The video discusses the complex diplomatic dance between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, focusing on the US proposal for a peace agreement. This proposal is detailed as a potential land-for-peace deal, where Crimea would be recognized as Russian territory, which Ukraine cannot accept. The episode features insights from key BBC correspondents who analyze the situation and the varied responses from international leaders.

The video highlights the tensions underlying these negotiations, especially the pressure from the US for Ukraine to accept terms that could mark a concession to Russia. It includes strong political responses, notably from the Trump administration, urging Ukraine to agree to the proposals, despite their contentious nature. The discussion extends into the diplomatic complexities and varying interests from European allies and the potential geopolitical outcomes.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. multilayered [ˌmʌltɪˈleɪərd] - (adjective) - Having multiple aspects or levels of complexity. - Synonyms: (complex, multifaceted, intricate)

Diplomatic confusion and the involvement of various global leaders demonstrate the multilayered nature of the ongoing conflict.

2. intransigence [ɪnˈtrænzədʒəns] - (noun) - A refusal to change one's views or to agree about something. - Synonyms: (stubbornness, obstinacy, inflexibility)

There is a degree of uncertainty and muddle over the diplomacy surrounding Ukraine, leading to intransigence in negotiations.

3. arc [ɑːrk] - (noun) - A distinct, sometimes progressive, segment of a larger story or discussion. - Synonyms: (phase, segment, progression)

And he just admits that for the first time. And that's a reality that you and I know has been the case for some time...in the arc of these discussions.

4. inversion [ɪnˈvɜːrʒən] - (noun) - A reversal of the normal position, order, or relationship. - Synonyms: (reversal, switch, overturning)

What we're seeing here potentially, if that thesis is correct, is an inversion of the old fashioned Russian negotiating tactic.

5. ceasefire [ˈsiːsˌfaɪər] - (noun) - A temporary suspension of fighting, typically one that allows for negotiations. - Synonyms: (truce, armistice, halt)

In the beginning was the US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire.

6. proviso [prəˈvaɪzoʊ] - (noun) - A condition attached to an agreement. - Synonyms: (condition, stipulation, requirement)

There is a new sort of proposal on the table which is essentially more land based, potentially the start of a more comprehensive ceasefire, with concessions of a territorial nature as a proviso.

7. unilateral [ˌjuːnɪˈlætrəl] - (adjective) - Involving only one group or country without the agreement or cooperation of others. - Synonyms: (independent, one-sided, single-handed)

The Trump administration is pressuring Ukraine to accept a unilateral decision favoring Russia's demands.

8. concession [kənˈsɛʃən] - (noun) - Something granted, especially in response to demands. - Synonyms: (compromise, allowance, adjustment)

The US backed that, Ukraine backed that after making a big concession, namely that it'll give up its famous security guarantees.

9. diplomacy [dɪˈploʊməsi] - (noun) - The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations. - Synonyms: (negotiation, politics, statesmanship)

Uncertainty and muddle over the diplomacy surrounding Ukraine mean that not all questions can be answered.

10. sovereignty [ˈsɑːvrənti] - (noun) - Supreme power or authority, especially in a country or state's freedom from foreign control. - Synonyms: (autonomy, self-governance, independence)

It is a conflict of sovereignty.

Could the US walk away from Ukraine-Russia peace talks? - BBC Newscast

We've issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it's time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process. The US Vice President piles the pressure on Russia, but mainly on Ukraine, to reach a deal, details of which have started to leak out on a big day for diplomacy, which we will discuss on this episode of the BBC's Daily News podcast, Newscast.

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio. And the second half of this episode is going to be about economic, economic news, because there is lots happening in Washington, D.C. where pretty much every finance minister and banker in the world is there for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund. And there's a big update on Donald Trump's trade war. But first of all, we're going to talk about what a big day it's been for diplomacy around Russia and Ukraine. We were expecting there to be a big meeting in London where loads of bigwigs from America flew over to speak to their European counterparts, French, British, Ukrainian, for the next stage of negotiating a deal between Russia and Ukraine.

