Boris Johnson: "I Talked to Putin..."

Did you have any uh one-on-one conversations with Vladimir Putin? I did. I did. It was an incredibly depressing conversation.

Have you been shocked by Trump's approach to this situation? No, absolutely. I mean, bluntly, we hadn't got a clear strategy anymore, and so you needed someone to come in and say, right, I'm going to try and make peace, which is what the president is is trying to do. For with all—first let me ask the question before you answer it—but no, no, but there's another part to it, Boris. What they wanted was to Take Back Control. In order to do what? To take in order to do what? In order to leave things the same, will make worse. Soak just said, "Stop the boats" was the wrong slogan. We went too far. WR he we should we should have—no, no, the the problem was the problem was that we we they didn't do what I told them to do. No, hold on, hold on. You say no, you say no, no, Bis. I'm not going to let you get away with this. You say no, I'm not, I refuse. This is what it's like—you can't get a question in, Ed.

Boris Johnson: Yes, hello. Thank you, Constantine. Thank you very much for having me on the show, Francis.

It's great to have you here.

Great. Great to be here. Yes, I've got I've got SC off a plane from Washington, so forgive me if my if I'm, you know, a bit, you know, blurry in my—

Well, we might forgive—the audience might not forgive you, but it doesn't matter. They'll have they'll have to lump it.

They will. They will indeed lump. So let's let's get to the lumping it part. Um, you've just come back from Washington, and this is really one of the big things we wanted to talk to you about, which is, of course, Ukraine. Yes. Um, the the question that I think a lot of people would want to know—and cards on the table, we've always been very Pro-Ukraine, we raised money for Ukraine, etc.—is why were you so strong at the beginning of this war to to get the Western World to support Ukraine? What is the rationale? Because I don't think that has ever been articulated in a powerful way to people.

I think it's very it's very simple. I I felt enraged and in a way guilty that this appalling and um irrational thing had happened on my watch, as it were. You know, there I was a a prime minister of a G7 country, a P5 country, a nuclear power, and we'd been unable to to persuade Putin not to do something so completely self-destructive and and clearly destructive of of Ukraine. And it was enraging and um I I was disgusted at at what he was doing, and I felt that it was I felt that there were so many lies he was telling about um the reasons why he was invading Ukraine, and they were they were not falling entirely on on death ears, and people were saying, you know, you know, you hear it—you still hear it—we poked the bear uh we it was the fault of the West for encouraging the the Ukrainians to pursue NATO membership. Um, we should never have done that, and it's total nonsense.

Why is that total nonsense?

It's total nonsense because uh the simple fact is—and Putin knew this very well—there was not the remotest chance—so was not a snowball's chance in hell of Ukraine um joining NATO in 202—as things stood in 2022 when Putin launched his full-scale Invasion—there was not a snowball's chance in how of Ukraine joining NATO for for decades in in the foreseeable future. I'll tell you why: because the black balls—the the countries voting no—they would have looked like sheep droppings. I mean, so many black bols, right? Because not just the Hungarians, the French, the Germans, the Americans weren't on for extending their nuclear guarantee to a huge country—45 million people—you know, second biggest country in in in Europe by by land area, you colossal country. Um, it was not going to happen. There were very few actual proponents of Ukrainian membership then in in 2022. It wasn't going to happen in a you know, till the hell froze over—the Greek C Kal, whatever however you want to put it—and Putin knew that.

So what's his motivation?

Well, his motivation was very clear. Uh, his motivation was to um after 20 years in power to Galvanize public opinion in Russia behind a a nationalist Adventure uh to boost his own standing and and to sadly to some extent he's been successful. I mean, people have people do tend to Rally behind the leader in in time of War. A lot of Russians have instinctively done that. I think he he hated—as a former KGB man—he hated the collapse of the of the Soviet Empire, and he he was on record of saying it was the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century. Um, he wanted to rebuild it, and you know, it's actually all there in his crazy kind of nostr essay about what Ukraine is. Um, and he he he thought it was basically um the origins of the spiritual origins of of Russian culture and should be reunited with Russia. And that was in complete contradiction, of course, of what the Ukrainians wanted. They voted in 1991 to be a free Sovereign independent country. And I think that his motives were were were entirely cynical. He thought he did it—I think because he thought that the West would acquiesce as they had in in 2014—and he thought that he would conquer Ukraine very speedily. He thought that it would be over very very soon. I think he also probably calculated that um the oil price would spike, and that would be good for Russia, and that for a long time he would be able to finance, you know, for long as it took. And I think he miscalculated how long it would take, but he thought that he would he would benefit from an old price SP that would, you know, more than Finance the cost of the war. As it happened, the war's been ruinously expensive for him, but he was he was certainly right in in that short-term in that short-term calculation. So it was I think it was an entirely cynical thing. Ukraine was no conceivable threat to Putin at the time—absolutely no threat—and you know that the whole point about Ukraine is it have been disarmed. We done it. I mean, I think you—if you you asked your question was, you know, why was I so worked up about it? I mean, partly it was, you know, a feeling of responsibility because as as a as a be UK prime minister because after all in 1994 Under The Budapest memorandum we had we had told the Ukrainians um you've got to give up your 1700 uh nuclear warheads um but we will protect you—France, Britain, America—America and of course absurdly Russia said that they would protect Ukraine in the event of in the event of attack, and and actually we didn't do that in 2014, and then again in 2022 we didn't. And the best the best plan I could see was to when the the disaster started to unfold in January—actually before then, you really start to get the evidence that it was it was going to go wrong—the best plan I could see was to get weapons to the Ukrainians as fast as possible, and so from the Autumn onwards—when did you know he was going to invade? Well, I think I think his essay was in back in July of of the previous year. I think I mean, I might be I might be wrong about that, but it was back in the previous summer. And to his great credit, Ben Wallace, the the defense secretary—then defense secretary—said, "You've got to read this," um uh promising his units totally Bonkers, but you know, I really think he means it. I really think he's going to invade. Ben thought that back in the summer. I did read it. I thought it was spooky and and chilling and and so one of the things that we did was to um begin—I think from August, I can't remember exactly when—but we started a process to try to get the javelin H—not the javelins, the in-laws—which were made in Belfast to um to Ukraine. And I got to tell you that was not easy because there was a lot of um anxiety in the in the system about doing things that would provoke Putin. This became a constant argument as as as the as the whole thing devel—you remember, you know, people said we can't do X Y and Z because it's escalatory if you give Putin if you give the Ukrainians um weapons of of one particular kind, Putin will be provoked and he'll do he'll do something even more aggressive. And this was a continuing theme. Actually, he'd already decided he was going to try to take over and wipe out Ukraine, so so he was the guy who wanted to to escalate.

