European leaders of a so-called Article 5 type protection of Ukraine without Ukraine being in NATO. What do you make of that? Well, it's not entirely new. There were discussions like this about three years ago. It really depends on what it actually means in the crunch. If it's an Article 5, like guarantee, the first question to me arises, well, then why can it be an Article 5 guarantee? But if you really mean it, if Ukraine could actually count in this guarantee, it would be in NATO. If you're not willing to put it to accept Ukraine into NATO, presumably it's because you don't want to provide it with actual Article 5 guarantees. So you do wonder how credible it is,

who would be backstopping it in reality, as you say, maybe the United States, I've heard conflicting things about whether the United States would actually be involved. I've sometimes heard people making wild claims that maybe Russia would be involved in providing the guarantee. So there's so much disagreement that they're veiled or unveiled. There's so much confusion. You know, the negotiator that Trump sent to talk to Pete Steve Whitkoff, who went without his own translator and appears at several key moments to have misunderstood, literally misunderstood what was being proposed. At one point it was, you know, he thought Russia had proposed it with withdraw from a certain territory, and in fact, Russia's proposal was that Ukraine would.

And so similarly, anything the United States jumps up and down and says, oh, Russia has agreed to this measure of an Article 5 like guarantee, I would want to see the fine print of what exactly Russia ever agreed to. And again, come back to this first point is, how credible would this guarantee be? Would people actually be willing to put soldiers in harm's way to protect Ukraine? or is Russia gambling that if they agree on paper to this, that when push comes to shove and they actually do something, people wouldn't have the stones to stand up to them. Yeah.

Again, this is, we're trying to read through a bunch of kind of real-time reporting of speeches by Zelensky and by the European leaders. There seems to be a suggestion here that if, again, it's a big if, if there was a bilateral or trilateral involving Putin and Zelensky directly together or with Trump. And a peace agreement required concessions in terms of territory that Zelensky has not closed the door on that today. What do you make of that, Andrew? Because that's not insignificant here in terms of the Ukrainians acknowledging seemingly

for the first time that territory. occupied or otherwise could be traded to secure a peace deal if all the other components were in place. The security guarantee will get to the ceasefire. That's another hot issue this afternoon. But what do you make of this seeming flexibility on the part of Zelensky regarding territory? Again, it's very hard to look at these things in isolation from other things that are on the potential on the table. and from sort of at a particular point in time and also looking at the specific language. Zelensky, for example, might find it in his interest to show some flexibility without committing to anything on that question just to keep the ball in the air.

Right. Remember the circumstances around this meeting. This was an emergency meeting. This was a desperation move. I've never seen anything like it where all of these European leaders were rounded up at the last second. Why? Because they were in a panic at what Trump had agreed to in his one. on one with Putin.

We don't know exactly, but we know some of the things that came out afterwards because Trump started tweeting about them, whatever the right word is posting about it, where he basically took the Putin line on every single question, not just on the ceasefire, which he had initially said, there must be a ceasefire, there'll be severe consequences. Putin comes in and says no ceasefire, and Trump goes, oh, yeah, no ceasefire. On these so-called land swaps, which aren't land swaps at all, they're just unilaterally Ukraine agreeing to and the rest of the world agreeing to sanction, sanction in the sense of approve, the gains of the aggressor. Yeah.

I mean, at the most outlandish end of things, it's Russia demanding and Trump agreeing, or certainly being willing to put the proposal, that lands that Russia hadn't even conquered. Right. Would be added to its tally for free, basically. But even aside from that outlandishness, how have we got to the point where we're willing to ratify the idea that conquest of territory by force, should be agreed to, in principle, first of all, why are we allowing even that possibility? But secondly, doing so in quote unquote, in exchange for peace, in exchange for Russian assurances, I love this, that we're going to put it in writing, we're going to put it in our own laws, that we won't come back for more.

What child thinks that that's of any consequence? Who, in their right mind, believes that Russia's commitments on anything, let alone on that, are worth anything? So for anybody outside of Ukraine, first of all, to be making any assumptions or any projections or any agreements on that is way out of place. Zelensky, as the leader of Ukraine, I suppose, can make his own decisions on that. Hemden as he is by his own constitution, which requires a referendum on it and also because of, you know, Ukrainians in general, I think will take a dim view of giving up land they fought and died for when they can have no assurance that it buys them anything. So long answer to your question, but the short answer is, let's wait and see whether that means anything at all. Certainly, I don't think the onus should be on Ukraine whatsoever.