That basically hasn't happened. It was mired in confusion. But at the same time, more details have leaked out about what we think is the U.S. peace plan. And at the same time as that, we've had some quite strong rhetoric from J.D. vance and Donald Trump, which basically is them piling loads of extra pressure on Ukraine to sign up to that peace plan, the details of which have been leaking out. There is quite a lot for us to get our heads around. But don't worry, we're joined in on newscast by two people who know or can help us try and work out what is going on, because nobody really knows what's going on.

Here in the Studio is the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, James Landale. Hi, James. Hello. Slightly confusing day, I imagine, for you. Yeah. Just trying to piece together what's actually going on. Yeah. You know what? I think we as journalists spend all our lives trying to sort of make sense of a complicated world so that we can tell neat and sort of tidy stories, because we, like stories, have a beginning and a middle and an end. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes we try to impose more order than there is. And I think at the moment there is a degree of uncertainty and muddle over the diplomacy surrounding Ukraine. So I. I cannot. I. I can predict I will not be able to answer all your questions.

Okay, that's good advice. And also, trying to put the jigsaw together on the other side of the Atlantic is sumi Sumeskanda, BBC News chief presenter in Washington hello again, Sumi. Hi. Great to be with you. Right, okay, lots to talk about I think, before we like properly try and just parse. That's a pretentious word, the actual news. I knew you'd like it. James, can you just explain the sort of, the point of the Ukraine diplomatic cycle? We, we think we're in or we thought we were meant to be in or we are take it away.

In the beginning was the US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire. Not that long ago the plan was let's all have an unconditional ceasefire, 30 days, let the dust settle, maybe renew that 30 days and then start a process about a long term settlement, long term talks, all the detail, the sort of thing that takes months if not years. The US backed that, Ukraine backed that. It did, eventually having to, only when it made a big concession, namely that it'll give up its famous security guarantees that it was demanding. And after the terrible Oval Office moment that meant, you know, the Ukraine, Ukrainians were on side, but the Russians said no to that.

So then we had the sort of the, the American plan for a partial truce in the Black Sea. Well, America, the Russians said, well, well, yeah, no, no, but not unless you lift any sanctions. And that hasn't happened. There was also a partial moratorium if you like, on attacking energy targets. But that pretty much was, was proved in the breach. Both sides accusing each other of breaching. So that's where we sort of got to. And now the, now that they've brought the Europeans in and these talks in Paris last week and again in London today, there is a new sort of proposal on the table which is essentially more land based, which is the potentially the start of a more comprehensive ceasefire, one ultimately that will involve, you know, concessions of a territorial nature. And so that's where we're at now in the, in the arc of these discussions and that's basically where we sort woke up on Wednesday morning.

But Sumi, what are you hearing about what this US Plan, which people are calling land for peace actually entails? Yeah, it's precisely that. If you look at what this proposal actually entails, what we've heard from J.D. vance, the Vice President, is what we were hearing there from James. This is a discussion about land so that Crimea would be officially recognized as Russian territory, that the conflict would be frozen along the current lines and then that keynote as well, that Ukraine would not be part of NATO. There is apparently language that Ukraine could join the European Union, but not be part of NATO. And we've seen the criticism here from the Trump administration's critics that this would be a proposal that would meet many of Russia's demands and that Ukraine would be forced to accept losses that would be unacceptable to it now, three, almost four years now into this war.

And, James, most of that would be utterly unacceptable to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In fact, he said so this week. Yeah, I mean, the most fundamental objection is obviously to recognition of Crimea. He's made it very clear that he nor his government could ever recognize Crimea as Russian, not least because constitutionally they are unable to do so. And it would require a referendum of the Ukrainian people. And as we know, referendums are very hard to hold during wartime. So that raises lots of questions. There are lots of other technical questions. Could the Americans do this themselves? Are there legal hindrances in the US Legal system that will make that hard? Because I'm not an expert in this, but I. I'm told, and I read that there are currently extant U.S. laws that prohibit the recognition of Crimea because they've. They've used that to impose sanctions on Russia in the past.

