August 20, 2024 • 14 mins
Ukrainian troops have strengthened positions and expanded territory in Russia's Kursk region, nearly two weeks into their incursion.
Ukraine says it has seized more than 80 settlements since August 6 in the biggest invasion of Russia since World War II.
Coming two and a half years into Russian’s invasion of Ukraine, why has Ukraine decided to return the favour, and what does this incursion mean on a wider scale?
Today on The Front Page, University of Waikato international law professor Alexander Gillespie is with us to analyse this new twist in the long running war.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Paddy Fox
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Jelda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Ukrainian
troops have strengthened positions an expanded territory in Russia's Kursk
region nearly two weeks into their incursion. Ukraine says it
(00:27):
seized more than eighty settlements since August six in the
biggest invasion of Russia since World War Two. Coming two
and a half years into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, why
has Ukraine decided to return the favor and what does
this incursion mean on a wider scale? Today on the
(00:49):
front Page, University of Waikato International law professor Alexander Gillespie
is with us to analyze this new twist in the
long running war. First off, this incursion really came out
of the blue. Can you explain to us why Ukraine
(01:09):
entering Russian territory is such a significant deal.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Well, in terms of strategy, the Ukrainians are trying to
make the Russians feel a bit more weight of the
war because the conflict so far has been almost exclusively
on Ukrainian territory. In terms of the wider imiplications, The
problem is that the war is contained if it stays
within the borders of the Ukraine. But once you start
(01:35):
finding incursions going into other countries, especially into Russia, the
chances of more retaliation are likely. Your bigger risk is
not that it goes into Russia, but that it spreads
into neighboring NATO aligned countries around the Ukraine. There's also
a lot of talk in Europe about the deployment of
Western soldiers into the actual Ukraine, so Makron was suggesting
(01:58):
that if the war starts to go badly, he would
consider deploying French troops into the Ukraine. But once you
allow non Ukrainian troops to go into the area, the
risk of it escalating increases exponentially.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
What does Ukraine want to achieve by this incursion.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
I think they're probably trying to put some pressure back
on Putin so he can see that his citizens will
not feel secure and that the Ukrainians have the ability
to push the war back into Russian territory. He may
also be trying to use it as a leveraging point
if peace negotiations start, but the chances of peace negotiations
forthwith are quite remote.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Zelenski spoke last night, but last night he give an
indication of what's really the incursion into Russia is all about,
basically denying Russia the ability to make war on Ukraine,
destruction of the bridges, pushing back of Russian forces. But
he also said that Ukraine cannot advance infinitely and forever
into Russia, so at some stage they will pull back
(02:59):
to a buffers while not expanding endless troops, endless material
trying to move forward, which will just end up draining
the Ukrainian military rather than achieving anything positive.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
What limitations are there on Ukraine as they undertake this incursion.
They're currently getting arms supplied by much of NATO. Can
they use those weapons in this incursion.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
A number of the weapons that they've got have been
increasing in range, and the understanding was that as they
were increasing in range that they would be able to
strike territory which is outside of the Ukraine. And so
this is particularly with regards to missiles, and the United
States and Britain have both made clear that expanding the
(03:46):
war more towards Russian territory is a decision for the
Ukrainians to make, even though it's the western countries that
are giving them the military kit to do this.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
We've currently seen Ukraine take hundreds of prisoners of war.
They've also blown up several bridges and taken control of
a number of towns in the region where they are.
