Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

White House Welcomes Europe-Led Effort To Broker Peace In Ukraine; Estonia Aiming To Ramp Up Defense Spending To Five Percent Of GDP; Most Republicans Back Trumps Zelenskyy Showdown, But Not All; Israel Wants To Extend Phase One Of Ceasefire Until Mid-April. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired March 03, 2025 - 10:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:20]

ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN Abu Dhabi. This is CONNECT THE WORLD WITH BECKY ANDERSON.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: And welcome to the second hour of the show. Time here is 7:00 in the evening. This is our Middle East

programming headquarters in Abu Dhabi.

Ukraine, at a crucial point in its conflict with Russia, after President Zelenskyy heated Oval Office appearance with Donald Trump, Friday, European

leaders are showing a united front against Moscow.

Israel says it will block humanitarian aid into Gaza until Hamas agrees to new conditions on the current cease fire plan.

Israel, itself, has missed the deadline to start talks for phase two that deadline over two weeks ago.

And dramatic scenes from the United States with emergency evacuations in the Carolinas due to wildfires. And we going to get you to that part of the

world a little later this hour.

U.S. President Donald Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. This comes just days after what was a fiery Oval Office clash

with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over how to bring peace to Ukraine.

We're now hearing from a senior Western defense official who says there is, "broad support" in Europe for boots on the ground in Ukraine. And this

follows Sunday's emergency summit in London, where European leaders rallied support for Kyiv.

France's president, meantime, has been talking to French media about a potential British and French peace plan.

Let's get the view from Ukraine with CNN's Nick Paton Walsh in Kyiv, and you will be well aware of the talk coming out of this summit over the

weekend, after that very heated exchange between Zelenskyy and Donald Trump on Friday.

And we are now just getting word that the White House has welcomed Europe- led efforts to broker peace here.

Just give me the perspective from Ukraine. How are people there and authorities there reacting to what has been this past 72 hours?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, I think, the broad feeling is of just total discombobulation and

whiplash. At the moment, people really struggling to keep up with the latest nuances here.

But bear in mind, which appear to be having a two-track development here. We have the White House with their persistent, seemingly desire to bridge

the gaps with Moscow, and Moscow's appreciation of that, and their fissure with Ukraine at this time, and then, the Europeans trying to build a

peaceful process forwards, potentially, beginning to get the building blocks in what that might actually look like.

We had Ukraine yesterday, suggest that maybe a confidence building measure could be the return of deported children. We've had the French president,

Emmanuel Macron, tell the Figaro newspaper, suggesting potentially a limited ceasefire in the sea and in the air, and preventing attacks against

energy infrastructure.

Just remind you overnight, the Ukrainians hit an oil refinery in Ufa, deep inside Russia.

So key issue there, I think, to try and suggest that there could be a process that slowly builds up to a more enduring land-based ceasefire. That

they may indeed involve the peacekeeping forces that Europe has been suggesting. That senior Western defense official suggesting that there was

a broad support for that.

We don't know the nations in question. It's pretty clear that France and Britain would be involved, but looking at that stage in London at the

weekend. We were pretty much seeing most of NATO up there, outside of the United States, and a few other key nations quite well the world willing to

contribute, unclear.

But I think it's important to remember that, you know, NATO, without the United States, is still capable of operating. They just urgently feel they

need the general round security umbrella of Washington.

So, I think there are two questions outside of that, whether the White House is preparing any wider moves when it comes to aid towards Ukraine in

after that Oval Office disaster, frankly and quite whether this European plan gets a warm reception from President Donald Trump.

Separately, President Zelenskyy, well, he's certainly in a complex place now, and I think trying to put the most confident face on it that he can. I

think it's pretty fair to say his support here remains fairly strong, although I'm sure there are many Ukrainians questioning how they would move

forwards without American assistance.

[10:05:00]

We haven't got to that point yet.

In a wide-ranging press conference in London last night, he said he was still ready to sign the rare earth minerals deal, although, it appears the

Trump Cabinet isn't. He didn't take an opportunity for the second time to apologize for what happened in the Oval Office. Many here in Ukraine think

he simply shouldn't even think about doing that.

And he also said in the answer to the growing number of Trump Cabinet senior officials who were suggesting, potentially that he should step

aside, that he's not the man to lead Ukraine into a peaceful process.

He said, look, if you want to hold elections, then you have to prevent me from running in them, because he is potentially saying he would win his

approval rating is at that extent. And then, so, you have to negotiate with me. And if you negotiate with me, then, I have a price for not running in

these elections, and that's NATO membership.

And so, if I get that, my job is done. And so, I think there's some defiance in that statement. Certainly, look, the concept of trying to run

elections or a place of present here in wartime, absolutely impossible to do with any legitimacy at all.