So that would have to change because, of course, Crimea was invaded by Russia in 2014. So that. That's been a situation that's existed for a long time now. Y. Uh, there's also the question of what do other European allies do it? Because to recognize Crimea, which is occupied territory, would be in breach of international law. So there's a question around that. There are also questions of sort of gaps in all of this. It's fine to essentially, this. This idea of Russia saying, well, look, we're going to concede what we don't have, namely those other bits of the four oblasts that they are currently occupy large chunks of, but not all of, you know, they're sort of. Russians are sort of giving up something they don't have, but they would be accept essentially halting their offensive and saying, right, this is where the line is going to be.

The question is, you know, what do the Russians think about all the other issues that they have raised in the past? Their objection to a reassurance force being placed there by European nations, Their objections to the west arming Ukraine? What does the deal say about that? What does the deal say about the lifting of sanctions on Russia? What sanctions are lifted, when and in what order, in what process? All of that is hugely significant. What does the deal say about the size of Ukraine's army? If you remember, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he wants Ukraine to be demilitarized, by which he means it should have a very small army so it cannot defend itself. Again, a very strong red line for the Ukrainians there.

In other words, a lot of this is not actually being and I think that's because there's a fundamental sort of, you know, it's what the philosophers would call category error. In other words, that the Americans seem to believe that this is an issue of this is a conflict of territory. It is in part, but it is also a conflict of sovereignty. And that actually it's the sovereignty of what remains of Ukraine, which is as important as whether or not some deal can be done trading land for peace. And I think that's where there's a confusion there.

And Sumi, despite all of that, Trump has been on his platform Truth Social during the day on Wednesday, basically telling Ukraine, in short, you've got to sign up to this now. Yeah. And the background to that, just as James was mentioning there, Vladimir Zelensky has said that Ukraine will not recognize Crimea as Russian territory. And he said at a press conference, there is nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution. And that seemed to have irked Donald Trump, who I know, who we know has perhaps not the best opinion of Vladimir Zelensky. As he said last week. He said, I don't think much of the guy.

Well, he's written on Truth Social. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is boasting on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation. This statement is very harmful to the peace negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama and is not even a point of discussion. He then goes on to talk about what Zelenskyy wants in Crimea and the fact that the Ukrainians didn't fight Russia for Crimea when it was annexed in 2014. And to then hear him write, get it done. I look forward to being able to help Ukraine and Russia out of this mess that would have never have started if I were president.

So a few things to dig into there. Of course, this line we keep hearing from President Trump, which is it would have never started if he were to have been president, but also the sense of a distancing. So he's pointing to President Obama, the annexation of Crimea, which happened under, quote, unquote, his watch, as President Trump would say. And we see that continued pressure on Ukraine, indicating that it is Ukraine holding up a peace deal and not Russia. We've heard very little from the administration in terms of what is going to be expected from Russia? What concessions will be needed to be made by Russia? And this statement on truth social reflects all of that.

Again, I mean, James, it is true though that the west allowed Russia to invade Crimea and didn't fight back. Like Trump is kind of right about that. Yeah. I mean, and to the west, the west regrets that. And they have been looking back at that decision with hindsight for, for quite some time. Whether or not that means that, you know, this is the deal. The thing you've got to remember too is that an awful lot of Ukrainian servicemen and women died in the so called spring offensive in 2023 designed to recapture the routes into Crimea, if nothing else. And so an awful lot of Ukrainian blood has been shed to try and recapture some of those routes back in and to cut off Ukrainian Russians supply lines into, into Crimea.

And so I think that, you know, even if it was technically possible and legally possible, I think politically it would be very, very, very hard for any Ukrainian leader to say, oh yeah, we'll, we'll kind of, you know, we'll concede that. So this raises the interesting question of kind of why, why are the Americans pushing something that the Ukrainians simply can't accept? And that's where we get into really murky waters. In other words, sort of victim, victim blaming of Ukraine by America. Yeah, there is that issue. Is this a question of, of the Americans sort of shaping up Zelensky to be the full guy, the man that they want to blame if there were to be no, no deal?