Did you have any uh one-on-one conversations with Vladimir Putin? I did. I did. Saying um well, I give an account of it actually in in in in in the in in the in the book um Unleashed um that it was an incredibly depressing conversation because he um you know he he he repeated his assertions that Ukraine could be a kind of threat to to Russia, and I think he he made the point that um if you know ICBMs were stationed—missiles were stationed in Ukraine—then there'd be a very short uh distance from to travel to Moscow from from Ukraine. How could he put up with this security? Like I said, look, you know, everybody knows there's no there's no plan to put um missiles on on Ukrainian. So that's totally not total—nor was there. Absolutely absolutely not. As I say, there was no plan to get Ukraine into NATO. They hadn't even got a membership action plan. They'd got nothing. I mean, yes, back in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit um George Bush, the the US president had said very strongly, well, look, we a problem here with Ukraine—it doesn't have a a security guarantee—you know, logically its position is very difficult. We should get them in—they want to be in—we should we should get them in. And actually it was then and it was the Europeans who said no, and the French and the Germans in in particular. Looking back, it might be might have been a good thing if we had got them in there, but we but we didn't. And as I said, in 2022 there was no Prospect of that of that changing. Um, so he—Putin—focused on all that. He was he was obsessed with um stirring up that issue, trying to make it make it look as though NATO was being expansionist, and it it all—I can say is—it really wasn't, you know. I was in every important NATO meeting from 2016 to 20122 either as foreign secretary or or PM, and the idea that you know Ukraine was about to be put into NATO is complete nonsense. It just it just wasn't um on the agenda of the alliance then. I mean, it should be now because of what Putin's done. I mean, like Ukraine has now joined the unhappy ranks of so many other countries in Central and Eastern Europe that have been invaded by Russia. You know, why is Poland? Why is Hungary? Why is Czechoslovakia uh why is the all the Baltic states? Why are Finland members of NATO now? Because they've all been invaded by Russia in the last 100 years—very very violent—and so and so is Ukraine. The long-term solution is is is still to get Ukraine into NATO in my view, and that's why I think Kia stama is right to say that um Ukraine is on an irreversible path to to NATO membership. But so so that so that was that was the sort of conversation. Um, it was a pretty creepy conversation. Um, I remember the Interpreter afterwards saying he'd been very familiar with me and sort of used because he spoke in Russian—he has good English, but he spoken Russian in that conversation—he said he he'd used the um the the more—what's what's the word—the more familiar form of of address um to rather than V to rather than V, yeah. And um which would be a sign of disrespect.

Actually, exactly. I'm from Russia originally, and I and I I thought huh um what what he's what he's really doing is he's not taking this seriously. He W and and you know he wasn't really listening. He'd already—his mind was made up. He already decided—

Let me ask you something else, so and it's interesting cuz I want to put this on the table and I want to get your reaction. I came to this interview um having heard that you went to Kiev uh and told them not to sign whatever agreement was made in Istanbul.

Oh, thank you. Um, and this is a talking point that's been extended—this is a Kremlin Point—talking—hold. I agreed—so well, not agreed, but but sure. I I came into this interview ready to ask you about that, and then I went and looked at where that claim comes from, and it comes from various right-wing Publications online uh that's all linked to an interview with David Dakir, who was the Ukraine's Chief negotiator in those negotiations, and I went and watched the video, and I speak Russian and I can understand Ukrainian. He says no such thing. On the contrary, he says you didn't interfere, and they didn't want to sign because they didn't trust Russia uh they didn't want to sign a neutrality agreement because what they thought was we're going to sign this, they're gonna get ready to innovate fully completely right, and then then we're going to be caught with our pants down. That's essentially what he said, right?

Yeah. So um is there any truth though that you know in your moral outrage at what Putin had done you didn't consider the what how realistic it was to get the Ukrainians actually to quote "win" this war, and the Victory conditions were never clearly defined. Obviously, it was never going to be the Ukrainian flag flying over the Kremlin, and people will argue—and this is what I want to get your reaction to—is now we are in a position where a better deal might have been available in 2022 without a million people being killed on both sides. Do you think that's a that's a credible argument?

Look, you can't be more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians, right? And I I passionately support Ukraine, but it's up to people of Ukraine—govern to Ukraine—to decide uh when they're going to negotiate what they're—yes, but said to them, and the US president said to them, we're not giving you any support—they wouldn't have fought cuz they knew they were not going to stand a chance.

Okay, well, so so first of all, I think it would have been totally wrong to leave Ukraine to be engulfed by by the Russians, and and that's that's frankly what would have happened we if we hadn't given them the NLAWs and the javelins, which Donald Trump uh actually gave them, and if they hadn't started to get quite a a big pipeline of Western support, I think it is well possible that Putin could have won that war, you know, quite quickly and and but there was no deal to be—that's what I'm getting at—was there a deal for the Ukrainians if they knew from day one we're not going to get Western support, we're going to have to do a deal with this?

