Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dana Lewis (00:00):
We are way past the joke stage on Donald Trump and
Canada becoming the 51st state.
He posted an image of Canadacovered in the stars and stripes
, you know, so he's obviouslyenjoying it.
Arlene Bynon (00:14):
It has.
It's changed, it's intensified.
You know, everything was sopartisan here.
We had what we called megamaple, those who admired Donald
Trump and admired what washappening in the United States,
and I started to notice in someof the commentary yesterday that
there was a little bit of aconflict happening even within
the conservatives in Canada.
Lucian Kim (00:35):
Trump is not approaching this in a new way.
Of course, we know that Putinhas his own ideas of how he
wants to end this conflict.
So, yes, I would agree that itis dangerous to go into any kind
(00:56):
of talks with sort of thesesimplistic ideas that it's just
a matter of having a good talkwith Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (01:16):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory, our first edition of2025.
I'm Daniel Lewis On everyone'smind, as Donald Trump is to be
sworn in as US President January20th.
What will happen to Ukraine?
Will Trump force Ukraine to thenegotiating table to give up
and give in to Putin's Russia?
(01:37):
We discuss Trump'soversimplification of the issues
with the international crisisgroups, lucienne Kim, who, like
many, say this was never aboutNATO, but Trump thinks it is, so
his no-NATO membership solutionis unlikely to fly.
(01:58):
But first Trump initially jokedabout Canada becoming the 51st
state, and then it got serious.
He has threatened economicforce against my country, while
threatening Greenland withmilitary force and also the
Panama Canal.
Pretty bizarre stuff, and Trumpisn't even sworn in yet.
But Canadians have somesoul-searching to do about what
(02:21):
makes us different thanAmericans, what makes this great
country special, unique, amosaic that wouldn't exist in
America's melting pot.
And yes, we play better hockey,by the way a lot better, really
.
But it's more complicated thanthat.
Arlene Bynum is a Toronto-basedbroadcaster and a longtime
(02:45):
friend and colleague.
Hi, arlene, good to see you.
Arlene Bynon (02:48):
Great to see you, Dana, in this ever-changing
world.
Dana Lewis (02:51):
Ever-changing and more rapid than ever.
Tell me we are way past thejoke stage on Donald Trump and
Canada becoming the 51st state.
I sense Canadians now aretaking it much more seriously.
Arlene Bynon (03:10):
You know I thought something happened.
You know we've been living withthis haunting of Donald Trump
during the election.
Yesterday, when he said thewords using economic might to
take over Canada, I felt thatsomething had kind of snapped in
the country.
People are taking it veryserious, they're very concerned
and we're also very vulnerable,Our prime minister resigning on
(03:34):
Monday.
So there is a scramble rightnow and it's a feeling that I've
never experienced here inCanada.
It's serious.
Dana Lewis (03:44):
He posted an image of Canada covered in the stars
and stripes, you know, so he'sobviously enjoying it.
It may just be the art of thedeal and the way he is going to
negotiate trade and tariffs, butyou know, the longer it goes on
, the more potential traction itmight get.
(04:07):
I mean, what are you seeing inCanada in terms of commentary,
in terms of the headlines, interms of the media coverage?
Arlene Bynon (04:14):
now, here we had what we called MAGA Maple, those
who admired Donald Trump andadmired what was happening in
the United States.
And I started to notice in someof the commentary yesterday
that there was a little bit of aconflict happening even within
(04:35):
the conservatives in Canada.
Some are saying hey, you, youfellow conservatives, now see
what you get, and there's kindof a sense of dangling out there
.
You thought this was about theeconomy, you thought this was
about groceries.
Here's what people werefrightened about.
But there's the beginning,perhaps, of coming together a
(04:57):
little bit in Canada, which Iwouldn't have said if you and I
were talking on Monday Very,very different.
This threat is real and you'reright.
Is he joking?
Is this the art of the deal?
But if it's the art of the deal, those tariffs are working.
The other thing that thishappens is a time where we
realize our militaryvulnerability.
(05:17):
It's been there for a long time.
We've taken America for granted, and now we're talking about
election interference and we'reseeing Russia do flybys over our
Arctic and now this.
Dana Lewis (05:30):
So it has, it's hit home losing 200 billion a year
in trade and trade deficit, andother people would say that the
(05:53):
Canadians would say the realityis it's really about 100 billion
and almost the vast majority ofit is oil revenue and oil
exports, crude exports.
So if you take away crude, infact there may be a trade
surplus on the American side.
So the $200 billion figure isvastly overstated.
Arlene Bynon (06:14):
It is and this was part of the argument.