Or is this a sort of clever plan just to get the Russians to sign up to something just so that they can have some kind of short term deal without all those other issues being dealt with? I mean, there is an interesting argument here which if you talk to some diplomats, they say, look, yes, this all sounds kind of mad, but there is a, there is a possible landing zone. And they say, remember that not all of the deal that is currently being discussed, of which the details, we simply don't know all the details. And a lot of people tell me that not all the papers have got it quite right. So there are kind of, there are wrinkles in this that they say not everything in the steel is, is pro Russia and that actually there, that Russia would have to make some kind of concessions.

I think the interesting question is this is, is Vladimir Putin, as ever, playing the long game, which it would go something like this, that he accepts the sort of territorial restriction, in other words, that he is not going to achieve his aims, militarily and he just admits that for the first time. And that's a reality that you and I know has been the case for some time. Yeah, but it'd be a significant moment. Seemed like, okay, so therefore he says, right, we'll accept these, this deal, but with lots of loose ends and then use diplomacy in the future.

So for example, somebody put to me this case, they said, look, what if there is a sort of deal and there's some kind of a ceasefire and the Europeans don't get their reassurance force in and that that's delayed because they're not, they haven't got it sorted. They talked about it, but it's not sitting there ready to roll. And then at that point, then in the future, Russia says, sorry, you can't suddenly introduce a massive new military force into this peace deal. We consider that to be an aggressive act. If you do that, we will consider that the breach of the, of the deal and we will reinvade Ukraine. In other words, there are loads of other things.

Right. That could potentially down this line if they're not all signed up as part of a deal. The great. In other words, what we're seeing here potentially, if that theo thesis is correct, is an inversion of the old fashioned Russian negotiating tactic, which is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Potentially, if you are a creative negotiator here, you could be saying, let's agree something so that potentially get. That gives us openings to use other leverage in the future. Absolutely fascinating. Just in terms of Processology.

Sumi. J.D. vance, the Vice President's in on a trip to India and he went to the Taj Mahal today and when he was there he said this about the US potentially walking away. Well, I'm going to echo something Secretary Rubio said, which is, look, we've issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians and it's time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process. We have engaged in an extraordinary amount of diplomacy of on the ground work. We've really tried to understand things from the perspective of both the Ukrainians and the Russians.

What do you. Sumi, is that, is that just kind of last minute pressure on both sides to get a deal, although I suspect it's probably pressure on Ukraine to get them to get a deal? Or is this a genuine threat that actually America could be about to pull the plug on all of this? I think it's a possibility that the US could actually walk away from negotiations at the point that they are Right. Now, if you look at what J.D. vance is saying, it also reflects what we heard from the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, which is a sense of frustration, real frustration in the Trump administration that they haven't been able to move Ukraine and Russia towards a final ceasefire agreement, and that there have been these attacks in the meantime that we saw, for example, the strikes on Sumy that led to several civilians being killed in Ukraine, more strikes overnight in Ukraine.

And President Trump has in the past few weeks said, this is a mistake, these strikes from Russia. But what we have heard from the administration is both sides need to stop the violence. And I think what's interesting to look at here from what JD Vance said, there is the real concern from the Trump administration that they're not moving forward with these negotiations and that if this continues to stall, that this being becomes exactly what this was for the Biden administration, which is a very difficult conflict where they're unable to actually move either side or move the battle lines actually on the battlefield.

And because of that, you see this increased pressure from the Trump administration. Now, you have to keep in mind there is, of course, a risk for the Trump administration as well. The risk is that Donald Trump said, as you know, Adam, we talked about it, he said in the campaign trial, I'll solve this in 24 hours. We've seen him unable, obviously, to broker this agreement with Ukraine. The Gaza ceasefire has fallen apart, and we've seen, of course, the tariff trade war with allies and adversaries alike. And so on the foreign policy front, the Trump administration is very keen to actually reach an agreement here.

And so that's why what I mentioned earlier, with a bit of this distancing that might indicate that perhaps the administration would walk away from this for some time and say, this is not our war, because they're unable to strike an agreement and come back to it at a later point. Yeah. And, James, just before I let you go, because I know you've got lots to do this evening, just to convey to people the sort of the feeling of chaos there has been in the last kind of 24 hours and a way of gauging that is what was meant to be happening in London today, Wednesday, and what didn't happen and what people knew or didn't know when. About what was going to happen or not. Yeah, Just give us a sense of that.