They were not going to do a deal, no, because Pu—well, I mean, you know, you maybe you disagree, but I I think Putin—if you if you read the essay, if you look at what he was trying to do—his War aims were very simple. There was—war aims were to reabsorb Ukraine into into the Russian Empire—as make it effectively part of Russia—make it a a vassel state. That's that was very very clear. The whole thing—he wanted Kev, right? He he there wasn't—and so in a when I went to you know to your to back to the Kremlin kind of talking point, you know, "Oh, Boris Johnson went to to Kiev at the beest of Joe Biden uh to tell the Ukrainians not to do a deal with Putin"—that's that's the the Kremlin line. It is a complete lie, right? And so first of all, I had no discussions with Joe Biden or indeed with um with anybody else in the in America before goingo for for oper reason of operational security the time because it was you know we we didn't know the risks of of going to Kia uh exactly. Um, I went basically because I wanted vividly to to show the UK's support and also to to demonstrate you know to to our public and as much to to everybody else that they'd achieved a stunning thing—they the Russians out of Kiev and out of that area—and Kiev was now a safe place to visit, and the only way to make that point of show solidarity into um and to make that point was to go was to go in person. And it's true that you know we had long had long conversations with Vadir Zalinski, and you know I told him H you know said I said what what is what is obvious—said on behalf of the British government and huge numbers of British people how much we admire what he had done. Um, we couldn't be more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians—obviously, if they wanted to to do a deal, if they found if they saw an alternative that was for them—but but all I said was that if they were going to fight on then clearly they would have our support. And I don't think there was any real there was there was not any chance that they would they could have done a deal. If you remember at that stage—April 2022—Putin occupied a far more land in Ukraine than he does now—far more—and you know they hadn't yet kicked them out of Kib and and Kerson and and and all the other places, and um you know that the Putin was in a much more dominating position. He was asking for Ukrainian Armed Forces to be cut to a rump. He was asking for uh for neutrality—for you know, all sorts of you know changes to Ukrainian Constitution—things that they couldn't accept. He was basically asking things that were totally impossible.

Did he want Ziny gone?

Have you ever read a headline or watched a clip and immediately made up your mind about a story, only to later find out there was more to it? We've all been there. The news isn't always as straightforward as it seems, and that's where Ground News comes in. It helps you compare coverage from across the media Spectrum so you can see the full picture for yourself. Ground News is the website and app I use to cut through the noise and actually see the bigger picture. It doesn't just show you the news—it shows you who's covering it, how they're framing it, and what they're leaving out. A feature that I use a lot is the blind spot feed. For me, this is a game changer. It highlights stories that either the left or the right are ignoring, so you can be sure you're not missing crucial details. For example, here's a story I found on Ground News that got almost no coverage from the right: Honda to produce next Civic in Indiana, not Mexico, due to US tariffs. And here's one you'd miss if you only read the left-leaning Outlets: South Africa rejects Musk claim Starling can't operate there because he's not black. With Ground News, you don't just read the headlines—you get insightful data on bias, distribution, Source reliability, and media coverage. No other platform offers this level of analysis right now. Trigonometry fans can get 40% off the unlimited Vantage plan—the same plan that we use—just click the link in the description or scan the QR code And subscribe at ground.news/trigonometry. Your subscription doesn't just keep you informed—it helps bring transparency back to the media—that's something we can all get behind.

Did he want Ziny gone? Of course. Of course he wanted—I mean, I don't I don't remember the the conditions he was he was setting at the time, but they were they were not conditions at any I think than any—my my view is—any Ukrainian president could have accepted. And and you know you got to remember that Vadir Linski is not you—he's not an unreasonable guy—he's you know, he got elected really in as a peace Nick, you know, he was out that you know 2019, he tried to do a deal um with Putin. I as far as I can remember his his basic problem was was that the you know Ukrainian nationalists couldn't accept the compromise, and and you know you you can see why not. I mean, Putin had invaded their country in 2014. He'd taken bits of of land already, and people were incredibly angry and and they are still. But look, this all sort of long-winded way of saying that no, I had I had no—all I was trying to do was show visible support and say look you know and as I say you can't be more Ukrainian than Ukraine. If if

You're going to settle then? That's a matter for you. If, if you, if you're going to fight on, then you, you can count on our, on our support. That's what I said, and I think that people can judge whether I mean, leaving aside my advice to President Zalinski, then people can judge whether or not he did the right thing in fighting on, um, by what happens now. And I think actually, when you look at it, that there is a, a very good chance that out of all this, there will come a, a free, sovereign, secure Ukraine. And that would not have happened if you'd, if you'd left it, if he'd done a deal in, in April 2022. It would not have been a sovereign Ukraine; it would not have been a free Ukraine; and, and uh, it would have been run by, by, by Russia and by Putin, and it would not have had any chance of continuing on its journey towards, uh, democracy, free institutions, uh, and engagement with the West. And that's basically what the Ukrainians want, and Putin would have stopped it. And so I think a lot of Ukrainians, I mean I can't, you know, I think a lot of Ukrainians would say what they did was completely right. I have a lot of friends in Ukraine who would, who would back that up.

And you are very popular in Ukraine, well, because of the support that you gave on behalf, well, and I, I look, I will continue to, to support it for, for as long, and you know, um, clearly, uh, I'm also hopeful that there can be peace, right? You know, I, I don't want, nobody wants conflict for the sake of, of, of conflict. And I actually think that what is happening now is, you know, there is the, you can see the germ of a, of a solution. So the Ukrainians, under the, under the, um, the resources agreement, the minerals agreement with the United States, they get a partnership with the most powerful country, an economic, long-term economic partner, most powerful country on Earth, uh, America commits to a free, sovereign, secure Ukraine. America commits under the, the minerals deal and, and, and other bits of the agreement, which it's about like a 200-page agreement, but it commits the US to long-term support for the security of Ukraine. I mean, the beginnings of a security guarantee are already in that minerals agreement. Then you've also got the element of the, of the Europeans, you know, led by the Brits, uh, and the French coming in with this, you know, admittedly symbolic but important, um, reassurance force, or whatever we're going to call it, um, boots on, you know, European, Western boots on the ground or boots from all over the place, but on the ground in, in Ukraine, to, to make visible to Putin the reality of, of Ukraine's choice, that as a free, sovereign country, they've chosen to invite, um, France and Britain onto, onto their soil. And that's, that's something with the, at the moment, Putin says he, he, he can't accept, but we, we, we'll see, we see where we get to.