Where does this set within international law and does that
even matter here when they're essentially retaliating against a country
that's invaded them in the first place.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
The rules around the taking of prisoners are dealt with
very explicitly, and there's been a general compliance by both
the Ukraine and Russia with the taking in some cases
the exchange of prisoners. That part of the conflict seems
to be holding in accordance broadly with international law. Where
you've got differences is where there's been targeting of civilian
(04:38):
infrastructure in civilian areas, which is illegal. You've also got
the major problem of the transfer of children for which
mister Pewden has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
The actual invasion of Russia is a retaliation, which is
because of what happened when the Russians illegally invaded the
(04:59):
yuk It's kind of a quid.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Pro quo, and am I right in thinking that this
is the first kind of incursion on Russian territory since
World War II.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Yeah, that would be correct. There's certainly been concerned around
former Willstall Bank countries in nineteen fifty six with Hungary,
and there were disturbances in Czechoslovakia in the late sixties
as well, but not think in actual Russia itself. It
changes the dynamic and it challenges the idea that Putin
can completely protect his own citizens. But so far, even
(05:32):
though they've destroyed bridges, they seem to be trying. It
appears to fight quite clean and keep civilians and certain
civilian technologies out of harm's way. How much this will
be able to be contained in the future is.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Unknown in terms of this incursion. How is the rest
of the world feeling about this kind of escalation.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Everyone's nervous. It's because the more the war spreads in
terms of other countries getting in, the technology changing and
allowing people to strike at greater distances, or actually invading
other people's countries, it expands it. We've managed to keep
it contained so far because it's been kept tightly within
(06:13):
the borders of the Ukraine, but the Ukrainians are now saying, well,
it's unfair that it just falls on us. We want
to push back. Your risk is that Putin responds with
overwhelming force if he considers it to be a strategic necessity.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Well, Russia's continue to advance in eastern Ukraine despite this incursion.
Does that show the incursion has kind of done little
to slow Russia's progression.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, it's opened up a different front, and the thinking
will be that as you open up one front, the
Russian to have to redeploy their troops from an offensive
position to a defensive position, and so that may slow
the attack in the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
What could the consequences internally be for President Vladimir Putin
in the fact Russia's borders have now being breached on
his watch. Doesn't this defeat some of his narrative about
Russia's strength.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I think it certainly challenges the idea that his country
is immune from foreign incursions. But his strength as a
leader of Russia is almost unprecedented. There's no one who's
going to challenge him. There may have been a time
previously when we had the mutiny last year, but right
now he is the undisputed leader of Russia and I
(07:33):
can't see anyone trying to threaten that position.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
And on the other side, I guess does Ukraine need
to be careful about how far their soldiers actually go
that they don't risk turning the Russian public against them
as well.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I think it's not just the Russian public, it's also
the NATO public that they have to be concerned about,
because no one in Europe wants this war to expand.
As bad as it is for the Ukrainians, your worst
case scenario is it a palls in other countries. In
every kilometer more you advance into Russia, the greater chances
are that you will get a significant retaliation against the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
What do you think the risk is that Putin and
Russia could retaliate in some extreme way for this incursion?
Is this this sort of incident that could push them
over the edge?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Do you think it depends how successful it is. I mean,
the Russians, wind they've annexed those two areas in the
eastern Ukraine, have made very clear that if these were
recaptured in total by the Ukrainian forces as assisted by NATO,
they would consider this justification for a nuclear strike. And
so right now I expect that they're waiting for the
(08:41):
Ukrainians just to retreat back around their border, not actually
trying to entrench that territory, but to actually take Russian
territory is a fundamental objective that will not be allowed
by Russia. They won't allow any of their territory to
be occupied permanently, and that includes now also the annex
territory in the Euston part of the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Do you think that this is a turning point in
the war or do you think it's kind of like
a more of a precursor.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I think the turning point in the war will happen
on November the seventh, which is the American election, and
that's when you're going to either see mister Trump come
to power or Miss Harris will remain in power. And
that's where you will see the determination, because Trump's made
clear if he achieves the White House, he wants to
have a pie steal cut very quickly. Whereas if Harris
retains to the White House, then you're going to see
(09:28):
a continuation of what's already happening.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
As Vice President Kamala, Harris has been a strong supporter
of Ukraine and met with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at
least six times since the war began. Former President Donald
Trump is less full throated in his support of Ukraine.
Trump has frequently complained that the US spends too much
on the war in Ukraine and threatened to cut AID.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
I know that we speak about this often, but New
Zealand is often in the sideline of kind of minor
nations around the world listening and looking in from Afar.
But is there anything more that we can do other
than what we've already done.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
We have done exceptionally well. I wouldn't say we've got
a minor role. I'd say that we are definitely not
neutral in this conflict. We provide assistance, we provide training,
we help with refugees, We give as much support as
we can to the Ukraine. We support the International Criminal Court,
we support the International Court of Justice. Our voice is
(10:28):
loud and it's being heard.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
What would happen if France does in fact send its
troops in, you.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Would then have a potential conflict between NATO and Russia.