Well, I mean, these, all these, all these talks, meetings are thrown together at last minute. I mean, the, the, the meeting last, meet last week in Paris was thrown together the last minute. I mean, I think the foreign sector was planning to, to go, go on take a few days leave but, but obviously that was Scott's, you know, canceled by all of that. These talks in London that, you know, were designed to be a carry on from last week and it was meant to be all the big players and it's meant to be all. Well, yeah, as in Mr. Witkoff, the special envoy, Mr. Rubio were supposed to be there.

They pulled out late last night. So huge confusion in the, the Foreign Office. I have to admit some frustration in the Foreign Office because obviously a lot of plans had to be changed because as well, as well as just the sort of, you know, the difficulty there, there are, there are sort of protocol issues. You can't have a Foreign Secretary chairing meetings with lots of other officials because it's sort of, you know, you don't have people at the same level to be like. So he, he, he sort of semi stepped back from these talks. He had a bilateral with his, his, his Ukrainian counterpart, Mr. Subia, and he's dropped in on the talks without actually sort them.

So logistically these things, you know, cause an upset, a huge confusion about why Mr. Rubio, Mr. Witkoff chose not to come. The suggestion being that they, they had heard what Mr. Zelensky had said in his press briefing, namely that he was opposed to crime, crime had been recognized. I mean, I don't know how, why that was should have come as a surprise to them, but they, but they heard about that. There was also talk of a, a Ukrainian document doing the rounds that was more focused on a 30 day ceasefire the, than the longer term plan which the US were looking at.

So there might have been a sense of let's not be part of this if we're not going to get much progress. But it was, yeah, fluid. I mean, I don't know about you. I was up very late last night trying to produce on my morning radio reports and waiting for a certain degree of clarity that took quite a while to emerge about precisely what was going to happen. And when I was actually watching Black Mirror last night, which seems like an apt metaphor for where we are right now in this quite historical process.

James, thank you very, very much. Through the black looking glass. Yeah, it's that, it's that confusing and sort of that simultaneously dark. James, thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. Sumi. The other big thing that's happening in Washington at the moment is the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and all the, all the treasury ministers and Finance ministers flying in.

But I Imagine you've probably not had a lot of time to focus on the global economy, what with like war and peace in the globe instead. Well, the global economy is very much part of the discussion in the US Economy right now. So actually it's all coming together at once. And we've been seeing a lot of the hustle and bustle here in Washington. Whenever the IMF spring meetings happen, you see, obviously these huge delegations come into the US but because of this entire tariff discussion and the trade war, actually, Adam, it's been part of what we've been covering every day as well.

And in fact, the administration reacting to some of the IMF's forecasts, for example, and all eyes being on the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant as well, and his every word, people hanging on his every word. What could that mean for the US Economy? The global economy? It's really interwoven into our coverage as well. And someone who has been hanging on every word of everyone is Faisal, who's on the line. Hello, Faisal. Hi, how are you doing? Very well, thank you.

Hope you're enjoying the blossom in Washington, D.C. along with all the finance ministers and the central bankers. Right. So much news has come out of these spring meetings. I'm not quite sure where to start. Should we actually pick up from that point Sumi was making about the economic forecast that came out on Tuesday and showed that basically pretty much everyone suffers to various degrees by Trump from Trump's tariffs? Yeah, it's an absolute news fest out here, Adam. I mean, I'm reminded of the last time it was like the center of world attention, British attention, was when quasi quoting.

I was sadly departed, had his, his one visit here was hauled back from Liz Truss. But it sort of feels a little bit like that here. And you're right, the imf, in a way, doesn't really matter what numbers they put on every country. But the general message, the sense that they were sending out with that set of forecasts was almost as soon as Donald Trump held up that sign with all the countries in the world and all those tariffs, they ripped up their forecasts, they jettisoned them in their words, and they came up with a new set of forecasts, and it was downgrades for almost everybody.