And so, yes, I think we're into a place where there are so many unknowns and so many key parts of Ukraine's war effort here that are up in the air

that it is hard to foresee the territory in the future. Becky.

ANDERSON: Yes, Russia claiming Ukraine is losing territory in the Kursk Region, very specifically.

Nick, is that the case? And indeed, what is the strategy here from the Kremlin in suggesting that now?

WALSH: It does seem that there are some games by Russian forces in Kursk. That has been the forefront of their efforts. It's hard to get a 100

percent transparency and accuracy of exactly the territorial losses. But yes, it does seem that Ukraine is on its back foot there, while it does

appear in other areas too, Ukraine has been able to edge forwards along the eastern front.

We might be seeing Moscow trying to remove what Donald Trump will call one of President Zelenskyy cards here, the slither of Russia that Ukraine has

occupied since August was obviously a key thing that it could potentially trade at the negotiating table.

Moscow has been very clear it's not giving back any occupied territory. And to be honest, it's hard to think what practically immediately, apart from

an incremental step backwards, the Russians could take what strategic things Ukraine would necessarily practically be able to ask back for from

the Russians at the deal.

So, I think we may be seeing Moscow trying to remove one of Ukraine's levers of leverage here, or it might simply be a decision too by the

Ukrainians to less resource one thing and focus again on another.

We've seen back and forth on the battlefield here, but I should let you know that all of this turmoil in international support will eventually take

impact on morale, recruitment, and possibly weapon stocks too, Becky. The front line is going to change in the -- in the weeks and months ahead.

ANDERSON: Yes. Nick Paton Walsh, he's on the ground there in Kyiv, in Ukraine. Nick, thank you.

As we have been discussing, then, Europe is rally around Ukraine in the face of this fallout with the White House.

Last hour, I spoke to the president of Estonia, which shares a 300- kilometer border with Russia over the weekend. He reaffirmed his country's commitment to ramp up defense spending as U.S. support looks increasingly

at risk.

I asked him how Europe can possibly fill the gap of any U.S. departure, and what his country, very specifically, was prepared to do to help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAR KARIS, PRESIDENT OF ESTONIA: Estonia is spending now on defense, about 3.4 percent of our budget. And we're actually aiming up to five percent.

And it's not like that. It just comes from a NATO defense plan. So, it's a thing we have to aim that takes maybe not one year, maybe two or three

years. But to have to reach five percent of our spending.

And it was understandable even before President Trump mentioned it in one of his speeches.

Secondly, we have been supporting Ukraine already, even before this escalation started in 2022 and we aim now -- we, together with our allies,

put more than 200 million euros on ammunitions to Ukraine, and also U.K. is providing assistance to Ukraine.

But to finish it up, first of all, I don't even think that U.S. should take its NATO or U.S. away from Europe. It's a -- we even don't consider,

because it's useful for both sides. It's not only for Europe, but it's also for U.S. to stay in Europe.

So, we are working on it, and one, sure, I'm convinced, U.S. will stay in Europe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:10:07]

ANDERSON: And that is the Estonian president, speaking to mean last hour.

Look, everyone still absorbing, one, what happened at the Oval Office on Friday. And then, what is sort of materialized, if anything, over the

weekend at this summit in London, Europeans rallying around in support of Ukraine.

Our chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour, firstly, watching what unfolded as it happened on Friday in the Oval Office. Just take a look at

this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translator): A lot of times.

(CROSSTALK)

VANCE: No, in this entire meeting, have you said, thank you.

ZELENSKYY: Even today -- even today.

VANCE: You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.

Zelenskyy: No.

Vance: Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, Christiane, with us now, live from London.

I know you had some time to sort of consider what you actually heard. Your face, you know, was, it was an absolute picture. It has to be said on

Friday.

Let's just -- let's just consider the last 72 hours, Christiane, as you reflect on what has happened, what are your thoughts?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well, I think that that reaction was one that was felt by many, many people around the world,

not just Ukrainians, not just those who support Ukraine, but Americans who couldn't believe what their president and leadership was doing, and

certainly, Europeans, and all who have never, ever, ever, ever, in 250 years of the American democracy scene, the United States side not with a

sovereign, independent ally, democratic ally, fighting for its survival, but appearing to side with the aggressor, the invader of Vladimir Putin's

Russia. So, that's what's going on, and that is why what happened here over the weekend is so consequential.

As the Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, we are at a crossroads in history, and that could even be an understatement, but it's absolutely clear that,

that is the case. The questions many have, even the Estonian president who you were just talking about, said he hopes the U.S. remains as part of the

Transatlantic Alliance, and that NATO and U.S. troops remain.