There was an abominable question at the press conference where it's Steve Ducey of Fox News, lobbed this question at Zelensky of basically, why are you persisting and fighting on? Why don't you just give in, basically? Yeah. You know, as if he was responsible, and this is the line Trump has adopted throughout. it, that somehow Zelensky and Ukraine are responsible for the war and responsible for the prolongation of the war by refusing to surrender and never even for one second putting any of the onus on the aggressor, on the invader, on Russia.

Yeah. On a day when 14 Ukrainians were killed, including, I understand, a child under two years of age. But this is the surreal nature of this. Never in my lifetime would I have supposed that in a conflict like this, I could imagine a U.S. president trying to play some kind of mediator role in this. I would prefer that they just simply be four square for Ukraine. But I could imagine them disappointing me and playing a mediator role rather than simply defending Ukraine.

But Trump is not even doing that. He's playing a, he is on the side of Russia. And anybody, I don't think we should mince our words about that. On every single point in this debate, consistently, he has come down on the side of Russia. Yeah. So much insight there, Andrew. And I just want to have, let you give us one more pass on this critical. point that you raised and really struck me coming out of the conversations today of the European

leaders. And that's this idea that what was the whole point of this war in terms of those who were standing with Ukraine and supplying it and trying to help this country in this desperate situation? Was it not, Andrew, to defend the principle of territorial sovereignty of the liberal international order of the entire post-World War II kind of framework that the prosperity of the last 80 years was built on. And if we are willing to consider forcing Ukraine to give up territory for peace, I put that in air quotes, with Russia, because either the Americans are going to blackmail Zelensky by withdrawing weapons or the Europeans suddenly are going to be. You're going to become spineless and not buy those weapons, as Trump is now insisting that they do to supply to

Ukraine. Boy, Andrew, you have to wonder what is the future of the West at that moment. Oh, yeah, and this is not just abstract principle. This isn't just proving a point or, you know, some sort of textbook theory. Parts of Europe have to really wonder who's next. I think there's a tendency for people to normalize Putin the same way that people tend to normalize Trump and to assume that his thinking must be rational or long lines that are comprehensible to the rest. So any of us would look at this and go, you just lost a million men in Ukraine. Surely to God, you've, you know, you've been taught a lesson. You won't do this again.

But that's not how Putin thinks. For one thing, I think his position is very precarious if he were to admit defeat in Ukraine and were to stand down his troops. The returning troops, we've seen in history, returning Russian troops are unkind to their masters. So, you know, you can look at it just from a very rational, narrowly rational point of view for Putin, or you can just say he has extraordinary and delusional theories about international relations that are not rational by our lights. And so it is entirely plausible that he would turn success in Ukraine as he would see it into a springboard for further conquest,

further demands, further little green men operations in the Baltic states, in Poland, et cetera. So it is not just to prove a point. It's not just an abstract question of principle. It is Europe's fighting for its life right now. If Ukraine goes down, if Putin either on this round or, you know, Putin is given a phony peace agreement, which just becomes a springboard for him to recoup and regenerate and then go back in again. But if he ever gets Ukraine, it's not just the principle. It's not just the lesson that will be taught that aggression pays.

He would also get control of Ukraine's resources, including, its manpower and would have moved his effective borders that much closer to the rest of Europe. So the smart people in Europe, which is to say the people who have real direct experience with Russia, the Baltic states and Poland in particular, and the Nordic states, for that matter, of I think shown themselves to be very clear right on this, perhaps surprisingly. These are the people who are helping to stiffen Europe's spine. And in a sensible world, Europe would be stiffening America's spine because, you know, There's this ever-present temptation.

I think we saw another quote from Marco Rubio that sounded so much like Neville Chamberlain, a faraway land of which we know nothing. Marco Rubio was on TV the other day saying, you know, whatever happens to Ukraine won't affect the price of bread in the United States kind of thing. And that's just so foolish and short-sighted. If we allow the peace of Europe to be further ruptured, it will pay consequences for the rest of the democratic world. And among the other considerations, we have to think about it is, is how this all plays with China and how China's calculations about what to do in Taiwan.