I say everybody, actually, apart from Spain, which is a very interesting question. We'll pop that for a second. And the US itself, and this was, I think, a key message, was the biggest of the G7 countries downgrade. And so there's a real sort of sense if they didn't Say it that, look, this gun, you're, You're. You're sort of pointing the leverage you think you have. Well, it's disproportionately focused. Donald Trump at your own foot. You know, that was the sort of message in words that came out of the forecast in numbers, and it sets the tone for just the. The meeting here of the entire world's finance ministers, which is a unique opportunity.

Yeah. And I should say the IMF growth projection for Britain's GDP in 2025 was down from 1.6% previously to just 1.1% now, and from 1.5% the year after to 1.4% after. Sumi. I'm about to ask Faisal about what Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, said, said today on Wednesday, because there's been quite a lot of market reaction to that. But before we dive into the news, just paint a picture of who Scott Besant is and how he fits into the kind of Trump galaxy. Right. So Scott Besant is the Treasury Secretary, so obviously an important figure in Donald Trump's Cabinet, and he is one of the billionaires who is part of Donald Trump's cabinet, and someone who has risen to prominence, really, in the last month or so, ever since the focus turned to Donald Trump's tariff policy and the trade war.

And Scott Besant has been seen as someone who really has been in Donald Trump's ear, perhaps coaxing him to step back from some of these policies to reverse some of the language on tariff policies. And that has been, as we understand, clashing a bit with some of the more hardline tariff hawks, if you will, in Donald Trump's administration. People like his trade czar, Pete Navarro. Scott Besson, on the other hand, he is someone who's been regularly in touch with the business community. We know on Tuesday that he held a private meeting with JPMorgan Chase, and some of the comments from that meeting actually moved markets.

So he has really emerged, particularly on trade and tariffs, as a key member of Trump's administration and someone who has perhaps shown an impact in a way that he can actually lessen some of the impact of the tariffs themselves. And so, Faisal, explain what impact Mr. Besant's been having today on Wednesday. Yeah, And I just said, I love biographical detail is very relevant for us, which is that he is said to be one of the three people in the room that advised George Soros all those decades ago to bet against the bank of England, infamous day in British economic history. And he was part of that, in part of his previous Life.

So now, yes, he is kind of governing over another potential economic crisis, as you can hear a car alarm going off in the background. And he gave his speech to financiers, which, and I was in the room, and it was an absolutely fascinating speech where on the one hand, he was critical of the IMF and the World bank, the key institutions. But critically, he said, I'm going to remember the US Is going to remain part of them, which is up for doubt because of Project 2025. But his comments on China were extremely interesting because, you know, gone were the. Was the rhetoric of the Rose Garden three weeks ago, you know, looters, pillages of the US and it was like respect for China's ascent in the world.

He talked about the probability of the biggest of all deals, a grand rebalancing of the world economy, where the US Gets its manufacturing back and China starts to consume more, far more. Kind of calm and collaborative in terms of where this might go, given the reality. And the reality is that the two biggest economies in the world currently have prohibitive tariffs on each other's trade. An extraordinary situation. But he was really, you got the signal here big time that he was trying to ratchet back the bugle of retreats.

You might have heard certainly a bunch of olive branches, perhaps a forest of olive branches being offered. The Chinese are united yet to pick up the phone. But it was revealed we haven't had actually officially confirmed, was certainly heavily implied that at this meeting he will meet the Chinese finance minister. That is now a critical meeting for the future, not just of this trade conflict, but for the future of the world economy. And it could go either way, but certainly a much warmer mood music without there actually having been any negotiation at all.

And sumi, does Donald Trump, Trump have the political space to offer even more olive branches and sound the bugle of peace even louder than he has been already because he's backed down on so many of his, on his tariffs that he did famously on the 2nd of April, Liberation Day. Well, if you listen to the administration, this is all the art of the deal. This is Donald Trump taking a very aggressive tone in the beginning with his reciprocal tariff regime that he announced earlier this month, and then using that as leverage, if you will, to be able to perhaps, perhaps give out some of those olive branches that Faisal was just describing there.