But the fact of the matter is that to the world, and certainly to Russia, what is happening is that the President is practically breaking the

Transatlantic Alliance and moving closer to aligning with America's historical adversary, and in this case, the aggressor in this situation.

So, this is what's being dealt with right now. So, that's why Europe is getting together pretty fast, I might add, with pretty concrete statements

and pledges, with more meetings planned in Brussels, as you know, the E.U. in this week, and to pick up the pieces of what NATO, or rather, what the

United States seems to be backing away from. So, that's what's going on.

Of course, they would like to see a repair of this relationship. President Zelenskyy has been very clear as to say that he has thanked the United

States over and over and over again. I think that many believe, including the latest from the new German winner, trying to put the coalition

together, Friedrich Merz of the conservative CDU, has said that he believes it wasn't a spontaneous outburst, and that it was a manufactured outburst.

He from the U.S. side in the Oval Office. So, that's pretty important.

And as you know, he has said previously that we have to look and see whether we need to create our independence from America. Now, finally, from

the Kremlin and from Moscow, you can see everything you've read, everything you've seen on their state media, and heard from the spokesman, Dmitry

Peskov, is this is just great, as far as Putin is concerned.

He sees the Transatlantic Alliance being, you know, in a state of dire, dire distress right now. They are trying to promote that Europe is an enemy

of the United States. They are trying to say again and again that, you know, Zelenskyy is illegitimate. This is their talking points. And why are

they saying it more and more? Because they had it from Trump's mouth.

So, this is what's happening. And on top of all of that, Becky, there has been no peace plan formulated or offered. There is nothing that we know,

either the Europeans or Zelenskyy or the Americans. What has the Trump administration said to Putin?

They say they're far down some kind of peace process, but there are no details whatsoever, and the Kremlin has not changed one iota. Its

maximalist demands, which is to see essentially a neutralized and defanged Ukraine.

So, this is where we are right now.

ANDERSON: We just heard from the Estonian president an interview that I conducted -- part of an interview that I conducted last hour.

His country, not actually invited to the summit over the weekend.

[10:15:03]

But he did have a call with the prime minister -- the British prime minister, who was hosting this Europe-Ukraine meeting in the U.K. His call

was along with other leaders of other Baltic countries.

To your mind, you say that there's no clear plan from the U.S. administration. You're absolutely right. Is it clear what a Europe plan

looks like, or is beginning to look like, or is developing at this point, given what we heard over the weekend?

AMANPOUR: No, not the details, but it's clear that they are working it out. And remember, after J.D. Vance, essentially threw cold water all over this

and berated the Europeans, and then, it was announced that actually, at first, it was going to be President Trump, but then it turned out to be

Secretary of State Rubio and various envoys went to meet the Russians, their Foreign Minister Lavrov.

The Europeans got really blindsided, and they said, there can be no discussion of anything about Ukraine without Ukraine. And if we are the

ones who are expected to enforce it and to police it and to fund Ukraine's defense, then we Europe also need to be at the table.

So, what this summit in the U.K. has achieved is that Europe is at the table and Ukraine is at the table. And I think what it will get from Trump

is that, oh, see? I got the Europeans to step up. So, that's where we are right now.

The details we're not privy to yet, and they are still working them. But one thing is for clear, this is not something that overnight, you're going

to get a one-month truce or you're going to get a quick cease fire. There is a lot to discuss.

And again, what's going to be acceptable to the Russians? You know, everybody's talking blithely about some peace agreement, though we haven't

heard anything from Moscow's viewpoint about the details of what that be, other than what they have said from the very beginning.

ANDERSON: It's good to have you, Christiane. You know, what a 72 hours -- and I say that, given that we'd had a pretty tumultuous period ahead of

that, and nobody could have expected that we would have got quite what we did over the past three days. But there you go. That is the state of the

world as we know it at present. It's good to have you. Thank you very much indeed.

And a note, I have to say, just in the past hour or so, the White House has said that it welcomes a Europe led effort to broker peace in Ukraine. "We

welcome the Europeans taking a lead in European security." I mean, "That's been an underpinning. They have to invest in the capability to do that."

The words of the National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. Going on to say they're certainly showing a will. Both Starmer and the French president

showed that will last week before Friday.

This is in response to what he heard over the weekend. So, that has just come in. Look, Democratic lawmakers ramping up their criticism of President

Trump, following what was that intense meeting with President Zelenskyy.