And that is a nightmare scenario because if foreign troops
were involved, if NATO troops were involved, and then Putin
decided to strike at the base of those countries or
the transport of those troops. You might find that an
(10:54):
attack against one NATO member is an attack against all,
and you would get an overwhelming response. It's a nightmare scenario.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And in terms of Russia, is there always a threat
of something catastrophic like the use of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It's in the background. It seems to have calmed down
a little, but the rhetoric of Putin towards the end
of last year, when you had the first Ukrainian offensive
was very much that he will consider the use of
these if it's in the strategic interests of Russia, and
the strategic interests of Russia involved not losing territory.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
The use of nuclear weapons is possible in the event
of an exceptional threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of our country. In exceptional cases. I don't think this
is such a case right now. There is no necessity
for that.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And so you're almost in a situation where you want
the Ukraine to be able to itself, but not too
much because if it provokes Hotin and he's pushed into
a corner. He's certainly made clear in his rhetoric he
would consider using nuclear weapons. That's correct.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Do you think he actually will though, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I think my guess is it's very unlikely because there's
no winner if that situation happened, because it would escalate
very quickly and to have global consequences. I think it's
more likely that you will find that both sides will
eventually tire, because right now the war is unsustainable in
terms of manpower and the amount of soldiers being killed
(12:36):
on both the Russian side and the Ukrainian side. It's
looking a little bit like the First World War in
terms of attrition. The hard part when you come to
what a peace steal look like, which would be a treaty,
and the questions are what is a number of questions
that The first one is what territory would go where,
because if you allow some of the eastern Ukraine to
go towards Russia, you've allowed an annexation, which is illegal
(12:59):
and international law. You've got the question of what would
happen with the war criminals, because mister Putin right now
is indicted and he's very unlikely to be willing to
surrender himself to the Hague. And then finally you've got
the question of what will happen in terms of security
alliances because the biggest issue of all is whether the
(13:22):
Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO, because mister Putin
is saying there's no way on earth he will let
them join NATO. But for the Ukrainians, NATO is the
only security blanket they would accept.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Thanks for joining us out that said, for this episode
of the Front Page, you can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at zat herold dot co
dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sells
with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
(13:55):
the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Jelda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. Ukrainian
troops have strengthened positions an expanded territory in Russia's Kursk
region nearly two weeks into their incursion. Ukraine says it
(00:27):
seized more than eighty settlements since August six in the
biggest invasion of Russia since World War Two. Coming two
and a half years into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, why
has Ukraine decided to return the favor and what does
this incursion mean on a wider scale? Today on the
(00:49):
front Page, University of Waikato International law professor Alexander Gillespie
is with us to analyze this new twist in the
long running war. First off, this incursion really came out
of the blue. Can you explain to us why Ukraine
(01:09):
entering Russian territory is such a significant deal.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Well, in terms of strategy, the Ukrainians are trying to
make the Russians feel a bit more weight of the
war because the conflict so far has been almost exclusively
on Ukrainian territory. In terms of the wider imiplications, The
problem is that the war is contained if it stays
within the borders of the Ukraine. But once you start
(01:35):
finding incursions going into other countries, especially into Russia, the
chances of more retaliation are likely. Your bigger risk is
not that it goes into Russia, but that it spreads
into neighboring NATO aligned countries around the Ukraine. There's also
a lot of talk in Europe about the deployment of
Western soldiers into the actual Ukraine, so Makron was suggesting
(01:58):
that if the war starts to go badly, he would
consider deploying French troops into the Ukraine. But once you
allow non Ukrainian troops to go into the area, the
risk of it escalating increases exponentially.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
What does Ukraine want to achieve by this incursion.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
I think they're probably trying to put some pressure back
on Putin so he can see that his citizens will
not feel secure and that the Ukrainians have the ability
to push the war back into Russian territory. He may
also be trying to use it as a leveraging point
if peace negotiations start, but the chances of peace negotiations
forthwith are quite remote.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Zelenski spoke last night, but last night he give an
indication of what's really the incursion into Russia is all about,
basically denying Russia the ability to make war on Ukraine,
destruction of the bridges, pushing back of Russian forces. But
he also said that Ukraine cannot advance infinitely and forever
into Russia, so at some stage they will pull back
(02:59):
to a buffers while not expanding endless troops, endless material
trying to move forward, which will just end up draining
the Ukrainian military rather than achieving anything positive.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
What limitations are there on Ukraine as they undertake this incursion.