And um, then when it, the concession the Ukrainians, I think have probably made, and you know, we haven't seen the details, but by talking to people, as I'm sure you have as well, the last few, few, uh, few days, I think clearly what, um, the Trump administration wanted from, from Ukraine was some sort of recognition of the, of the military reality, uh, and that, you know, for the sake of peace, um, it would be helpful to concede that, uh, they can't immediately reconquer all of their, the land that's been lost since 2014. So they can't immediately recapture all of 1991 Ukraine. And you know, that for many Ukrainians, even that is a, is a horri, is a terrible thing to have to say, but you know, I think probably, and it's an awful thing, it's awful to think of Putin retaining possession of this land, it's awful, but, but for the sake of peace, it, it looks like they're willing for the time being to, to go along with it, on the understanding of course that they don't actually revoke their claim, their legal claim to, to that land. So th, those will be the elements of, of, of the sort of US-Ukraine position as it were. So it's the, the, the, the minerals deal, uh, with all its implications for security, uh, and economic partnership; the, the European-led peace force, Brit, France, whoever, uh, peacekeeping, for whatever you want to call it, would, would actually be a peacekeeping force, but be there in symbolic, logistics, training, and all, and all that; and then the temporary acceptance that there can't be a complete reversal to the status quo ante 2014. Okay, now, now all that, um, you know, some, some bitter pills there for Ukraine to swallow, but now is the time for all that to be put to Putin, and some other important things like return those 20,000 children that he's kidnapped. And, and now is a time for Donald Trump, with all, all his fire and fury, to, to direct, put the heat on, on Putin. And, and that is what obviously I hope we're going to see in the next, in the next few days and weeks.

Have you been shocked by Trump's approach to this situation? No, absolutely. I mean, bluntly, um, uh, no, I think, um, look, I always, I what I was trying to argue with people, always said, beas to Trump, I no, um, you know, he, he, he, but actually there's a, I always said, wait, wait, wait, you know, it's sensible to want this war to end, right? I think, you know, even, even you, you Ukrainians, you know, I love, love Ukraine, but I think that they want to, they want to pause, that a lot of people are dying, you know, they don't want to have to start conscripting the under-25-year-olds, you know, you can see the pain of that, the country has been going through absolute hell, and you know, they deserve a break, and they deserve to be free. And I think honestly, what we would doing in the last couple of years, I mean, I left office two and a half years ago, you know, getting off three, almost three years ago now, um, but what we've been doing has not been, you need constantly, you, you said we didn't have a plan, what was the, what was the objective that the West was setting out for Ukraine, what was success supposed to look like? We never said, I mean, I said right at the beginning, Putin must fail, uh, Ukraine must be free, and, and, and so on, but we sort of lost the, the sharp edges, and what we were doing was just saying, we'll support you as long as it takes, and we were kind of holding the Ukrainians' coats while they were fighting and dying without actually giving them enough to win.

MH and I, why were we doing that? Because, honestly, because it go back to the, the same thing that was stopping us giving them was stopping the Foreign Office allowing me to send them the, the, uh, the end laws in the, in the first place, we, because there's this sort of superstitious apprehension about what Putin might do, and so nuclear weapons, yeah, people, which I think is ridiculous, and I don't believe it's true, but there's a sort of, why is that, Boris? Well, let me, let me, so I think it's, well, to way, it's ridiculous because, um, first of all, if, if, if Putin were to use a, a tactical nuclear, battlefield nuclear weapon, um, let Al end, if you were to, you, he, he, he won't use a thermonuclear device against the place he calls the cradle of Russian civilization, but suppose he would to use battlefield, tactical nuclear, uh, weapons to intimidate and deter, well, uh, it would be the first use of a nuclear weapon by a belligerent, um, in as an act of war since 194, um, he would immediately lose, crucially, the backing of Xi Jinping, um, he would lose the backing of all the, the swing voters in the, in the world. So one of the most frustrating things about backers of Ukraine, like for, for people like, like me who back Ukraine, is, is it, you know, the Indians, the, the, the a lot of the African countries, Latin America, you know, the our friends, great, great friends of ours in the Gulf, you know, they're kind of a bit ambivalent, right, about Putin and about Ukraine, I mean, and that's been frustrating, but Putin uses a nuke, different story, totally, he loses all that global support, all that, all that, all that global acquiescence, um, he scares the pants off his own people because he, he they don't know what's going to happen, they think he, he played the nuclear card, that could be nuclear reprisals against us, and he loses a huge amount of domestic support, he, terrify people, he does incur reprisals from the West, I obviously can't talk about what they would be because the whole doctrine of nuclear deterrence relies on a lot of, of ambiguity, but there would be very, very serious reprisals from, uh, from NATO countries and from the, from the P5, um, of a kind that would be so, we gave into his nuclear black, deeply destructive and, and yeah, so yeah, what you're saying, what I'm saying is not, we gave in, the general kind of superstition about Putin, you know, or about Russia, the Russia is, is, is, is spooky and frightening and, um, is, is inevitably going to win, and we shouldn't provoke them, still don't poke the bad thing, and all the evidence of the Ukraine war has been, the stronger we are, the more decisive we are in giving Ukraine what, what they need, the better. So look, so, so back to your, back to your, your your question, you know, was I shocked by the, by the Trump approach, um, no, because I think we needed, we needed a new approach, right? We did need to shake the thing up, it wasn't, we hadn't got a clear strategy anymore, it had all gone, you know, for the Ukrainians, it was miserable, and so you needed someone to come in and say, right, I'm going to try and make peace, which is what the president is, is trying to do, and as I said just now, I think you can see in that package of, of proposals that you, you that the, that they've reached in, in Riyadh, you can see the outlines of something, painful though it might be in some ways for Ukraine, still keeps a sovereign, free Ukraine, able to apply for EU membership, able to do all sorts of things which Putin finds in now, and the question is going to be what, what Putin does. And, and so the, the challenge now is for, for Donald Trump to, to really turn the heat under, and there are things he can do, there's economic sanctions, um, the oil price, take the oil price down below $60 a barrel, which, you know, maybe Trump could, could help organize, and Putin's in a very, very different position because then he can't fund his war machine, uh, in the way that he, he want, then his, his economy is really in trouble, and you know, there, the Trump has a lot of economic leverage over, over Putin, and, and we need to see that now.