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy told CNN, Mr. Trump and his entire team are, "pretending as if Ukraine started this war to help align themselves with

Russia." Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): The White House has become an arm of the Kremlin. Every single day, you hear from the national security advisor, from the

president of the United States, from his entire national security team, Kremlin talking points. For the last week, the White House has been

pretending as if Ukraine started this war. That's essentially saying that Poland invaded Germany at the beginning of World War II. There are still

facts in this world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Chris Murphy. And CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox has more on what is this backlash.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Republicans this morning grappling with what happened in the Oval Office on Friday, and wondering

whether there is a strategic change in the way that the Trump administration is approaching Ukraine and what this means moving forward.

Now, it was always going to be a really difficult move for Republicans in Congress to support additional aid for Ukraine, but now it seems like the

U.S. alliance with that country is beginning to really splinter at its edges.

You had Senator Lisa Murkowski, speaking out in really blistering terms over the weekend, saying in a tweet, "This week started with administration

officials refusing to acknowledge that Russia started the war in Ukraine. It ends with a tense, shocking conversation in the Oval Office and whispers

from the White House that they may try to end all U.S. support for Ukraine. I know foreign policy is not for the faint of heart, but right now, I am

sick to my stomach as the administration appears to be walking away from our allies and embracing Putin, a threat to democracy and U.S. values

around the world.

[10:20:11]

Now, Murkowski really does seem to be in a smaller camp of her own right now. You have other Republicans, including some who have been stark allies

of Ukraine in the past really coming out in support of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance from that Oval Office meeting.

Here is Senator Lindsey Graham, one of those Republicans who have been supportive of Ukraine in the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I have never been more proud of the president. I was very proud of J.D. Vance standing up for our country. We want to be

helpful. What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful, and I don't know if we could ever do business with Zelenskyy again. He either needs to

resign and send somebody over that we can do business with, or he needs to change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And this all comes as Donald Trump is expected to address Congress on Tuesday evening, and as there are a lot of concerns among Democrats, and

again, just that small handful of Republicans about what this means for the U.S. and Ukraine relationship moving forward.

ANDERSON: Lauren, reporting there.

Well, next up. I'll find out why Israel says it is blocking any more humanitarian aid going into Gaza and where that leaves the future of the

cease fire deal?

Plus, attacks by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank overshadow the joy of an Oscar win. We will explain more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON: Israel says it will block all humanitarian aid from going into Gaza until Hamas agrees to new terms of the current ceasefire plan. The

initial phase of the truce expired on Saturday. Israel missed the deadline early last month to start talks over phase two, which was supposed to be

about a permanent ceasefire, and is instead suggesting this temporary extension be imposed, which Hamas rejects.

So, I want to bring in somebody who knows fragile negotiations better than most.

Daniel Levy served as a former Israeli negotiator with Palestinians under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, as well as during the Oslo Accords under Prime

Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He is now president of the nonprofit Institute U.S. Middle East Project, and he joins me now live from London.

What do you make of this new demand from Israel? Basically, just a threat to Hamas to extend this temporary truce, this phase one, or else?

[10:25:02]

DANIEL LEVY, PRESIDENT UNITED STATES MIDDLE EAST PROJECT: Well, first of all, let's look at the last part of that equation, Becky, the or else.

Because there is an or else and there is an or else. This particular or else is a repeat of a commitment to undertake a war crime, to collectively

punish and starve a civilian population, is precisely why the Israeli prime minister and his former defense minister have arrest warrants against them

from the International Criminal Court, and partly, why the International Court of Justice is saying this is plausibly a genocide and a provisional

measures needed to be taken which they weren't.

The other side of that equation, the what they're asking on the negotiations is to basically take up the framework that was agreed and rip

it to shreds. The framework said that there would be a second phase in which the full cease fire and the full Israeli withdrawal of the military

would be part of the agreement.

They have gone against that. It also questions the credibility of the deal maker. That's the United States. That's the Trump administration. They took

credit quite rightly. But now are they going to walk back their own deal? That may have read across implications for what you are discussing, by the

way, on Russia, Ukraine.

ANDERSON: Yes, and this is what's being known as the wit cough proposal, Steve. Witkoff, Trump's envoy for Gaza, as you say, rightly, hugely

influential in those talks at the beginning of January to get this temporary cease fire in place, and was involved in planning for this phase

two at the time.

So, what is this Witkoff proposal? What detail do we have on this? Do we understand what it means long term?

LEVY: Well, from what I know, Becky, is we do not yet have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from Mr. Witkoff. We have, and that perhaps, is

not coincidental. What we have is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announcing that Israel has accepted what he is calling the Witkoff

proposal, in a way, this is business as usual, Becky, for an Israeli proposal to get a little stars and stripes banner put around it, and called

an American proposal, is somewhere we have been for an awfully long time.