On the other hand, you do have to say that Democrats and Donald Trump's critics here in this country have said this is again, an example of chaos and corruption and the problem with the Trump administration But for Donald Trump and his team, they believe they do have the space, not only the space, but also the political capital, to be able to back down on some of these tariffs and say, look, this was always going to be the plan. We wanted to be aggressive from the start, to be able to show that we mean business and that we would bring some of these countries to the table.

Now, it is important to say that a number of analysts here we've spoken to have said, look, actually agreeing to a trade deal, which is what the administration says it is, negotiating with a number of countries, that is a process that takes months, sometimes years, as we know, with international trade deals. And if you look at what the administration is saying that it is in the process of negotiating right now with, for example, Japan or India, they're talking about the architecture of a trade deal or a memorandum of understanding that falls far short of an actual trade agreement.

If that is the case, it could be seen as a climb down to Feisal's point even by some of his supporters, those who really do want to see tariffs because they want to see a move back to manufacturing in the U.S. faisal, talking of deals, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, is there obviously to do her job as the Chancellor and talk to all the other finance ministers and hear the bad news from the imf, imf, which has implications for her budget later this year. But she's also joining in the negotiations for a US UK Prosperity deal, trade deal arrangement, whatever you want to call it. What's she actually doing there in those terms?

Yeah, and since that Rose Garden moment, I mean, as seemingly saying, the whole point we hear was leveraged for these deals and it's been like tumbleweed. Except. Except this morning we heard of an actual document circulating and it truly has circulated in Washington trying to get views from US business and from US unions about a potential deal with the UK and it mentioned the lowering of tariffs on US cars exported to the UK, currently 10% down to two and a half percent, and potentially changing UK food standards, a long standing bugbear of the Americans that has produced proven no deal.

Now, the sense I got from Rachel Reeves was on the latter. No chance, that's not the negotiation. Remember, we're doing a separate negotiation with the European Union on that, but certainly sounded really open to the idea of lowering tariffs. And then you have this slight complication because under World Trade Organization rules, what you offer in one direction, you've got to offer to the whole world, unless it's a full fat trade deal. So they'd have to Try and get round that. But certainly the mood music I got was that was on the table.

Intriguingly, of course, one of the main beneficiaries of that will be BMW, because BMW makes some of their most expensive cars, the X5 and X6, for the Top Gear fans here in the US and they're exported to the UK. So that's intriguing, isn't it? That's, you know, that's how world trade works. Will BMW benefit from. From that? I must say, on the idea of deals in general, there is a big question mark about who has leverage. Right, right now, Trump and his team thought they had the leverage. Everyone was going to want to negotiate down these tariffs, but the market turmoil and the fact that the first waves of this is starting to hit actual US business, a return Boeing jet.

I was in a toy store yesterday in Arizona where they were showing me emails of this stuff of tariffs going up. And I heard from a finance minister, off the record here, really fascinating. And he goes, faisal, people are not coming crawling to the Americans offering stuff. We're waiting and we're seeing what the markets are doing and then maybe we'll engage a bit later. So the whole dynamic, Adam, I think, may well have changed. And who's chasing who needs the deals right now most quickly? And it is a reasonable argument to say it is not the rest of the world.

Actually, it is probably the United States of America and probably Scott Benson feels that more. And the other critical thing here, the last thing I'd say is who's holding the mic for America right now? Is it Scott Besson? Is it Pete Navarro? Is it Howard Lutnick? And it does seem, when you look at the White House, you know, X feed, for example, they're really backing Besson up. So it does seem like Besson is in the ascendancy. And so deals and, you know, olive branches is that is the order of the day.

Let's see where this goes. It's an absolutely critical meeting, Adam, that could really decide where this trade war and where the world economy goes. Now, it'll be really quite amazing if in a year from now, the two main products for Britain of all of this chaos around Trump's tariffs are finally something that looks like the very elusive trade deal between London and Washington. And also the fact, Faisal, maybe, that Tesla's will be 7% cheaper because the tariff will have been slightly flashed.

Ah, no, hang on, hang on a minute. Tesla's won't be, because this is also confusing. Tesla's the famous American car, but the Ones we get are made in, well they have until now been made in China hilariously and in Germany. So actually they probably unaffected by this. And it's actually really important this point. The trade deal we're talking about here is not a proper full fat trade deal of the sort that Barack Obama talked about when he said we are back at the queue.