And the nightmare scenario, of course, is you get a two-front situation where China and Russia attack simultaneously. And don't think that isn't the possibility. So, yeah, the line has to be drawn here. I think the Europeans, to a greater degree than or less, understand this. They still seem to think that they have to kind of back into this and keep the Americans involved. and I understand the reasons why they want to do that. But at some point, you have to ask, what's the cost of preserving the simulacrum of unity

with the United States? How much time are you giving up? How much leeway are you giving to Russia? How much resources are you wasting by continuing to go through this game? I mean, the point of this meeting was basically the stave-off disaster, point one. And point two, it was to flatter Trump

as much as they possibly could, which is, of course, exactly what Putin was doing. And it's what every world leader now has to spend much of their time doing is literally is publicly flattering Trump and privately, presumably as well, to soothe, you know, the needs of his ego. That's how, again, how bananas this whole situation is. So well said, Andrew, and to your point about the Europeans possibly being more clear-headed about this, it did seem this afternoon that, especially the German Chancellor was making an argument that a ceasefire had to be a prerequisite to any kind of peace

agreement and any discussion of territory. Trump, though, seems consistently keen Andrew on shooting down that notion that, you know, we should have some kind of good faith gesture from Russia of a ceasefire before these discussions go further. Remember, going into the meeting, it was in a sort of rare flash of Trump drawing some kind of line because somebody somewhere managed to persuade him he needed to say this. So for a very brief time there, he was saying there has to be a ceasefire or quote unquote, there will be severe consequences. Right. And there'll be sanctions, et cetera. So he goes in the business again, how, you know, going into the meeting with Putin, my question to myself was, it's going to be worse than even I expected to be. And in what way

will it be worse than I expect. And at first, there was a brief glimmer of, okay, maybe it won't be so bad because they didn't agree to anything. Maybe this is simply a public relations triumph for Putin, an embarrassment, allowing Putin back under the international stage, rehabilitating, treating a war criminal

like he's a legitimate world leader. Those were all things, but it could be worse, you know, you could say. Then as it emerged afterwards, that not only had Trump not enforced the thing on the sanctions, when Putin said there's not going to be any ceasefire. But Trump had flipped and was now taking the position there shouldn't be a ceasefire,

just as he was also pitching to other world leaders, the Putin line on territorial concessions, et cetera. So it wound up being worse even than one had expected. And as I say, that's why there was this really quite extraordinary rounding up of a posse to try to stave off utter disaster coming out of this. I think it'll be fascinating to see what historians make of this moment, if there are any historians to write the history of the future. Just how close did we come to some utter catastrophe if, in fact, we have staved it off? Yeah. Well, I guess that's my question next,

is have we staved it off? Because it seems like, Andrew, if we put this our conversation together, and I think your analysis has been absolutely on point, there's a lot that still can slip between cup and lip. You know, we, the question of territorial concessions, as you say, has constitutional and other implications for Ukraine. The issue of, you know, a security guarantee. The president has been very vague about this. Russia is supposedly just out in statements as we are recording that they oppose any deployment of NATO troops into a future Ukraine post some kind of settlement. So that's up in the air. And then, of course, As we've just talked about, there's all kinds of questions surrounding, you know, a trilateral, a bilateral, a bilateral meeting, you know, how can this happen when Russia continues to, as we've mentioned off the top of the show, kill 14 Ukrainian civilians in the last 24 hours?

So was all of today, Andrew, kind of kabuki theater? Was the posse rounded up really to be a cast? for the president and for his kind of ego, his desire to kind of play global peacemaker. We know that he's very keen to get a Nobel Peace Prize. And maybe it's Occam's Razor. It's no more complicated than that. This has been a set piece in a diorama that the president hopes ends in Oslo, Norway. The saddest point on that is apparently he phoned the Norwegian Foreign Minister out of the blue to sound him out on his peace prize prospects.

So if anybody thinks this is, in Trump's case, all just for show, he apparently sincerely wants this, sincerely thinks he deserves it. Again, this is how surreal the whole situation is. I think that meeting served several functions, none of which are terribly cut and dried. One was to simply save off disaster, keep Trump from doing something completely insane.

A second was just to keep the ball in play, sort of a lie point, try to keep the thing in play, keep things fluid, keep things from getting two-set. Third was flatter Trump and try and draw him back towards the Democratic world, if you like. And there was a lot of flattery that went on back and forth. So, you know, it sounds like it helps soothe him. So until we hear more, maybe there'll be more, you know, off-the-record briefings. But at this point, I wouldn't say there was anything terribly concrete that was achieved by this.

than just to keep things moving. It's a weird mix of flux and stasis. The stasis part is the military situation is not really moving that much. There was flurries of excitement because Russia had supposedly made a little breakthrough. I can't remember exactly what the location was. It turns out not to have been terribly long-lasting. The Ukrainians mobilized and snuffed it out.