Something changed when the Trump administration came in. Netanyahu looked at that and said, I don't want to get on this guy's wrong side, so, I will

go along with what is essentially been the deal all along.

Now, they seem to be walking that back. It's one thing to say, let's get the hostages out. Let's get this finished. There is the basis for a deal

already here. Let's question governance in the future. It's another thing to say we're going to unravel the whole thing. Hamas, you do as we say,

because precisely that approach failed for 15 months, and that's why, by the way, many of the families in Israel, of those still being held, those

who've been released, and of those who have been killed are saying this is Netanyahu, trying to sabotage the deal.

One of the mothers, Einav Zangauker, her son, Matan, is still being held, has said it's a fake delegation for fake talks to try and blame Hamas for

Netanyahu's recalcitrant.

ANDERSON: Yes, and we've heard voice from the hostage families to your very point.

Several Arab states and international organizations, U.N. Oxfam and the like, have condemned Israel's aid blockade, which began on the second day

of Ramadan, of course.

I wonder, where do we stand? What are we left with today, third day of Ramadan with regard the hostages and Palestinians in Gaza at this point?

LEVY: So, the plight of the hostages looks more bleak today. Those still in Gaza. The situation for Palestinians in Gaza trying to begin to pick up

from the devastation facing again this illegal, inhumane closure, that looks potentially devastating.

You have the actions Israel has undertaken in the West Bank, of course, where we're seeing a repeat of depopulation of refugee camps with utter

devastation. And as you say, all happening in the holy month of Ramadan.

And one of the things that worries me about that is that people around the world, including the Muslim world, are going to be looking at that, and yet

again, saying, what kind of a state is Israel? And this is not good for Israel's long-term acceptability and acceptance in the region.

And then, they will look -- and everyone will look at the West and say, you clearly stand for double standards, and you will not stand up to an ally.

All of this is going in a very bad direction, Becky.

ANDERSON: Daniel Levy, joining me today. Daniel, thank you.

And Daniel spoke at the U.N. Security Council last week, his remarks have since gone viral.

[10:30:06]

And I just want to finally play some of what Daniel said as it relates very specifically to the ceasefire deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEVY: The premise from a for a full ceasefire must learn from history and be based on reality. Hamas, non-governance in Gaza is achievable. The

movement itself has said so. But no party, no party to a conflict, will negotiate its own dissolution unless it is destroyed on the battlefield, or

unless the root causes of the conflict are addressed. Hamas has not been defeated, and there will be resistance as long as there is the structural

violence of occupation and apartheid. It is that simple.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Daniel Levy speaking at the U.N. last week. While it is almost sunset in Gaza, as we mark the third day of Ramadan. Let's take a look at

how Gazans spent the first day of the holy month, fairy lights, long tables in what are the ruins of destroyed homes. This is how Palestinians in Rafah

broke their fast on Saturday. The communal Iftar meal in the rubble was on the same day that the first phase of that ceasefire deal expired.

Well, Ramadan festivities have been affected by Israel's blockade of aid going into Gaza as the next phase of that truce, of course, remains

undecided, as we've been reporting. One person told CNN that prices for basic food were already rising. But amid the hardship, one man says the

Iftar was about lifting others.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALID ABDEL WAHAB, IFTAR GROUP EVENT ORGANZIER (through translator): We draw joy on people's faces here in this destruction and under this rubble

and debris.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaking in Parliament. Let's listen in.

KEIR STARMER, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Where on Tuesday, I announced the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold

War. A recognition of the fact that once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a

rediscovery of the old post war argument long held on these benches that economic security is national security.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people. The tough

choices that we made last week, they are not done. We must use the process of getting to three percent of our national income spent on defense to

fundamentally rebuild British industry. Use our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of the

country.

[10:35:04]

And that is why last night, I announced a deal that perfectly symbolizes the new era. A partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use 1.6 billion

pounds of U.K. export finance to buy 5000 air defense missiles manufactured in Belfast. Mr. Speaker, that means U.K. jobs, U.K. skills, U.K. finance

pulling together for our national interests, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace and protecting innocent civilians

from the terror of Russian drones.

Mr. Speaker, my efforts continued on Thursday when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now what

happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelenskyy is something nothing -- nobody in this House wants to see.

But I do want to be crystal clear, we must strengthen our relationship with America, for our security, for our technology, for our trade and

investment.

They are and always will be indispensable and we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if anything, the past

week has shown that that idea is totally unserious because while some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking aside, this week has shown with

total clarity that the U.S. is vital in securing the peace we all want to see in Ukraine.

So, I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the U.S. confirmed by the President last week because it is an opportunity I am

determined to pursue.