Do you think part of the reason that Liam Halan, The Economist, made this point literally yesterday when we interviewed him, that part of the reason Trump is approaching the Ukraine situation in this way is because he doesn't want to alienate Russia because the US's worst nightmare is Russia being in the arms of China and them having an alliance together? Um, I look, I certainly think it's true that there is a, uh, hankering in, um, the, the Trump circles for a, you know, a renewal of, of, uh, good relations with Russia, and people remember a time when, you know, when I remember, I was a mayor of London, um, you know, I had to make speeches in Russian, uh, about, you know, um, ML, or whatever that festival is called, and you know, welcoming people to, welcoming Russians to London, and you know, the whole place was actually, you know, bristling with oligarchs everywhere, and, um, that's, we ever did it, but you know, there's, it's not a bad thing on the whole to want peace and friendship, uh, with, with other countries, right, as long as they want peace and friend, as long as they want peace and friendship, and, um, I think, you know, where the rubber is going to hit the road now is when those guys discover what, what Putin actually wants, and, uh, you know, I think I, I very much fear that it's going to be clear in the next few days he doesn't want peace, and you know, he's not going to give those kids back, um, he's not going to agree to the, he's not going to agree to it. You've heard what Lavrov said already about the, the European force, um, which is interesting, he said it would be a catastrophic escalation to have British boots on the grounds, it's total nonsense, well, why a sovereign country should be able to invite whomsoever it chooses, and actually I thought it was quite interesting that President Trump said that, um, uh, that that Putin had agreed to that, did you, you saw, I mean, Trump said he, he said, I asked him that, and he said he didn't have a problem with it. I'm more or less quoting exactly what the president said about his conversation with Putin, so you know, let's see where we get to, because if I were Putin, you know, I, you don't want to be a spin doctor for Putin, right, but if I were Putin, I think I could, I could try and explain myself, explain, you know, yes, it's been a catastrophe for him, and he's lost 850,000 people killed or seriously injured soldiers, um, it's been an economic catastrophe, um, but Russia's, you know, been able to absorb these losses, the economy actually has, you know, he's converted it into a kind of Keynesian, you know, war economy, and it, it's actually, to some extent, worked, um, I think, you know, he could say, look, um, folks, uh, we're ending the special military operation, it's been a, a great success, uh, we have the undertakings I've had from, from KF, have reassured me that, um, the Nazis have been removed, well, you laugh, but I mean, listen, what Lavrov say, he can sell a win to the Russian, Lavrov talking about Nazis in, in K, right, so they, they believe that it's full of Nazis, uh, so he can, we've removed the Nazis, it's like the end of, you know, Raiders of the Lost Ark when the na, the Nazis all melt down, and so you can, it's been a great success, um, were, were, were in the name of, of peace, Russia is, uh, you know, we, we will of course maintain, um, uh, you know, the bulk of the lands that we've, uh, invaded, you know, that would be, that's where the a serious negotiation will have to take place about, you know, what exactly goes back to Ukraine and what, what doesn't now, um, and I think he connects, so, so you know, to your question about, well, are we provoking Putin, I think he had, you know, are we going to provoke him to do something irrational like nuclear weapons, I think he has, he has a lot of political space he can use before he has to, to do that. I happen to know what he's very good at is giving the impression to, to our American friends that he's the reasonable one, you know, I'm, he's be behind, I've got these, you know, real psychos, who, ultra-nationalists, and you know, they're making it much more difficult for me to concede, I think that's bollocks by the way, but that's, that's what he's, um, he's quite, he's quite effective in, in persuading people of that, so I think he, I think he, he's strong, uh, he has the space to make a concession and, and get out, and, and that, and, and a deal can be done.

I hear you, I think so. Do you agree with me? I mean, maybe, I, I just think we, we're going to see over the days to come, um, we, we will find out. I want to ask you one other question about Ukraine, then we, no, and I think, and I think it, and I think it was worth pursuing for, so I think I know that a lot of plasters come off the ceiling in, in the, the chancellor of Europe about the way, you know, President Trump has handled it, and the way it went 10 days ago or so in the, in the Oval Office, and everybody's, you know, been freaking out and saying it's the end of the Atlantic Alliance and blah blah fish cakes, and I don't, I don't think that's true, think that's true. I want to ask you one other question about this Russia thing, and then I want to move on to domestic issues. You know how coffee gets you going in the morning, but a few hours later that caffeine crash hits. What if I told you there's a way to make your coffee work smarter for you? That's where Alpha Cell's Neurom Magnesium comes in. It's a game-changer because it combines magnesium with L-theanine, an amino acid found in green tea, known for its relaxation and cognitive benefits. When with caffeine, L-theanine creates a synergistic effect, releasing energy slowly over time for sustained focus without the jitters or the crash. Neurom Magnesium is tasteless, so you can mix it with coffee or any drink without altering the flavor, plus it doubles as an electrolyte, making it perfect for hydration during the day or promoting deeper sleep at night. And here's what sets Alpha Cell apart: they're committed to quality, no artificial sweeteners, no plastic packaging, just glass bottles to keep microplastics out of your body. They even post third-party lab results for total transparency. So whether it's for sharper focus, better hydration, or more restful sleep, Neurom Magnesium is the way to go. Visit AlphaCellLabs.com or scan the QR code on the screen. Use code TRIG20 for 20% off. That's AlphaCellLabs.com, code TRIG20, with their 30-day money-back guarantee, you've got nothing to lose, except maybe the crash. Right now, back to the show. You mentioned that in your time, this is something I've always thought about, and I've said publicly quite a bit about this too, you mentioned your time as mayor of London, oligarchs everywhere.

Well, yes, I mean, in those days it was not, I was proud when I was mayor of London, I was, I was, I was, I said that we had more billionaires in London than any city in the world, and I was very proud of it. I said, London is to the billionaire as the jungles of Sumatra are to the orangutan, it is our, it is their natural habitat, and, and, and I, people nowadays get very cross, and they think it's all terrible, you know, they should, they should be hung from the lamp post, but actually they bring, you know, I, I, I, I would go back to that, and I think what we've done by the way, you know, D, with all respect, let me ask the question before you answer it, it's a disaster, we're kiing, we're kicking these people out, dis, I go around the world now, and I meet so many people say, when you, London is the greatest place in, what, like you can't get a question in, Ed, I agree with you about billionaires, I agree that it's bad that we're losing wealthy people, I agree with you about all of that, I was talking specifically about Russia, and the question I want to ask you is, do you think we as a country failed to understand what Vladimir Putin is or had become when he was murdering British citizens on our streets with radioactive poisons? Do you think we failed back then because, frankly, there were too many Russian oligarchs here making a lot of money for people in the City and elsewhere, and because of that we were far too reluctant to go, oh, this guy is actually a hostile actor?