It is not that it is much smaller, but that won't stop them calling it the same thing. And it's all to do with who's got the authority in the American system to negotiate. What is it the White House or does it involve Congress as well? Sumi, just on that Tesla point, that was my ham fisted attempt to then talk about Elon Musk. We actually finally now have confirmation from the man himself that actually maybe he will be cutting back on his Doge duties, that the chainsaw will be being put back in the shed.

Yeah, that's right. And you know, to some this didn't come as that much of a surprise. We haven't seen Elon Musk that present at the White House and during some of the events that we have often seen seen him at with President Trump alongside the President in the last week or so. And at the same time you have seen so much criticism of Elon Musk, of course, not only from Democrats and Donald Trump's opponents, but of course you've also seen criticism of the agency that he's been leading or advising, depending on how you see his role, doge, Department of Government Efficiency.

And some of the cuts that this agency has actually seen through so far. And some of that criticism you've seen is some of the cuts that have been made to things like Social Security Administration to Veterans Affairs. You've seen some Republicans themselves become more vocal about concerns they have about some of these cuts, cuts even in some of the town halls. When Republicans go back to their districts and are faced by some of their constituents who say we are not on board with these cuts.

You know, it is one thing to cut waste, fraud and abuse, as Elon Musk and Donald Trump have said is his mandate with Doge. It is another to cut fundamental resources that are important for constituents for Republicans. So there was that side of the controversy. And then on the other hand, you have Elon Musk as the head of Tesla as well. And Tesla has really taken a beating, which I know, you know, we can talk about and dig into those numbers as well.

But because of that, you know, Tesla shareholders are not particularly happy. And so Elon Musk saying I'm taking A step back here from my role at dosh, I should say, as a caveat, he's a temporary government employee, so technically, he would be allowed 130 days in this role and would have had to step back sometime next month, late next month, as we understand. So. So the White House might sell this in a way that Elon Musk is carrying out the function that he was meant to and is now pulling back from it, but will be involved in some other fashion.

I think at the end of the day, Elon Musk and Donald Trump do get along. Donald Trump says he trusts him. He likes having the world's richest man by his side, of course. And I don't see Elon Musk out of the picture, even if he's stepping back from the Doge role. Unfortunately, Sumi, the only number we can dive into is how many minutes we have left on this episode, and it's about zero. So I'm gonna say, Sumi, thank you very much.

Much thank you. And Faisal, talking about Elon Musk's other business, which is X. I noticed you tweeted 23 hours ago. Great to have been in Arizona. We have a significant BBC Global scoop on its way soon. Dot, dot, dot. Are you able to fill in that dot, dot, dot for us now? No, absolutely not. No, no, no. We. We. No doubt, Adam. I will reveal all to you sometime, hopefully next week. But, yeah, there's a lot of interesting things going on in the US Economy right now, and this is. This is one of them.

But I will say I got to go in a waymo. You know, one of the things that he's doing, Elon Musk, is these cyber cabs. Right. I didn't realize. It's already happening. You can just catch these robot cabs that drive themselves with weird whirring things on top. I have no idea. It's absolutely. You feel like in the Jetsons, honestly, it's absolutely incredible. And the reason why they testing them out in Phoenix, Arizona, is because of the gridded road system. So it's just a lot more predictable.

But, yeah, no, I. I love. I loved it. I chatted to it. I actually is interesting. The taxi driver behind gave a very sort of angry toot because obviously there's a big question about it putting cabins out of business. But, like, the future is here. It's coming quickly. Stealing our jobs. Also, Faisal, you've just given me an idea for another episode of old Newscast for younger listeners. What the Jetsons is. Anyway, that's it for this episode of Newscast Faisal. Safe travels. And we'll be back with another newscast very soon.

Bye. Bye. See ya. And that is it for this episode of Newscast. Thanks for listening. We'll be back with another one very soon. Bye.

DIPLOMACY, POLITICS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, GLOBAL, ECONOMICS, TECHNOLOGY, BBC NEWS