I welcome the positive discussions we had on European security, including his clear support for article five of NATO. I welcome the understanding

from our dialog that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the president's

continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this house should doubt for a second is sincere.

Mr. Speaker. I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelenskyy as he arrived in London on Saturday. Mr.

Speaker, I saw for myself, he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices, and they were speaking for the whole of

our country. A reminder that this government, this house and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, we resolve together to move forward the strong cause of just and lasting peace in Ukraine. And then on Sunday, I hosted European leaders

from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, the European

Commission and Council and the Prime Minister of Canada, a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine.

Responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia,

Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom as close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment. And Mr. Speaker, it was a

productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy that the United Kingdom, France and our allies will work closely with Ukraine on a plan to

stop the fighting which we will then discuss directly with the United States.

It is a plan that has four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the house. First, that we must keep the military aid to Ukraine

flowing, keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia and to that end, alongside our partnership on air defense. We are doubling down on military

aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. But on Saturday, we also agreed a new 2.2-billion-pound loan for Ukraine. Backed

not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from Frozen Russian assets.

[10:40:08]

Second, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine and that Ukraine must be at the table

when negotiating their future that is absolutely vital. Third, we agreed that in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine's

defenses and Ukraine's deterrence. And finally, fourth, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and

guarantee a peace.

Mr. Speaker, after all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago. That was

merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before, they have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and

the caliber of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like mint again. No, we must proceed with strength and that does now require urgently a

coalition of the willing.

Mr. Speaker, we agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now and as this house would expect, Britain will

play a leading role with if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. Mr. Speaker, it is right that Europe do

the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent but to succeed this effort must also have strong U.S. backing.

I want to assure this house. I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia,

and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defense and security in Europe. And yet I do feel

very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and skies. They have launched

cyber-attacks on our NHS, assassinating attempts in our streets.

In this house, we stand by Ukraine because it's the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it's in our interest to do so. Because if we

do not achieve a lasting peace, then the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain

that will only get worse. And Putin's appetite for conflict and chaos that will only grow, so a strong peace, a just peace, a lasting peace, that has

now to be our goal.

It is vital. It is in our interests and its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front for the security of our continent, the security of our country

and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this statement to the house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I come to the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch.

KEMI BADENOCH, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and also for

our conversation earlier today. The United Kingdom is a free, democratic and sovereign country. We recognize that Ukraine is fighting for her

survival and fighting to have the same freedom, democracy and sovereignty which all of us here enjoy.

That is why both the opposition and the government are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. I was also glad to see His

Majesty the King welcome President Zelenskyy at Sandringham. As I said at the weekend, President Zelenskyy is a hero. He is a symbol of the bravery

of the Ukrainian people. There are, of course, many areas where the Prime Minister and I disagree, but now is the time for us to discuss where we do

agree.

I welcome all of his actions this weekend to convene European leaders, as well as the focus on economic security, using U.K. export finance to

support British jobs. As the Prime Minister knows, we welcomed the uplift in defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027,

we also support the use of foreign aid to achieve this. We welcome a commitment to reach three percent in the years ahead --

[10:45:01]

ANDERSON: That is the leader of the opposition in the U.K. responding to what we just heard from the British Prime Minister on Ukraine. He talked

about a strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace. That he said is in the interest of Britain and the interest of the continent of Europe and in

the interest of the world. And Britain will lead from the front in trying to secure the safety, security and sovereignty for Ukraine.

He walked a tightrope as he talked about the U.K.'s relationship with the U.S., ensuring one that he made it clear that he saw peace in Ukraine with

U.S. support, that Europeans need U.S. support. And he also talked about the importance of the U.K.-U.S. relationship when it comes to trade and

growth going forward.

Clare Sebastian is monitoring this for us from London. What did you make of what you just heard from the British prime minister? A man who hosted a --

an emergency summit over the weekend on Ukraine with European and NATO allies. Certainly, perceptually at this point, leading from the front?

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think that was one of the key things the U.K. clearly still wants to take a leadership

position, be one of the NATO countries and European countries at the forefront of this. That really matches, Becky, with a pattern that we've

seen throughout this war. Britain has been very sort of willing to lead when it comes to different weapon systems.

They were the first to supply main battle tank, they were the first to supply long-range missiles. So that sort of fits that pattern, even though

we've had a number of prime ministers since the start of the war in Ukraine, there has been consistency on that point. And I think the second

thing you're absolutely right to use the word tightrope here, because we did see that play out in his comments. He said he addressed what happened

in the Oval Office on Friday, Keir Starmer.

He said, nobody in this House wants to see that. That is the phrase that he has used over and over again throughout the weekend, nobody wanted to see

it. He's never said, I didn't want to see it. We should be clear. He is walking this tightrope of trying to keep the U.S. on side. And he did say,

I want to be crystal clear. We must strengthen our relationship with America. We will never choose between either side of the Atlantic.

He is laser focused on keeping up that relationship. He believes it is in the U.K.'s national interest, not just as regards to Ukraine, but keeping

the Transatlantic Alliance and the special relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. alive. But he is also very clearly focused on supporting

Ukraine. He talked with, you know, a little bit of emotion about the welcome that President Zelenskyy got in the U.K.

He said that the crowd that cheered when he arrived on Whitehall was speaking for the whole country and he emphasized that the plan is to work

closely with Ukraine on this early-stage plan that we see coming together in Europe, led by the U.K. and France to "stop the fighting." We didn't get

more details on that plan. There has been some confusion this morning around a potential month-long truce idea that was floated by Emmanuel

Macron in the French media.

A U.K. minister coming out this morning saying that they hadn't agreed to anything like that. But overall, this was a prime minister clearly, sort

of, you know, out there, playing a sort of flagship role in this process, trying to lead from the front.

ANDERSON: Clare, let me -- let me --let me jump in because Keir Starmer is speaking again on the floor. Let's listen.

STARMER: -- the question of other allies. We had a long meeting yesterday with a number of allies. My strong view is that we have to move forward. We

have to lead from the front, and therefore we need a coalition of the willing, because otherwise we will move at the speed of the most reluctant

and that will be too slow. A number of countries and allies indicated their support. They will set that out in due course.

I won't pretend that every country is in the same place on this issue. That is why I and others took the view that we should take a leading position

and move forward. But I will give further details as they become available. On the question of the frozen assets themselves, obviously, the proceeds,

the profits, are being used in the way that the House understands in accordance with the statement I just made.

On the assets themselves, it is a very complicated issue, not straightforward, but I do think that we need to do and are doing more work

to look at what are the possibilities, at least along with other countries. But I'm not going to pretend that this is simple or straightforward. On the

sanctions, we introduced the heaviest sanctions last week that we have put in place. And she is quite right. They must not be lifted just because

there is a cessation in the fighting.

They must be kept in place as a vital part of our armory, something which didn't happen with Minsk and she's quite right to say that we have to avoid

the mistakes of the past, which is why a security guarantee is so important.

[10:50:08]

A guarantee that we should lead but need U.S. backing if it's to act as a proper guarantee. And of course, she is right to say Ukraine must be at the

table in any discussions about the future of Ukraine. And I think that is a common position across the house. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The foreign affairs select committee, Emily Thornberry (INAUDIBLE)

EMILY THORNBERRY, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR ISLINGTON SOUTH AND FINSBURY: Very much, Mr. Speaker. We all watched with alarm and distress the scenes

from the White House on Friday, but equally, were across the country extremely grateful that we had a Prime Minister who had such a pitch

perfect response at the weekend. And as he works towards a just peace for Ukraine, he has the support of the whole country in doing so.

But here is the question. The Prime Minister said on Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that following the cuts to the aid budget, that he would go through

line by line to ensure that the priorities of Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were all prioritized in a lasting peace. The difficulty is, is that after

refugee costs, admin costs, the department's commitments and things to things like the World Bank and the U.N. are taken into account.

It's hard to believe that there will be enough left in the budget to provide meaningful humanitarian support in these priority areas. So, does

the Prime Minister understand the concern of so many that these cuts could, in fact, in the long term, hobble the very leadership that the Prime

Minister has shown this weekend and that he has finally given the world some hope?

STARMER: Well, I thank her for her question, and it's a very important issue. What I did last week was to announce the biggest sustained increase

in defense spending since the Cold War, and the circumstances and the context require it. And that decision had to be made, and I was determined

that it would be fully funded so the house could see where the money would come from.

On the question of overseas aid, I am committed to it. What we will now do is go through line by line the funding and look at our priorities. Of

course, Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, are right up there in our priorities. But I also want to work with others and across the house if we can at other ways

of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas. I saw the President the World Bank on Friday to have that very discussion and want to

have that and mention it in my discussions with other countries this weekend.

Many of whom want to join in attempts to find other ways to leverage money, particularly from the private sector where states cannot do it in the way

they might want to just at the moment. And that is the approach that we will take.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey.

ED DAVEY, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. Speaker, I like to thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We were all

horrified by Friday's scenes in the Oval Office. President Trump's attack on the brave and dignified President Zelenskyy left everyone shocked and

appalled, except it seems the honorable member for Clacton. Nobody else watching those scenes could fail to understand that we have entered a new

era, one where the United States prefers to align itself with tyrants like Putin rather than its democratic partners.