I think when you, when you look at things like the poisoning of Litvinenko, and you know, remember this poor guy who was a KGB guy, and then, and was poisoned with polonium, and you, in, uh, that, uh, restaurant in London, t, uh, you know, that was terrible, and I, I think when we're looking back, you can see a certain gingerness in the way the British state responded to that initially. My, my memory is we were a little bit sort of, you know, we didn't do a total free-out, and I think that prob, I think your point is probably right, I think that we, you know, we thought we, we had big equities with Russia, you know, maybe there was something, you know, maybe there was more to the Litvinenko thing that met the eye, um, and I think it is true that politicians from, you know, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton onwards, everybody, you know, David Cameron, all of us, everybody always thought that there should be a reset with Russia at some stage, and, and everybody who tried it ended up being bitterly disappointed, and I got to put my hands up, I tried, I, I say, I explained it in the book, I mean, I had this absolutely appalling, um, I went, I did a trip to Moscow when I

Was foreign secretary, and it was absolutely ghastly. And and and you know, we sat in the so in the in the not Soviet, the Russian uh, Soviet Russian for and and I I was put in front of this roaring fire and made to drink lots of, you know, glasses of colored vodka. And and it was like being it was like a curious torture; was made to get very very drunk and very very hot at the same time. And and then have to listen to Lavrov's endless sort of sermonizing, and we achieved nothing, absolutely nothing. And then and then, you know, I wanted to try and find, you know, scientific cooperation, artistic collaboration, things that where Britain and Russia could, you know, two great powers that had fought to defeat Nazism and so on, all the usual things that you nothing, you know, nothing.

And then then a few months later, they they did the Salisbury poisonings, yeah, which was an absolute sort of two fingers up to the entire British public. And then they had those guy those goons, you know, sitting on on being interviewed on TV saying um, you know um, we visited s that had the tallest spire anywhere in, you know, in Britain, and you know, we we went back again the following day because it was too slushy the first day. And you know, it was just as a Russian, I find that terrible Russian action deeply offensive; for us, I have to say it was it was I'm triggered; it was but it was painful, right? And they were laughing at us, yes, were I think. And then they made him an MP, one of those two guys; it's disgusting, it's disgusting. Anyway, discussing so so but but look, the but somehow or other we lost Russia.

MH I still think that I still think that there was a the there could have been a time in the '90s, probably quite early on in the 90s, when we could have had a different outcome to this thing. I think because it is a great country; it is it is an amazing civilization, of course, and it's a European civilization; it is and it's a it's a it's a tragedy. But right now it's very very hard to fix, and and it can only be fixed through strength, only through strength. I agree with you.

Um, moving to domestic matters, Boris, you've always been you've always been a huge fan and supporter of Net Zero; why is that, Boris? Depends when Net Zero is achieved, but yes, I have. Yeah, I mean, I think well, in the sense I think we depends what you mean by Always, by the way, because if you look if you look sadly if you read my many yeah, you had a Dian with Piers Corbyn, many millions of yeah, so so millions of words I've written on this subject over the over the years. I I've sort of what happened really was um um I began as a a pretty sort of um acid vinegary climate skeptic. And and um so because I hated the sort of religiosity of the whole thing, and I hated the way um you people who were doing ordinary things were made to feel bad, uh, and I thought it was very preachy, and it was basically all a socialist plot to try to stop people living their lives as they wanted and to sort of coerce people into certain patterns of behavior, and I hated that, and I thought it was like an Aztec religion, you know, the sun is cross; sun will fry us, and we must do if we if we follow certain patterns of if we recycle if we uh do all this change of mind. And and and there you will find terrible articles I wrote saying that, you know um, wind power never pull the skin off our pudding and um all this other stuff.

