Lord David Frost was born in 1965 in Derby. He attended St. John’s College, Oxford and took MA in French and history. Ha had a long diplomatic carrier; in 2019–2020 he was the Chief Negotiator for Brexit and the Prime Minister’s Europe Adviser. In 2021 he held the position of Minister of State for EU Relations. Earlier, in 2020 he was elevated to the House of Lords as a life peer.
***
The US is pausing military aid to Ukraine, the White House said. Is that the way Washington can pressure Ukraine into negotiations?
I hesitate. I think it’s right for the Americans to have a go at seeing if a ceasefire can be reached and to get a negotiation to begin. At the same time Ukraine has to have some cards to play with.
President Trump said during the Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy that Ukraine didn’t have cards.
Yes, he said that, but I think Ukraine does have some cards and needs to have some cards. I would hesitate personally about depriving Ukraine of all of its support at this point. But let’s see what President Trump now does.
Many praise Trump’s famous negotiating tactics. Do you see the smart planning in his public actions?
It looks to me that they concluded that to get a negotiation to end the war under way, they have to put a bit of pressure on Ukraine, while putting pressure on Russia as well. President Trump has been quite obvious, even brutal, about that in the last week and the Oval Office meeting rather shows it, so I think that’s what’s happening. I think he’s being very clear about it. I hope he can bring it to a conclusion that is in everybody’s interests.
There was a communication breakdown between President Zelenskyy, President Trump and Vice President Vance. What did you see in it? Who insulted who in that conversation?
I think everyone brings their opinion to the meeting rather than getting an opinion from it! I did watch the whole thing and, while there was a little bit of tension throughout, I didn’t read it as a deliberate attempt to embarrass Zelenskyy. I just read it as a conversation which went slightly off the rails at one point. Everybody said things that might have been said better in private—indeed JD Vance says that at one point—and it got a little bit out of hand, so it’s a pity. I don’t see a great drama here as lots of people would like it to be.
Is it a manageable conflict?
I think so. In general, it’s good to keep these discussions behind closed doors because people can be more honest and frank, so there can be real discussions. At the same we live in democracies, people need to know what’s going on, the positions that need to be taken are important.
‘If you want to get to a ceasefire, then that involves putting pressure on all of the parties involved, and that includes the Europeans’
From the mainstream European standpoint many accuse Trump to mix the aggressor with the victim, to leave the West in a trap as Ukraine defends the borders of the Western world or to depart from the old consensus of US–EU alliance.
I think there has been some European overreaction. You hear some Europeans are going around saying President Trump has changed sides and he is now working with the Russians. I don’t think that. I think he realizes that if you want to get to a ceasefire, then that involves putting pressure on all of the parties involved, and that includes the Europeans because we are players in this, too. I obviously don’t want to see Ukraine lose this war. I think Ukraine has been subjected to an act of aggression, and it’s very important to stick to our principles about the way states should behave, but sometimes you can’t always get absolutely everything you want, and compromises have got to be found. Perhaps that’s where President Trump has got to more quickly than some of the Europeans.
Others say that was the moment of truth: Trump and Vance reminded Zelenskyy to the reality that America has financed the war for three years, but the patience now has run out and the US doesn’t want to finance the security of Europe anymore.
I agree with that. Trump was extremely clear about the reality. I don’t blame the Americans for being frustrated that we don’t pull our weight in Europe in terms of defence spending. At the same time the Americans have to remember that they invested in European security for a reason: collective security is both our and their interests, and if you treat it as an entirely transactional, a ‘pay to play’ relationship then, that isn’t necessarily in their broader interest either. So I think they are right: the Europeans talked too long about investing in defence, and didn’t do it, and didn’t get to grips with the reality of the situation. But I think if the Europeans can do that and change their own behaviour, then that can be coupled with a strengthening of the Atlantic alliance, not a weakening.
Rod Dreher, a fellow at the Danube Institute, wrote this: ‘The dream of a secular, progressive, multicultural paradise so beloved of European leaders has come to an end.’ There should be ‘shocks like the one Trump and Vance delivered from the Oval Office to wake Europe’s leaders up from their dream (like forever wars, its open borders, its woke insanities)’ to reality. Do you agree?
I have quite a lot of sympathy with that. I do think that most of Europeans live in a slight fantasy world where wars don’t happen, there is progressive politics always dissolving differences between people, and things like boundaries, national cultures and nations don’t matter. But we have learned in the last few years that these things do matter, in fact for many of us they are the things that give us motivation, and they are also the important elements in keeping our societies viable. I think Trump gave us a shock on that: making people realize we have to wake up, we can’t defend ourselves with no defence spending and by wishing the world was different. I think that is a very good thing. Europeans have to get out of that.
‘I think that many people have an illusory view of how things were before the last five years’
But what kind of new world order can evolve from a security solution which leaves the aggressor unpunished, leaves the violation of territorial integrity without consequences—and is contradictory to international law?
I think that many people have an illusory view of how things were before the last five years. They talk about the rules-based international system as if we had all been in this paradise where everybody behaves nicely, nobody ever attacks everybody else, where military power doesn’t matter. In fact, of course, to the extent these rules were observed, they were underpinned by American power ultimately, by Americans providing public goods, for example, free navigation and sea lanes, and I think it has always been the case regrettably.
Of course you mustn’t lose sight of your principles: it is wrong to attack other countries and take their territory, but at the same time you have to accept you can only put right the things that you have the power to put right at an acceptable cost. I think the world has always been like that, and will continue to be like that into the future. That’s why alliances and pulling your weight matters so much.