On these benches, we have supported the Prime Minister's actions and leadership. Britain leading the world, as we have so many times in the

past, bringing together Europe and Canada in London to work towards a just peace that guarantees Ukraine's sovereignty and security. But Mr. Speaker,

we need to reduce our dependency on the United States because, I say with deep regret, I fear that President Trump is not a reliable ally with

respect to Russia.

And with that regard, did the Prime Minister discuss with our European allies our proposals for new rearmament bank and for seizing the tens of

billions of pounds worth of Russian assets to support Ukraine. And in his conversations with the Canadian prime minister, was he clear that we stand

with our Commonwealth ally in the face of President Trump's threats. Mr. Speaker, many of us were confused by Lord Mandelson's comments yesterday.

So, can the Prime Minister confirm that they do not represent government policy? And does he agree that the British ambassador should not be

freelancing on American T.V. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have our support if the U.K. continues to lead with our European and Commonwealth

allies for Ukraine's defense and our collective security.

STARMER: I thank him for his question and he talks about the scene on Friday afternoon. Nobody wants to see that. My response was to recognize

the urgency of the need to repair the breach, which is why I spoke to President Trump and President Zelenskyy on Friday night, and again, on

Saturday night and are continuing in that work.

[10:55:12]

Because for me, the single most important thing is lasting peace in Europe and Ukraine, and nothing is going to deter me from that or lose my focus on

that. On the dependency on the U.S. I do not agree with him. The U.S. and the U.K. have the closest of relationships, our defense, our security, our

intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries, and there'd be a huge mistake at a time like this to

suggest that any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defense in Europe.

On the question of a rearmament bank, yes, I do think we should continue discussions with others as to what the possibilities could be, and that

formed some of the discussion yesterday with our allies. Again, on assets he knows the situation is complicated, but there are ongoing discussions. I

spoke at length with the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday because we had a bilateral meeting as well as the meeting with other colleagues, in which I

was able to assure him of our strong support for Canada.

A close ally of ours, a strong supporter of Ukraine and Canada had -- Canada have led the way on the training that's been so vital to Ukraine.

So, they were very welcome at the table yesterday. In relation to the ambassador's comments, look, the plan is clear. We're working particularly

with the French. Have had extensive conversations with President Macron over the last week, intensively over the weekend talking to Ukraine as

well.

Those are going on at the moment and the intention is to then have discussions with the United States in relation to that plan. So, as soon as

the details are available, I will share them with the house, but they are still being worked on at the moment. There is no guarantee of success, but

I am not going to let up until we have done everything we can to ensure peace in Europe and peace for Ukraine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chair of the defense Select Committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.

TANMANJEET SINGH DHESI, CHAIR OF THE DEFENSE SELECT COMMITTEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the

warmth of his welcome and hugs for President Zelenskyy and his show of leadership on defense and security matters in our continent, as he hosted

his Sunday summit of leaders in London. Can the Prime Minister (INAUDIBLE) assure the house that in our pursuit for a just, lasting peace, that he

will do his level best to convince President Trump to provide security guarantees for Ukraine?

And that he will convince those NATO allies not spending two percent on defense to step up to the plate and do much more?

STARMER: Well, on both fronts. Firstly, yes, of course, I'm talking to President Trump about security guarantees that formed a large part of our

discussion on Thursday and our subsequent discussions. I think it is right that Europe does the forward leaning on this, that we have to do more on

security guarantees, but it does need a U.S. backing to those guarantees. And that is the very discussion that I am having on the question of

spending.

I think that across Europe in this era, we now have to step up on capability, coordination and on spending and that did form part of our

discussions yesterday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: James Cleverly.

JAMES CLEVERLY, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in the strange and rather uncomfortable position

very much agreeing with the Prime Minister on everything he has said today, and whilst I often take great delight in criticism of the of the

government. I think this weekend, he has not really put a foot wrong, but he does need to go further.

The small increase in defense spending that he announced was welcome, but fundamentally, we do need a gear shift on this. I would echo the points

made by my (INAUDIBLE) friend, the leader of the opposition that when and it will be when, not if he has to make some really difficult decisions

about balancing defense spending against domestic expenditure, that we will not try and play politics, that we will support him because we need to send

a message now to our friends in Ukraine and to potential aggressors around the world that we take our defense, the defense of our values and the

defense of our friends seriously.

STARMER: Well, I thank him for the unity across the house and he is absolutely right. It sends a message to those who want to challenge our

values when they see this house united on either Ukraine or on defense spending. And we have to face this era with confidence and with unity

across this house wherever we can. I'd invite him. It's been good to have him agreeing with me, we should do this more often.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

[11:00:03]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

END