And so I started to change my mind basically when I got to to City Hall in 2008, when and for a long period most of from my time at City Hall, Piers Corbyn was indeed the official City Hall meteorologist. Given his evolution since that is very troubling, I know. I he's he's not sand on other issues, and I now think he's not right; I now think on balance he's not right about about about global warming. And so what happened was, you know, I started really asking a lot of scientists, and and um you admittedly that, you know um, there is a you know, we've seen in lots of of big scientific questions the the scientists tend to coalesce around what is the acceptable position very often. Um, but here's what I thought; I thought and what really changed my mind, I what there wasn't a single Dam scene moment; you it wasn't looking at a hockey hockey stick graph and thinking my God, we're all going to f; it was basically intuitive; it was it was getting up in a plane the whole time um as I I did as Mayor of London; I was doing lots of trade trips and then later as foreign secretary and just seeing what, you know, when I was born there were about three billion people in the world. MH They're now getting on for 9 billion; it's an I mean the change is unbelievable, and you can when you fly over Latin America, when you fly over Africa at night and you see the fires burning b all the way up; you fly from the Cape to to Cairo overnight in in Africa, right, try it; you look down you see fire after fire after fire; the the the bush the scrub the jungle burning burning burning, and Humanity encroaching everywhere, and you see the destruction that human beings are are wreaking on the planet, the spread of of cities, and I my you because you you look down and just see the the huge huge numbers of of people. And intuitively I sort of think well, look, we clearly having a colossal environmental impact, you know, whichever way you cut it; nature is being interfered with in a on a massive scale; maybe these guys are right when they when they talk about the atmosphere. And I I thought well, look, you remember Pascal's wager, yes, about the existence of God; you should believe in God just in case he's real. Yeah, yeah. I thought what's the downside if we're wrong? Perfect. Well, let me stop you there. I thought I thought I thought what's the downside if we're wrong and say wait wait I know what you're going to say; the downside is we impoverish people because we we invest in lots of crap technologies; me we force them to buy electric cars which don't work, blah, but no no, but there's another part to it; can I can I just make the point? Can I just make the point that's not the only side; that is one side of it; the other side is we are facing an ever more unstable world, yes, where geopolitically things have become the conflicts are springing up left right and center; can we really afford to de-industrialize? Can we really afford to shut down steel power plants when we really need to become stronger and more powerful in order to face prices are four times what they are in the US? I know, and they're crazy. And so that's the tradeoffs of this thing that you say is Pascal's wager. Well, yes, but and it costs in this country all I'm asking you to believe in is that ultimately all I'm asking all I was asking myself to believe in, yes, yes, was that ultimately it to bet on a cleaner world and a cleaner technology was long-term the right thing to do. And where I where I agree with you is that we we we rushed our fences, and you know you look at the you know UK energy policy is frankly, you know, it's disastrous; how expensive our energy is, and we totally failed to invest enough in in nuclear. MH Um, I mean, Labour was in for for 13 years, didn't do didn't build a single uh nuclear power plant or or even start plans for a single I don't think single nuclear power plant. Um, the Tories came in and you know, Le started things like Hinkley Point, admittedly at vast expense. When I was was running, we set up Great British Nuclear which had a plan to to build, you know, really quite a lot of nuclear power. I think nuclear power has got to be part, but nuclear power is not, as everybody knows, um the sole answer for the time being. You've got to have more hydrocarbons, and I perfectly accept that, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't you shouldn't care about the environment; no one's saying that. Well, no, then then then I think we're you know we're in hideous risk of agreement because yes, so all all I'm all I'm saying is the you know it's like St Augustine, you know, make me pure but but not yet, right? Well, we're in risk of agreement on the rhetoric, but I don't think that your time in government reflects the things that you're saying to us today. Well, I think it I think we had a massive drive to the green PR as we have now are partly because when you were in power you either didn't do anything about it or made that more difficult, right? No, we did we did huge investments in um in nuclear. So why isn't energy become cheaper? Because we've had a a massive spike in the oil price largely driven by Ukraine, and we haven't done enough, and I I so why don't we produce our own oil instead of shutting down? We should do; we should do, and we should be using we should be using our own hydrocarbons. I agree, and and I and I and I actually said that I think several times in in the House of Commons, but if you if you if you remember sadly uh in July 2022 I was I was I was no longer able to fulfill my mission, yes, and and so you know we'll talk about that in a second. So I think I think most people in this country kind of get it, and I think most people in they people instinctively don't like pollution; they don't like screwing up the environment; um they they think that global warming there probably is something in it, sure, and on the whole if they can get access to clean green technology then they're going to want to go down that route, yes, but bis but so so the question is how can you do that in a way that forgive me is we're not even remotely at risk of disgusting agreement because I don't agree with you about most people getting it; most people if you ask them what is the downside of Net Zero and how much is it going to cost they would say oh I didn't know there was a cost; that's a level of brainwashing we've had on this issue; no one no one talks about the fact this policy has gigantic tradeoffs for our economy, for our ability to defend our country, for our ability to do things like defending Ukraine; we don't we're basically losing the ability to make military-grade steel in this country. I know; I remember I remember and that's because of Net Zero, I think. Well, that's crazy, and by the way we should we we should we should be we should be putting in special arrangements for places like Port Talbot and all these other still crucial critical strategic steel-making plants; they should have their own uh power-generating capabilities, and I don't know why, you know, all right, let's talk; we we we should topic; we should definitely do one other topic before we go to our supporters.

Thanks to today's sponsor, Venice. Have you ever wondered what ChatGPT and Claude are doing with your conversations? We already know that Alexa listens in and suggests products based on what we say, and Meta retargets us BAS based on everything we click on, but think about what we share with AI: our ideas, business strategies, personal thoughts, sensitive questions, and so on. And here's the kicker: this data isn't just stored; it's tied to your identity and passed along to third parties, sometimes even governments. You might have seen in the news that DeepSeek, that AI app everyone's downloading, is actually sending unencrypted data straight to Chinese servers. And here's the thing: it's not just Chinese companies we need to worry about; ChatGPT has close ties to government agencies and big tech firms, raising important questions about how our data is handled. If you followed trigonometry for long enough, you'll know issues like this are close to our hearts; that's why we've started using Venice AI. Today's sponsor, Venice AI, is a generative AI platform that is private and permissionless; it doesn't track you, doesn't sell your data, and certainly doesn't censor you requests. Unlike other AI platforms, Venice encrypts your messages and stores them only in your browser, not on their servers; no downloads, no installations, just secure AI straight from your web browser. We use their Pro Plan, which comes with some serious perks: safe mode off for unhindered image generation, upload PDFs for summaries or insights, modify the system to change how it interacts with you if you want to use AI with private y freedom and without censorship. Then right now you can get 20% off a Pro Plan by clicking the link in the description of this episode and using our code trigonometry; that link is venice.ai/trigonometry. And now back to the show.