They're currently getting arms supplied by much of NATO. Can
they use those weapons in this incursion.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
A number of the weapons that they've got have been
increasing in range, and the understanding was that as they
were increasing in range that they would be able to
strike territory which is outside of the Ukraine. And so
this is particularly with regards to missiles, and the United
States and Britain have both made clear that expanding the
(03:46):
war more towards Russian territory is a decision for the
Ukrainians to make, even though it's the western countries that
are giving them the military kit to do this.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
We've currently seen Ukraine take hundreds of prisoners of war.
They've also blown up several bridges and taken control of
a number of towns in the region where they are.
Where does this set within international law and does that
even matter here when they're essentially retaliating against a country
that's invaded them in the first place.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
The rules around the taking of prisoners are dealt with
very explicitly, and there's been a general compliance by both
the Ukraine and Russia with the taking in some cases
the exchange of prisoners. That part of the conflict seems
to be holding in accordance broadly with international law. Where
you've got differences is where there's been targeting of civilian
(04:38):
infrastructure in civilian areas, which is illegal. You've also got
the major problem of the transfer of children for which
mister Pewden has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
The actual invasion of Russia is a retaliation, which is
because of what happened when the Russians illegally invaded the
(04:59):
yuk It's kind of a quid.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Pro quo, and am I right in thinking that this
is the first kind of incursion on Russian territory since
World War II.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Yeah, that would be correct. There's certainly been concerned around
former Willstall Bank countries in nineteen fifty six with Hungary,
and there were disturbances in Czechoslovakia in the late sixties
as well, but not think in actual Russia itself. It
changes the dynamic and it challenges the idea that Putin
can completely protect his own citizens. But so far, even
(05:32):
though they've destroyed bridges, they seem to be trying. It
appears to fight quite clean and keep civilians and certain
civilian technologies out of harm's way. How much this will
be able to be contained in the future is.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Unknown in terms of this incursion. How is the rest
of the world feeling about this kind of escalation.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Everyone's nervous. It's because the more the war spreads in
terms of other countries getting in, the technology changing and
allowing people to strike at greater distances, or actually invading
other people's countries, it expands it. We've managed to keep
it contained so far because it's been kept tightly within
(06:13):
the borders of the Ukraine, but the Ukrainians are now saying, well,
it's unfair that it just falls on us. We want
to push back. Your risk is that Putin responds with
overwhelming force if he considers it to be a strategic necessity.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Well, Russia's continue to advance in eastern Ukraine despite this incursion.
Does that show the incursion has kind of done little
to slow Russia's progression.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, it's opened up a different front, and the thinking
will be that as you open up one front, the
Russian to have to redeploy their troops from an offensive
position to a defensive position, and so that may slow
the attack in the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
What could the consequences internally be for President Vladimir Putin
in the fact Russia's borders have now being breached on
his watch. Doesn't this defeat some of his narrative about
Russia's strength.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I think it certainly challenges the idea that his country
is immune from foreign incursions. But his strength as a
leader of Russia is almost unprecedented. There's no one who's
going to challenge him. There may have been a time
previously when we had the mutiny last year, but right
now he is the undisputed leader of Russia and I
(07:33):
can't see anyone trying to threaten that position.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
And on the other side, I guess does Ukraine need
to be careful about how far their soldiers actually go
that they don't risk turning the Russian public against them
as well.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I think it's not just the Russian public, it's also
the NATO public that they have to be concerned about,
because no one in Europe wants this war to expand.
As bad as it is for the Ukrainians, your worst
case scenario is it a palls in other countries. In
every kilometer more you advance into Russia, the greater chances
are that you will get a significant retaliation against the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
What do you think the risk is that Putin and
Russia could retaliate in some extreme way for this incursion?