As a negotiator yourself, what in your opinion would be the most desirable solution for ending the war? What solution could be the closest to best for Ukraine and Russia?
That’s what is being tested in the next few weeks. I hope there is a solution, because people are being killed every day, and that is a very bad thing, and if we can find a way to bring this to an end, that’s obviously good. A great wrong was inflicted on the Ukrainians, but still, nevertheless, perhaps the best and only possible way out of this is some sort of ceasefire and imperfect settlement that doesn’t give everybody everything what they want. That may be the best way out given all the real world choices. We will find out whether that way out exists in the next few weeks.
Is it a deliberate strategic decision of Trump? Does he want to solve the war issue quickly to get Russia neutral, so the US can turn against its big competitor, China?
Maybe that’s part of his grand strategy. He said some things a bit like this in his first term. I think at least as much of it is Trump’s earlier statements that he could end the war quickly. Now he has to deliver on those statements. I must say though that Russia and China have got quite close together in the last two or three years, and it does not look easy to disconnect them.
Doesn’t the US need Europe on its side against China in this competition? Because it seems like Washington wants to cope with it without Europe.
I think America has an interest in European security and prosperity for all sorts of economic, political and foreign policy reasons, but, to repeat, I think they’re being reasonable when they say Europe had better provide that for itself. NATO was created at a time when Western Europe was knocked out, on the carpet basically, and needed the Americans to support them. That’s no longer the case, and obviously America’s expectations of Europe can be different. But the value of the partnership is still extremely strong: these countries basically see the world in the same way, have similar political, philosophical, historical experiences, and I don’t think they should throw this away, and I don’t think the Americans really want to throw this away.
Britain and France seem to be the new defenders of the West, the high supporters of the Ukrainian resistance. Can it be a new beginning of the European cooperation?
The trouble with European security and defence policies is that you can’t separate the substantive policy from the institution building, and many people in the European institutions want to use this crisis to make independent European organizational structures in this area. That’s why I’m very cautious about Britain being part of European structures in that way once again. I think we would get pulled along into something we don’t have full control of, and may go in a direction that we don’t really support. I think it’s noticeable that Keir Starmer is taking a slightly different position to the EU member states. He is more publicly supportive of the Trump efforts for a ceasefire. He hasn’t quite joined in some of the performative commentary that certain Europeans have engaged in. He is trying to keep a bit of distance, and I think that’s right.
Do you see the three European leaders (Starmer, Macron and Merz) capable of revolutionizing the European defence, getting Europe ready for self-reliance?
Well, the problem is that all three countries have significant domestic problems. In all three the money has run out, taxes are very high, debts are very high. All three are not spending enough on defence. So it is going to take extremely strong leadership to overcome those problems. Those are the problems that need overcoming before Western European countries are going to be effective players in the world. Now America has some of those problems too, but it still has a degree of wealth and power that Western Europe doesn’t. So leadership is one thing, but the important thing is that we hugely need to get economic growth going, start cutting back on welfare, start cutting the deficit and debt to generate real useable power.
‘I think that democratic nation states are the best way the world has found to do politics’
What will be Britain’s new role in the new world order? Which is a world less and less dominated by the US.
I think we have to react to things as they evolve. We will keep standing out for the principles of world order, and this government is particularly attached to international law principles. Many people say that Britain’s role is to be a bridge between Europe and America, but I personally don’t like that. I think that makes Britain’s role a process role not a substantive one, a facilitating role between two powers rather than a genuinely policy-focused one in its own right. Rather, I think we should be a country that supports our friends, but doesn’t get locked into institutional ties with any of them, a country that also focuses on building a successful economy which others admire and gives us soft power, and which enables us to spend enough on defence to have an influence around the world.
The UK has got its sovereignty, independence and nationhood back after Brexit. Will the coming age be a world of sovereign states or tight cooperations, unions?
I do think in Europe there’s a political current which is coming back towards to nationhood: the importance of a nation’s borders, national culture, national independence, and so on. The European Union has tried to dissolve some of those things and that effort has perhaps reached its limits. There is probably going to be a pushback, and that’s good. I think that democratic nation states are the best way the world has found to do politics. I don’t think Europe itself can ever become a nation state in that sense, so if Europe wants to be stronger, it’s going to have to be based more deeply once again on its nation states. But they are getting weakened to quite a large extent because of the EU’s own policy and because of the progressive mindset of the people who run it and many of the member states. That has to change. Otherwise we will find Europe as a continent getting weaker and weaker. So we need to return to national cultures, borders, history, all those things that make societies work effectively in practice. Successful countries are ones that implement these policies.
In European politics, in the world of supranational institutions, sovereignty and self-governance have deeper meaning and bigger importance. Will the political forces like Patriots for Europe in the EP get bigger and more influential by time, or not?
Yes. I do think so. The problem is the EU is designed to exclude genuine popular participation in many ways, that’s how it was created, so I think they’ll be limited in real influence by the way the EU works. Those who run the institutions at the European level will be reluctant to give up their power. Moreover, conservativism is fundamentally national in nature. So if conservative forces get into power at EU level, there will inevitably be differences of view between the nations that make up that conservatism. It will therefore be harder to make it work at the European level in the European institutions. So that’s also why I think the solution is to wind back, to revive and give more powers back to the nation states.
Read more interviews:
