June 2, 2025 • 15 mins
As the search to explain the Coalition’s disastrous election results continues, there’s one group being singled out inside Liberal campaign headquarters: the right-wing lobby, Advance.
Flush with a multi-million dollar war chest, Advance promised to “take back” the country – yet Labor won 17 new seats and the Greens vote barely moved.
As Advance and the Liberals blame each other for the failures, there are questions about whether the two will ever work together again.
Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper, Jason Koutsoukis, on how Advance “siphoned” Liberal funds, muddied its message, and yet is still claiming victory.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Special correspondent for The Saturday Paper, Jason Koutsoukis.
Photo: Credit: AAP Image / Jono Searle
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 (00:01):
From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
As the search to explain the coalition's disastrous election results
continues inside Liberal campaign headquarters, there's one group being singled out,
the right wing lobby Advance. Flush with a multimillion dollar
war chest. Advance promised to.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Take back the country.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yet Labor won seventeen new seats and the Greens vote
fairly moved. With Advance and the Liberals blaming each other
for the failure, there are questions about whether the two
will ever work together again. Today National correspondent for the
Saturday Paper Jason Katsukus on how Advanced siphoned liberal funds,
muddied its message and yet is still claiming victory. It's Tuesday,
(00:56):
June three, Jason. The lobby group Advance, it poured more
than fifteen million dollars into.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
The election campaign. That's just gone.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Tell me a bit about the strategy though, and what
informed the direction that Advance took with its campaign.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Well, Ruby, I think they had at least a fifteen
point six million dollar war chest. That's just the money
that they raised in the last financial year and what
they raised to spend in the financial year. That we're
just coming to the end of we don't actually know yet,
and we won't know that until October when those returns
(01:37):
are revealed by the Australian Electoral Commission. And I think
advances strategy was to spend as much of that money
as they could on a very aggressive campaign that first
targeted the Australian Greens, and I think we saw a
lot of that roll out in the second half of
last year, and then from the beginning of this year
(01:59):
we saw ants really try to go after the alban
Ezy government and they built an election campaign around this
slogan week Woke and sending us broke.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Right, So tell me more about that campaign.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
So this was a campaign that featured a grainy black
and white photograph of Anthony Albanesi and the tagline weak,
woke and sending us broke. I was trying to kind
of tap into all of those things that I guess
Advance felt had sort of shone through during the Voice
(02:37):
referendum campaign, that this was a sign of weakness on
the part of the Prime minister. He's not displaying this
kind of red meat conservative strongman type figure. Instead, he's
caving into this pressure to Advance reconciliation within Indigenous Australians.
(02:58):
And also you know, it was seen as this very
kind of woke idea, this idea of an Indigenous voice
to Parliament. The seniors broke was kind of, I guess,
an attempt to tap into this cost of living crisis,
but I felt in a kind of indirect way, it's
not really clear how the Albinezi government has been sending
(03:20):
the country broke. Over the last three years.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
The Bedfool government has wasted millions of dollars funding what's
projects like decolonizing breastfeeding and anti racist dentist curriculum and
a drag show beside.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
This, authorized by sanderbook Advanced Australia Camera.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
They did put a lot of money behind this campaign.
They poured about one point seven million dollars into just
advertising on Google and Meta alone during the actual election campaign.
How much the national advertising television advertising campaign cost with
the billboards that went with it in a lot of
electorates around the country, we don't yet know how much
(04:00):
much that cost, but I would guess it was in
the order of many millions of dollars. They declared that
they would ask the Albanesi government and crush the Australian
Greens and it didn't turn out that way.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
No, it didn't. And you mentioned the referendum.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Advance obviously had a lot of success with its campaigning
for the no vote there, which then informed the way
to approach this election. So why didn't it work this
time around? Where did Advance's campaign go wrong? Why were
they not able to influence voters in the same way.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, this is a great question and the answer wasn't
immediately obvious to me. I guess if you just look
at what happened, maybe gained seventeen seats, which is certainly
not asking the Albanesi government. It was the I think
the best ever result for the Australian Labor Party at
a federal election going back to the beginning of federation.
(04:59):
They really didn't make that much difference with the Greens either.
The National Greens vote dipped by a minuscule point zero
five percent, So I don't think you could say that
Advance had any impact on either of the two parties
that it was targeting. Now, I did speak to a
few experts about this. Andrea Carson is Professor of Political
(05:20):
Communication at Latrope University. She's the lead author of a
report produced by Latrop University that looked at the referendum
that was titled Influences and Messages, and a big part
of that report was the impact that Advance had on
the No campaign. But I think, according to Andrea Carson,
the big difference is that a referendum is just a
(05:43):
binary question. It's yes or no, and a lot of
people had doubts about the Voice for different reasons. Even
though it was something that was put forward by the
Albanezy government. Opposing the referendum didn't mean that you oppose
the Albenzy government itself.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So it's advanced confused potential No voters with potential coalition voters,
assuming they would be one and the same, and they weren't.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
They assumed that everyone that voted no would carry that
no vote forward and vote against the Albenzi government when
the federal election campaign, and they built that campaign against
the Greens and the Labor government very much around the
same themes that they used during the Voice campaign. They
even had the Prime Minister in a yes T shirt
(06:31):
on those weak work and sending us broke billboards, and
every chance they got they tried to reference the Voice campaign.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
But the point is, I suppose that none of that
shifted votes.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
That's right. They tried to really keep the Voice in
the minds of voters, but they didn't really shift any
votes by doing that. So you have to wonder just
how effective they were in opposing the referendum. Yes, they
got a great result there, but I don't think any
of the tactics or the campaign strategies they used were really,
(07:04):
in the end that innovative. It's pretty easy to oppose
a referendum. Only eight referendums have succeeded in the time
since federation, and it was just probably a simple case
that voters didn't understand it, they didn't really like the
idea of what the Voice represented, and they in the
end they voted against it. But when it comes to
(07:25):
a federal election, there's a lot more at stake, and
it seemed that Advance weren't able to convert that success
they'd had in the referendum into the federal election campaign.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
So can Advance survive this? That's after the break, Jason.
As the election campaign unfolded, we saw senior members of
the Coalition use Advance as lines of attack on Albneasy
and the Labor Party.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
We're starting to see people saying, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
What, this Prime minister, he's weak, he's woke, and he's
sending us broke, as Advance is making very clear. Since
their loss, You've been speaking to people inside the Liberal parties.
So how are they now reflecting on the campaign that
Advance ran and what it meant for them.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I think there's a lot of frustration inside the Liberal
Party when it comes to groups like Advance, because the
Liberal Party feels or believes that a lot of the
money that went to Advance was money that could have
gone to the Liberal Party. That one person I spoke
to said that precious resources were siphoned away by Advance
(08:42):
from the Liberal Party. This is money that might otherwise
have given the Liberal Party a better chance of getting
its message through to voters. Other Liberal Party strategists that
I spoke to said that they could not point to
a single message put out by Advance that worked with
un sided voters, and that the ads that Advance ran
(09:04):
also reinforced the perception that the Liberal Party was joined
at the hip to Donald Trump, that that very kind
of Trump vibe that Advance put into its campaign messaging
ended up giving right leaning voters permission to kind of
bypass the Liberal Party altogether and go straight for One
Nation or the even more right wing trumpet of Patriots Party,
(09:28):
and that many of those voters didn't even preference the
Liberal Party, that they ended up preferencing the Labor Party.
Another advisor I spoke to said that they believed advances
messaging probably alienated undecided voters and backfired so comprehensively that
it cost the coalition seats in Victoria and Queensland.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Okay, so, according to the Liberals, Advance actually harmed their
election chants. As I'm sure Advance isn't coppying that though.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Have you spoken to them? What are they saying.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Matthew Sheen, who's the executive director of Advance, is a
pretty elusive character. I did manage to speak to him
a few times towards the end of last year and
in the lead up to the federal election this year,
but none of those conversations were on the record, and
he didn't really want to speak to us for this story.
(10:21):
He's a pretty cagey character. He's not accepting any of
this blame. He did give one interview after the election,
and that was to Guardian Australia, and in that conversation
he blamed the poor campaign performance of the Coalition for
the coalition result. He said Advance could not be blamed
for that at all, and instead he blamed bedwetting anonymous liberals.
(10:45):
He insists that the week work sending us broke campaign
was the only campaign line that did any damage to
the Labor vote, but seeing as Labour's primary vote went
up by two point three percent, I think it's difficult
to see where or how the Advanced campaign made any difference.
(11:07):
Matthew Sheen has also sent out a lot of emails
since May third. I guess trying to reassure those supporters
that they have the Advancers still knows what it's doing,
and I think a lot of the real point of
those emails is to keep the fundraising machine operating and
trying to say to people, will look, we said that
(11:28):
we'd destroy the Greens and we had some success doing
that that they lost three of their four Lower House seats.
But it's difficult again to justify that because in many
of the seats where the Greens went backwards or even
lost their seat in Parliament, Advance wasn't even campaigning, especially
in the seat of Melbourne where the former Greens leader
(11:50):
Adam Batt did lose his seat and Advance ran no
advertising at all in Melbourne, So it's difficult to find
any evidence that Advance made a difference, and so you
do have to wonder just what is the point of
this group going forward?
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah, do you get the sense that Advance has now
squandered its political relevance because it's campaigning was so unsuccessful.
What do you think its future is as a lobby group.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Well, I think what Advance is trying to do is
emulate some of these super packs that we see in
the US. You know, these public action committees that raise
money and kind of indirectly help candidates that they're aligned with.
The big difference between Australia and the US is that
in the US you've got to motivate people or incentivize
(12:40):
people to actually come out and vote. But in Australia
we have compulsory voting and so we don't have that trouble.
And so because we have compulsory voting in Australia, I
think groups like Advance or get Up on the Left
just art as effective. Everybody is going to go and vote,
and you've got to try to influence their choices. An
(13:02):
Advance doesn't seem to really know how to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
So Jason, given what they're saying about each other.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right now, does it seem likely to you that Advance
and the coalition or at least the Liberal Party will
work together again.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I think they will, Ruby because a lot of the
senior people are at Advance are people like Tony Abbott,
to Center Namberjimper Price, and I think it's the right
wing of the Liberal Party is very closely aligned with Advance,
and so I think that will continue. Advance will stay
(13:38):
very close to that far right of the Liberal Party.
But I think what we're also going to see is
more pushback from the moderate wing of the Liberal Party
that doesn't really like what Advance is doing and doesn't
really like what to Center Nampergimper Price is doing either
or Tony Abbott for that matter. And I think this
is a fight for control of the Liberal Party. Advances
(14:00):
on one side of that battle and Liberal moderates are
on the other side of it. Who wins will probably
determine what role Advance plays in the next election campaign
and how closely it remains aligned with the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
We just don't know yet, Jason, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Ruby, it's great to have you back in the chair
and a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
To talk to you well. Thank you, it's great to
be back.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Also in the news today, Prime Minister Anthony Alberzi has
dismissed US Defense Secretary Pete has Geth's request to hike
defense spending. Pete hag Seth has urged US allies, including Australia,
to share the burden and lift defense spending to five
percent of GDP, warning that Beijing is credibly preparing to
potentially use military force to alter the balance of power
(14:54):
in the Indo Pacific. But Albanesi said Australia had already
committed to an additional ten billion dollars int fence across
the next four years. And Ukraine says it has completed
its biggest long range attack of the war with Russia
after using smuggle drones to launch a series of major
strikes on forty Russian warplanes at four military bases. President
(15:17):
Blob Mizelenski said one hundred and seventeen drones were used
in the attacks, which come as Russian and Ukrainian negotiators
had to Istanbul for a second round of peace talks.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Thanks for listening.
From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
As the search to explain the coalition's disastrous election results
continues inside Liberal campaign headquarters, there's one group being singled out,
the right wing lobby Advance. Flush with a multimillion dollar
war chest. Advance promised to.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Take back the country.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Yet Labor won seventeen new seats and the Greens vote
fairly moved. With Advance and the Liberals blaming each other
for the failure, there are questions about whether the two
will ever work together again. Today National correspondent for the
Saturday Paper Jason Katsukus on how Advanced siphoned liberal funds,
muddied its message and yet is still claiming victory. It's Tuesday,
(00:56):
June three, Jason. The lobby group Advance, it poured more
than fifteen million dollars into.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
The election campaign. That's just gone.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Tell me a bit about the strategy though, and what
informed the direction that Advance took with its campaign.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Well, Ruby, I think they had at least a fifteen
point six million dollar war chest. That's just the money
that they raised in the last financial year and what
they raised to spend in the financial year. That we're
just coming to the end of we don't actually know yet,
and we won't know that until October when those returns
(01:37):
are revealed by the Australian Electoral Commission. And I think
advances strategy was to spend as much of that money
as they could on a very aggressive campaign that first
targeted the Australian Greens, and I think we saw a
lot of that roll out in the second half of
last year, and then from the beginning of this year
(01:59):
we saw ants really try to go after the alban
Ezy government and they built an election campaign around this
slogan week Woke and sending us broke.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Right, So tell me more about that campaign.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
So this was a campaign that featured a grainy black
and white photograph of Anthony Albanesi and the tagline weak,
woke and sending us broke. I was trying to kind
of tap into all of those things that I guess
Advance felt had sort of shone through during the Voice
(02:37):
referendum campaign, that this was a sign of weakness on
the part of the Prime minister. He's not displaying this
kind of red meat conservative strongman type figure. Instead, he's
caving into this pressure to Advance reconciliation within Indigenous Australians.
(02:58):
And also you know, it was seen as this very
kind of woke idea, this idea of an Indigenous voice
to Parliament. The seniors broke was kind of, I guess,
an attempt to tap into this cost of living crisis,
but I felt in a kind of indirect way, it's
not really clear how the Albinezi government has been sending
(03:20):
the country broke. Over the last three years.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
The Bedfool government has wasted millions of dollars funding what's
projects like decolonizing breastfeeding and anti racist dentist curriculum and
a drag show beside.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
This, authorized by sanderbook Advanced Australia Camera.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
They did put a lot of money behind this campaign.
They poured about one point seven million dollars into just
advertising on Google and Meta alone during the actual election campaign.
How much the national advertising television advertising campaign cost with
the billboards that went with it in a lot of
electorates around the country, we don't yet know how much
(04:00):
much that cost, but I would guess it was in
the order of many millions of dollars. They declared that
they would ask the Albanesi government and crush the Australian
Greens and it didn't turn out that way.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
No, it didn't. And you mentioned the referendum.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Advance obviously had a lot of success with its campaigning
for the no vote there, which then informed the way
to approach this election. So why didn't it work this
time around? Where did Advance's campaign go wrong? Why were
they not able to influence voters in the same way.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Well, this is a great question and the answer wasn't
immediately obvious to me. I guess if you just look
at what happened, maybe gained seventeen seats, which is certainly
not asking the Albanesi government. It was the I think
the best ever result for the Australian Labor Party at
a federal election going back to the beginning of federation.
(04:59):
They really didn't make that much difference with the Greens either.
The National Greens vote dipped by a minuscule point zero
five percent, So I don't think you could say that
Advance had any impact on either of the two parties
that it was targeting. Now, I did speak to a
few experts about this. Andrea Carson is Professor of Political
(05:20):
Communication at Latrope University. She's the lead author of a
report produced by Latrop University that looked at the referendum
that was titled Influences and Messages, and a big part
of that report was the impact that Advance had on
the No campaign. But I think, according to Andrea Carson,
the big difference is that a referendum is just a
(05:43):
binary question. It's yes or no, and a lot of
people had doubts about the Voice for different reasons. Even
though it was something that was put forward by the
Albanezy government. Opposing the referendum didn't mean that you oppose
the Albenzy government itself.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So it's advanced confused potential No voters with potential coalition voters,
assuming they would be one and the same, and they weren't.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
They assumed that everyone that voted no would carry that
no vote forward and vote against the Albenzi government when
the federal election campaign, and they built that campaign against
the Greens and the Labor government very much around the
same themes that they used during the Voice campaign. They
even had the Prime Minister in a yes T shirt
(06:31):
on those weak work and sending us broke billboards, and
every chance they got they tried to reference the Voice campaign.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
But the point is, I suppose that none of that
shifted votes.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
That's right. They tried to really keep the Voice in
the minds of voters, but they didn't really shift any
votes by doing that. So you have to wonder just
how effective they were in opposing the referendum. Yes, they
got a great result there, but I don't think any
of the tactics or the campaign strategies they used were really,
(07:04):
in the end that innovative. It's pretty easy to oppose
a referendum. Only eight referendums have succeeded in the time
since federation, and it was just probably a simple case
that voters didn't understand it, they didn't really like the
idea of what the Voice represented, and they in the
end they voted against it. But when it comes to
(07:25):
a federal election, there's a lot more at stake, and
it seemed that Advance weren't able to convert that success
they'd had in the referendum into the federal election campaign.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
So can Advance survive this? That's after the break, Jason.
As the election campaign unfolded, we saw senior members of
the Coalition use Advance as lines of attack on Albneasy
and the Labor Party.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
We're starting to see people saying, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
What, this Prime minister, he's weak, he's woke, and he's
sending us broke, as Advance is making very clear. Since
their loss, You've been speaking to people inside the Liberal parties.
So how are they now reflecting on the campaign that
Advance ran and what it meant for them.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I think there's a lot of frustration inside the Liberal
Party when it comes to groups like Advance, because the
Liberal Party feels or believes that a lot of the
money that went to Advance was money that could have
gone to the Liberal Party. That one person I spoke
to said that precious resources were siphoned away by Advance
(08:42):
from the Liberal Party. This is money that might otherwise
have given the Liberal Party a better chance of getting
its message through to voters. Other Liberal Party strategists that
I spoke to said that they could not point to
a single message put out by Advance that worked with
un sided voters, and that the ads that Advance ran
(09:04):
also reinforced the perception that the Liberal Party was joined
at the hip to Donald Trump, that that very kind
of Trump vibe that Advance put into its campaign messaging
ended up giving right leaning voters permission to kind of
bypass the Liberal Party altogether and go straight for One
Nation or the even more right wing trumpet of Patriots Party,
(09:28):
and that many of those voters didn't even preference the
Liberal Party, that they ended up preferencing the Labor Party.
Another advisor I spoke to said that they believed advances
messaging probably alienated undecided voters and backfired so comprehensively that
it cost the coalition seats in Victoria and Queensland.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Okay, so, according to the Liberals, Advance actually harmed their
election chants. As I'm sure Advance isn't coppying that though.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Have you spoken to them? What are they saying.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Matthew Sheen, who's the executive director of Advance, is a
pretty elusive character. I did manage to speak to him
a few times towards the end of last year and
in the lead up to the federal election this year,
but none of those conversations were on the record, and
he didn't really want to speak to us for this story.
(10:21):
He's a pretty cagey character. He's not accepting any of
this blame. He did give one interview after the election,
and that was to Guardian Australia, and in that conversation
he blamed the poor campaign performance of the Coalition for
the coalition result. He said Advance could not be blamed
for that at all, and instead he blamed bedwetting anonymous liberals.
(10:45):
He insists that the week work sending us broke campaign
was the only campaign line that did any damage to
the Labor vote, but seeing as Labour's primary vote went
up by two point three percent, I think it's difficult
to see where or how the Advanced campaign made any difference.
(11:07):
Matthew Sheen has also sent out a lot of emails
since May third. I guess trying to reassure those supporters
that they have the Advancers still knows what it's doing,
and I think a lot of the real point of
those emails is to keep the fundraising machine operating and
trying to say to people, will look, we said that
(11:28):
we'd destroy the Greens and we had some success doing
that that they lost three of their four Lower House seats.
But it's difficult again to justify that because in many
of the seats where the Greens went backwards or even
lost their seat in Parliament, Advance wasn't even campaigning, especially
in the seat of Melbourne where the former Greens leader
(11:50):
Adam Batt did lose his seat and Advance ran no
advertising at all in Melbourne, So it's difficult to find
any evidence that Advance made a difference, and so you
do have to wonder just what is the point of
this group going forward?
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah, do you get the sense that Advance has now
squandered its political relevance because it's campaigning was so unsuccessful.
What do you think its future is as a lobby group.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
Well, I think what Advance is trying to do is
emulate some of these super packs that we see in
the US. You know, these public action committees that raise
money and kind of indirectly help candidates that they're aligned with.
The big difference between Australia and the US is that
in the US you've got to motivate people or incentivize
(12:40):
people to actually come out and vote. But in Australia
we have compulsory voting and so we don't have that trouble.
And so because we have compulsory voting in Australia, I
think groups like Advance or get Up on the Left
just art as effective. Everybody is going to go and vote,
and you've got to try to influence their choices. An
(13:02):
Advance doesn't seem to really know how to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
So Jason, given what they're saying about each other.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right now, does it seem likely to you that Advance
and the coalition or at least the Liberal Party will
work together again.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
I think they will, Ruby because a lot of the
senior people are at Advance are people like Tony Abbott,
to Center Namberjimper Price, and I think it's the right
wing of the Liberal Party is very closely aligned with Advance,
and so I think that will continue. Advance will stay
(13:38):
very close to that far right of the Liberal Party.
But I think what we're also going to see is
more pushback from the moderate wing of the Liberal Party
that doesn't really like what Advance is doing and doesn't
really like what to Center Nampergimper Price is doing either
or Tony Abbott for that matter. And I think this
is a fight for control of the Liberal Party. Advances
(14:00):
on one side of that battle and Liberal moderates are
on the other side of it. Who wins will probably
determine what role Advance plays in the next election campaign
and how closely it remains aligned with the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
We just don't know yet, Jason, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Ruby, it's great to have you back in the chair
and a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
To talk to you well. Thank you, it's great to
be back.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Also in the news today, Prime Minister Anthony Alberzi has
dismissed US Defense Secretary Pete has Geth's request to hike
defense spending. Pete hag Seth has urged US allies, including Australia,
to share the burden and lift defense spending to five
percent of GDP, warning that Beijing is credibly preparing to
potentially use military force to alter the balance of power
(14:54):
in the Indo Pacific. But Albanesi said Australia had already
committed to an additional ten billion dollars int fence across
the next four years. And Ukraine says it has completed
its biggest long range attack of the war with Russia
after using smuggle drones to launch a series of major
strikes on forty Russian warplanes at four military bases. President
(15:17):
Blob Mizelenski said one hundred and seventeen drones were used
in the attacks, which come as Russian and Ukrainian negotiators
had to Istanbul for a second round of peace talks.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.