Is this this sort of incident that could push them
over the edge?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Do you think it depends how successful it is. I mean,
the Russians, wind they've annexed those two areas in the
eastern Ukraine, have made very clear that if these were
recaptured in total by the Ukrainian forces as assisted by NATO,
they would consider this justification for a nuclear strike. And
so right now I expect that they're waiting for the
(08:41):
Ukrainians just to retreat back around their border, not actually
trying to entrench that territory, but to actually take Russian
territory is a fundamental objective that will not be allowed
by Russia. They won't allow any of their territory to
be occupied permanently, and that includes now also the annex
territory in the Euston part of the Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Do you think that this is a turning point in
the war or do you think it's kind of like
a more of a precursor.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I think the turning point in the war will happen
on November the seventh, which is the American election, and
that's when you're going to either see mister Trump come
to power or Miss Harris will remain in power. And
that's where you will see the determination, because Trump's made
clear if he achieves the White House, he wants to
have a pie steal cut very quickly. Whereas if Harris
retains to the White House, then you're going to see
(09:28):
a continuation of what's already happening.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
As Vice President Kamala, Harris has been a strong supporter
of Ukraine and met with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at
least six times since the war began. Former President Donald
Trump is less full throated in his support of Ukraine.
Trump has frequently complained that the US spends too much
on the war in Ukraine and threatened to cut AID.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
I know that we speak about this often, but New
Zealand is often in the sideline of kind of minor
nations around the world listening and looking in from Afar.
But is there anything more that we can do other
than what we've already done.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
We have done exceptionally well. I wouldn't say we've got
a minor role. I'd say that we are definitely not
neutral in this conflict. We provide assistance, we provide training,
we help with refugees, We give as much support as
we can to the Ukraine. We support the International Criminal Court,
we support the International Court of Justice. Our voice is
(10:28):
loud and it's being heard.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
What would happen if France does in fact send its
troops in, you.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Would then have a potential conflict between NATO and Russia.
And that is a nightmare scenario because if foreign troops
were involved, if NATO troops were involved, and then Putin
decided to strike at the base of those countries or
the transport of those troops. You might find that an
(10:54):
attack against one NATO member is an attack against all,
and you would get an overwhelming response. It's a nightmare scenario.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And in terms of Russia, is there always a threat
of something catastrophic like the use of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It's in the background. It seems to have calmed down
a little, but the rhetoric of Putin towards the end
of last year, when you had the first Ukrainian offensive
was very much that he will consider the use of
these if it's in the strategic interests of Russia, and
the strategic interests of Russia involved not losing territory.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
The use of nuclear weapons is possible in the event
of an exceptional threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of our country. In exceptional cases. I don't think this
is such a case right now. There is no necessity
for that.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And so you're almost in a situation where you want
the Ukraine to be able to itself, but not too
much because if it provokes Hotin and he's pushed into
a corner. He's certainly made clear in his rhetoric he
would consider using nuclear weapons. That's correct.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Do you think he actually will though, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I think my guess is it's very unlikely because there's
no winner if that situation happened, because it would escalate
very quickly and to have global consequences. I think it's
more likely that you will find that both sides will
eventually tire, because right now the war is unsustainable in
terms of manpower and the amount of soldiers being killed
(12:36):
on both the Russian side and the Ukrainian side. It's
looking a little bit like the First World War in
terms of attrition. The hard part when you come to
what a peace steal look like, which would be a treaty,
and the questions are what is a number of questions
that The first one is what territory would go where,
because if you allow some of the eastern Ukraine to
go towards Russia, you've allowed an annexation, which is illegal
(12:59):
and international law. You've got the question of what would
happen with the war criminals, because mister Putin right now
is indicted and he's very unlikely to be willing to
surrender himself to the Hague. And then finally you've got
the question of what will happen in terms of security
alliances because the biggest issue of all is whether the
(13:22):
Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO, because mister Putin
is saying there's no way on earth he will let
them join NATO. But for the Ukrainians, NATO is the
only security blanket they would accept.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Thanks for joining us out that said, for this episode
of the Front Page, you can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at zat herold dot co
dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sells
with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
(13:55):
the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.