It was mostly just for show, I think, going into the Putin-Trump meeting. So, you know, the lines are pretty stable. in Russia, the military situation. What's unstable is Trump. Yeah. Trump is the unstable factor here that people are trying to corral and trying to keep from careening too far in one direction and other, particularly in the direction of Putin. And I think that's what this exercise was, was trying to drag him back from the Putin, you know, embrace. And there's one of several competing explanations for Trump's behavior on this, and none of them are good. So one of them is he's just completely, you know, rollable by whoever talked to him last.

And Putin just happens to be particularly good at rolling of it. I mean, Trump, for one thing, embraces every conspiracy theory known to man. And particularly kind of lazy left-wing conspiracy theories about how, you know, NATO is responsible for Russia feeling insecure. I can well imagine Trump buying all that stuff because he's basically got the mentality of a, you know, 18-year undergrad. having their first exposure to the whole subject, hasn't thought about it deeply at all. So I could well imagine some, that that could be part of it, or that Putin is particularly adept at flattering it.

So there's that theory. The second theory is, and it's not implausible at all, is that Putin has something on. He's got a compliment on. Let us remember, we're in the throes of discussing how close Trump was to Jeffrey Epstein and to what extent was he a participant or at least knew about Epstein's crimes.

If there's material out there, I would bet money that the Russians have got it. So as far-fetched as that sounds, I don't think you can rule that out. The third theory that I think is equally or perhaps more plausible is Trump just happens to agree with him. Trump has the dictator's mindset. He is attempting to install a dictatorship in the United States, and I don't think we should mince words about that with troops in the streets of Washington. And tends to look at world events through the lens of a dictatorship, is very, very, keen on ideas of spheres of influence. Remember, this is the guy who wants to, you know, take over Greenland and the next Canada, that he just simply sees the world in the same way.

Well, any one of those explanations is really frightening. Yeah. And it seems to me it's got to be one of them. Yeah. So you can understand why the Europeans were so scared and why they, why they scampered over to Washington rather than allow Trump to bulldoze over Zelensky again. Not that Zelensky was a particularly easily bulldozed person, but they don't want to repeat of that terrible performance in February. If you're enjoying the Monk Debates podcast, come over to our website at triplew monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com and check out our free monk membership. As a complimentary monk member, you get all kinds of great perks and benefits,

access to our weekly email, summarizing our best debates, Vance ticketing privileges at our main stage debates, special news information, and offers all courtesy of the Monk Debates. You can grab your complimentary monk membership again right now at triple w monkdebates.com. Simply look to the top navigation on the website and follow the links. Thanks in advance for joining our community. Penultimate question. Let's talk a little bit about the flattery that world leaders are.

lavishing on Trump. I'll read you Mark Carney's quote on Sunday. The leadership, this is Mark Carney speaking of President Trump in the United States, is creating the opportunity to end Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. One of many statements by G7 leaders that I guess, Andrew, as you say, this is this is the new kind of currency of influence. But at the same time, at what moment, are you as a leader, whether you're Mark Carney or Emmanuel Macron or Keith Starrmer, you begin to erode your own credibility because you're talking about a reality that just doesn't exist. You're calling black, white, and white, black. And people like me and others reading your statements, they think you're engaging in, you know, this, again, kind of

Kabuki theater with the president. Like to what extent are these leaders, including our own prime minister, putting their credibility on the line by constantly praising and assuming some kind of sycophantic vassal-like role vis-a-vis this president? It's a tough call and I want to cut them some slack. You know, I think this is where you have to employ some judgment. So you're right that the downside is you risk looking. fawning and foolish and to some extent jeopardizing your credibility. The upside is you get Trump to do

what you need them to do. And I think the only way you can assess that is by looking at the results. You could certainly imagine situations, and I think there have situations in which all you earn from Trump is his contempt, and he goes on and does something as bad or worse. There's also been cases where, you know, as he says, Putin plays him like a fiddle, where he responds. He responds to him. that. So it is like dealing with an enormous toddler. You know, they're kind of shaking the rattle at them, trying to get him to take his meal. And so you, so you offer up these words of praise and you make him feel good. I wish I were exaggerating. You know, sometimes there's a tendency to, when you're discussing or commenting on a political leader that you disagree with, I think people