The one thing that uh many people feel was a big failure of, and this isn't just you when you were in power; it's the entire Conservative government um you pursued Brexit; you you won Brexit effectively, and um uh ultimately you won the 2019 election on the promise to get Brexit done. Yeah, Brexit; I know it's more complicated than this; this is a reductive argument slightly, but Brexit was basically a referendum and immigration for a lot of people, right? And you know, I like I said, it's a red slightly reduced argument from the complexity of it, but it was to many many people an opportunity to express how they felt about mass immigration, which under the Labour government, the Blair government, more people came into this country under that government than had come into this country between 1066 and 1950. Okay, pretty unprecedented or extremely unprecedented; unprecedented. And they express their views in the Brexit referendum and with the hope that both mass immigration and illegal immigration in particular, which is an irritant to people all over the political spectrum, what they wanted was to Take Back Control in order to do what? To take in order to do what? In order to leave things the same, make so that so that the politicians could rightly be held to account for the numbers of people coming in. Okay, so I'm holding you to account right now; I'm holding you to account right now. So let me do it; we had the Brexit referendum; you came in in 2019, and under your government we had what is now being described as the Boris wave, in which we had as many if not more people come into this country in in a simil that that's actually if you look at the the stat if you look at what actually happened uh the numbers go down; we have a huge number of people leave the country because of because of Covid uh you and so the whole thing is complete bollocks. Uh you then have a lot of students coming back to complete their courses, right, who who who push up the numbers in that in that so-called wave, yeah. Uh you have, of course, because we're talking about 2020 two uh you're we have a large number of Ukrainians coming in; uh you have Afghans uh coming in to whom we owed uh duty; you also have you also have Hong Kongers. What also happened, and this was not, you know, government policy, but it was something that was driven by the Migration Advisory Committee uh you had a panic if you remember post-Covid uh when nobody could get the shelves stocked; do you remember this? There was a think nobody could get the shelves stacked; do you remember the leading up to uh the period when nobody was confident that the crops were going to be picked in the in the fields? And do you remember when the the petrol stations couldn't get uh get fuel MH because there was a shortage of lorry drivers and all that? What happened was that um the Migration Advisory Committee and we had we we were very worried about social care uh workers or this the the the officials were, and so yes, I think they probably did hand out too many visas or to too many permits for people plus their dependents to to come under those various schemes, but there were there were exceptional circumstances caused by Covid; they and they were immediately remediable. And why have we got because we could have because because we had taken back control? Hold on, hold on; you say you say no no, Boris, I'm not going to let you get away with this; you say no, I'm not; I refuse; I'm sorry; you must; there's a different point; you say we wanted people wanted to take back control, and now even to this day we have tens of thousands of people coming into this country illegally on small boats. Okay, good; back control; I'm glad you said that; where's the control? So so so, frankly, what you've conceded which is the most important point is that we have legal control over the people who seek to apply to come in. Now I accept that there were exceptional circumstances after Covid which which led to some what looked like some big numbers, but there as I say, except for reasons for that um now because we control the the numbers coming in legally um we can offset for that, and so we can we can we can get them right down; do whatever we want; have zero. Right, actually, under Keir Starmer, thanks to his brilliant policy of persecuting anybody who's got an ounce of creativity in this country uh people are fleeing Britain for the first time since the 1970s; they are I mean it's a miracle both of you are still here frankly, given your you know given your talent and enterprise um he's very good; very good; it's Amica. So so so we have formal control, which is the most important thing, and don't forget what Starmer wants and he would do if he could; no one here is a fan of Keir Starmer, no, but but I think people you know there may be there may be some fans of Keir watching this, and they should know this; I don't think what they what they what they what they what they why are there tens of thousands of people coming to this country on because so first of all, Starmer would go back to free movement, so 520 million; where is the control? So where's the control? We the plan; I hugely admire what you just said; Stop the Boats was the wrong slogan; we went too far; he we should we should have no no; the the problem was the problem was that we we they they didn't do what I told them to do, and the problem was seriously that we should have continued with the Rwanda policy, which actually was the only policy that that made any, and we should not only continued with it; we should have developed it and expanded it; we should have found lots of other partners around the world because they they're queuing up now, and look at what Trump is doing; putting people on the plane out of that is what people wanted to see, yes, and we would have pulled that off, and it would and I as I said in my speech in April 2022 I went down to Dover and I and I explained to everybody look um you you know you've got to understand that um this is going to take time because the legal objections will be enormous, and and there will be lawfare against me, and people will try to to to screw this thing up, but we would have got it done; people said we couldn't get Brexit done; we got Brexit done, but I'm afraid from April to July 2022 wasn't enough time for me to do it, and then the whole thing lost momentum; you know, we now need obviously to come out of the ECHR, the the European Convention on Human Rights um we need to it was it was clear that the the lawyers were going to use everything they could to to stop it, but eventually we would have won, and I think the mistake has been to scrap the Rwanda plan and to make us defenseless, and that you know I don't know what the numbers are now, but they seem to be bigger than ever, the the people coming across the across the channel; the the Rwanda plan was a great great plan, and and we we should we should; my advice to to Rishi would be to come out of the E to to campaign on coming out of the ECHR and and reviving Rwanda because I agree with you; I think actually the British people I mean I I you know I've said what I've said about the numbers in in 2020 whatever it was 2022 uh they they were mainly driven by overreaction to Covid and and and actually also turned out by the way that the it was a lot of Remain hysteria about European Union Nationals uh they said so everybody the Remain blob said um Brexit's going to be such a nightmare because uh all the the 3 million European Union Nationals will flee Britain; this leper colony uh horrible.

Hateful Island that's voted for Brexit, and they will never come back. You know it'll be a disaster. And actually, what happened first of all, they grossly underestimated; there were in fact 6 million, not 3 million, and a lot of them did come back. So you know that that certainly helped to, um, you know, change the the the numbers there, and they they they they got that totally wrong.

Um, but the way to to fix the the the problem is to be absolutely ruthless in stopping people coming here illegally and and and expelling those who do. And honestly, and this is not a popular point of view right now, um, I think that some of the things that the Trump Administration uh are doing right, and I think that um, you know, he seems I I like the the Elon Musk cost-cutting stuff. No, it doesn't. I like it, and I and but and I and I want you will find it unleashed. I I I told I kept telling um Rishi that I wanted to see this, and I kept telling every government Department I wanted to see the and I the slaughtering of the Sacred Cows, as I kept putting it. Rishi pointed out that this was against Hindu religion, became I had to try and find another metaphor. But you you you you do you do need in government; it's very very hard to cut projects because they're all the legacy of some bloody politician or or senior civil servant, and and and people have their egos invested in them. And you can see this problem in the United States now, and people endlessly produce mutilated stumps, to the bleeding stumps, to show how cruel you're being. But but you you've got to you've got to do it. I've got to go. You got to go a few minutes. We still got no. I've got to go. I've got to go. I've got to go. And and see man minutes we have military precision. This is what he does when he in Fr I don't know what's going on anyway.

Last question. Last question, and then we're going to ask you some questions from our supporters. All right. Do we have I might think we might as well go to the supporters. We've got seven minutes. Fine. Let's go to the supporters. So we're heading over to Subset where you get to ask your questions to Boris, and he'll answer them in French probably. Yes. Sure. Why did you think we should do the Swedish model and then decided against it? But if you Wen happy you're the Prime Minister, why don't you just say, "No guys, we're not doing this. I'm a Libertarian. I believe in Freedom. I believe people should blah blah blah." That's your conviction. [Music]