sometimes foolishly ascribe ill motives or foolishness or stupidity to them. And I think that's always a mistake. And I think one reason that's a mistake is when you see it actually happening, it's harder to get people to listen. Every time I talk about Trump like this, I'm conscious that people must think, oh, come on, you're exaggerating. It can't be that bad. But I think if you're paying attention at the accumulated evidence, this isn't from one exposure or one slip of the lip or one bad photo op or whatever. This is repeated, you know, statements and actions that Trump is done day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. We have thousands of now of data points on this, that this is the level he operates at, that this is an absolutely

unusually cretrenous person, even by the standards of somebody you might see walking down the street, let alone the present of the United States. And even as I'm saying it, I'm rebelling against saying that. It can't possibly be true. We can't be living in this world where somebody as utterly lacking in principle, as bottomlessly ignorant, as, you know, vastly flatter of as this could be running a major, the major world power. But that is the situation we are in. We have to kind of give ourselves a cold shower and slap ourselves awake and say, that's actually what we're having to deal with.

And so that's what these world leaders, and they must feel just absolutely desperate to have to do this. I don't think it can please Mark Carney, but we know as a pretty strong sense of amor prop. I don't think it can please him. I think if there's a line that people often say about him, he doesn't suffer fools gladly. He's having to suffer this fool very gladly.

And this is, I'm going to cut him some slack here and they cut the other some slack. I think in this emergency moment therein, this is the price of states. Yeah, I guess my rebuttal to that would be one that it has the habit of the president being largely unopposed of a confirmation bias in, again, it's we can't get into the president's head we don't want to get into the president's head but the fact is that if everyone's praising him and 500 million of people of europe you know submit to a humiliating trade deal this is emboldening it it must be emboldening to him that's him i guess what i worry more about andrew is us at what point do we just start to fall into his unreality like at a certain point someone somewhere has to say that the emperor has no clothes, that Vladimir Putin is a killer,

that giving away Ukrainian territory for some, quote, elusive peace is a betrayal of some of our most important, you know, values. That if no one says these things, Andrew, and it's all just go along to get along because there's some incremental, marginal gain that you might get at the future when he, can simply reverse that marginal gain on you six, 12 or 18 months later. I worry, Andrew, that we are sliding ourselves into his world through our acquiescence. I share your fear, and that's a completely legitimate and valid concern. And I think one has to look at the combination of words and deeds, and indeed words and words in certain situations. So take, for example, Chancellor March from Germany.

I don't have chapter and verse in front of me, but I'm pretty, sure he collaborated in the songs of praise for Trump today. But he also said, and of course, there must be a ceasefire. So if you can, in the language of flattery or the language of agreement, actually put forward disagreement and stand up for your position and push your position, again, I think that's part of the skill set of a state. And you're going to be judged in the end of what you achieve. So if you do all this flattery, and all it does, as you say, is emboldened Trump, and all you do is you accompany the flattery with concessions on the substance, then you're entirely right. Your concerns will be entirely validated, and that's something we need to be greatly fearful of.

If you can use it as the sugar that lets the medicine go down, if in the course of flattering Trump in rhetorical terms, you can also move the yardsticks forward. I'm mixing my metaphor here, but move the yards six forward in terms of your substantive policy goals, I, to my way, thinking that's worth swallowing a certain amount of humiliation of having to say these nice words about an awful, awful person. But it has to be judged by the results in the concern you raise are certainly valid concerns. Yeah. Well, Andrew, I want to thank you for coming on in a busy newsday and kind of breaking down this important story with us, literally in real time. You're such a versatile commentator, and we really appreciate your insights here at the Monk Debates. Let's see how much of it stands up.

Yeah, well, I think it will. I think we touched on the important points. And for that, thank you again. We'll let you get on with the rest of your day. My pleasure. That was Andrew Coyne, Globe and Mail columnist, a regular contributor here at the Monk Debates, featured in our weekly Monk Dialogue series. If you're enjoying this series, please subscribe to you.

the over 80,000 people who are on our YouTube channel. Thank you for becoming one of that, that big membership, but click on the notification bell and we'll send you Andrew's video as soon as it's published. And finally, check out our Friday Focus podcast. We put up the first half of our weekly deep dive into geopolitics with Janice Gross-Steine of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Up for anyone to listen and watch on our podcast feed or YouTube channel. if you like what you hear, consider becoming a donor for as little as $25 a year. We'll send you the full-length editions of each and every episode of Friday Focus, along with all kinds of other perks and privileges for becoming a Monk Debates member.

I'm Rudyard Griffiths, Chair of the Monk Debates. Thank you for watching The Monk Dialogues. We'll talk to you again soon. Bye-bye. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.