You know, when he tried to pullthe NAFTA, we had to
renegotiate NAFTA and thatargument was quite successful,
kind of getting through.
There were people around himwho said those things, but he's
stubborn and he will not listenand this is the way he wants to
(06:34):
project that he's kind ofsubsidizing Canada.
I think he used those words andyou're very correct.
Those numbers do not match thereality of things, because the
things that they're taking fromCanada and buying from Canada,
they need from Canada andthey're getting a heck of a good
deal.
But we have a whole differentscenario with America now.
Dana Lewis (06:58):
And it's multi-layered right Because you
have Trudeau announces he'sgoing to resign, then you have a
leadership race within theLiberal Party and then you will
have a national election, Iassume sometime in the spring,
and this becomes trade withAmerica.
(07:20):
The economy, canadian identity,the ability for Canadian
politicians to stand tall andpush back all of these become
critical lightning rods on anelection campaign.
Arlene Bynon (07:35):
You know it's changed everything.
I was just thinking yesterdayas I watched this unfold bang.
I mean this was about.
We saw Pierre Pauliev and wesaw him with that economic
message driving at home, makingJustin Trudeau look like he had
been tone deaf the housingcrisis, groceries, talking to
what he believed were everydayCanadians.
(07:56):
He spent 20 points ahead, trendover time.
It worked.
Yesterday I saw the ballotquestion change.
What does it mean to be aCanadian?
How will you support Canada?
It's very different and thechallenge in a lot of ways is on
the Conservatives and theConservative leader.
(08:17):
Can he pivot to be the defenderof Canada?
You know we had a kind ofdangle that they had friends in
high places, friends of JD Vance, the vice president.
Now it's very, very different.
He put out a strong messageyesterday Canada first, but what
can he?
Many?
Dana Lewis (08:44):
ways marketing himself, aka Donald Trump.
I mean in many wayssimilarities were being drawn
and parallels between the two.
Not today, because that'spolitical folly if he does that.
Arlene Bynon (08:59):
Absolutely, and you know just to your point
there it was true.
Yesterday he put out a verystrong message Canada first,
this will never happen.
And then it exploded on socialmedia going oh my God, the
conservative leader, no, look at, he's sticking up for Canada.
Dana Lewis (09:28):
And honestly, you had to say this is where we are
when we say isn't that great?
Oh, we're thrilled, we'rerelieved, because there were
some Canadians who weren't sosure how they would position
themselves.
Canadians would favor joiningAmerica.
I'm sorry, but I think 13% ispretty high and this is just at
(09:49):
the beginning of the discussionand the debate.
You know that those numberswould change if this debate and
it looks like it's going to goon increases in intensity.
So the 13% I thought was a bitsurprising.
Some 80% of Canadians opposeever being American, but I don't
(10:10):
think that's a great startingpoint, Do you?
Arlene Bynon (10:12):
Yeah, I totally agree.
I was surprised, but not really.
Things have changed.
There's been a creep,especially during the election
campaign, a creep into Canadaand this Canada that's fighting
America and this threat ofannexation.
Right now.
All the things that divided usbefore are there.
We have Quebec and the rise ofthe Bloc Québécois.
(10:35):
We have that, it's always beenthere Well, quebec.
Then we have Western alienation, separation always been there,
intensified.
But then we have, especially inthe Western part of the country
, an appreciation I'll put itthat way for what's been
happening in America.
We've seen it grow.
When I heard that 13%, Ithought it was a pretty good
(10:58):
starting point for America.
And you're right.
Dana Lewis (11:11):
Look at what we're seeing in messaging now, it's
going to start to look likeperhaps a good deal At this
point.
Canada's rallied though aroundtheir country, and I covered him
and his justice minister at thetime, jean Chrétien.
But Trudeau now, as I read backbecause I read in a bit today I
(11:32):
always thought that Trudeau Srwho has passed away, as you know
, many years ago was very big onCanadian identity, thought
Canada was more European thanAmerican, wanted to debate the
(11:53):
Canadian identity.
And are we a melting pot?
Are we a mosaic?
These are the things that Iread about in high school, right
, and now when I read back onTrudeau.
In fact, they say that PierreElliott Trudeau didn't believe
very much in a national agenda.
He felt that it was inevitablyracist to promote ethnic
identity within a country.
(12:14):
And I guess where I'm goingwith all of this.
Is that okay if you don'tdebate Canadian identity, if
you're unable to say well, whatthe hell makes us Canadian and
why are we not American?
If you're unable to identifythat and call that out, then you
(12:34):
may as well be American, right,but the danger in that is it
also splinters the country.
Arlene Bynon (12:41):
It does splinter the country, and I think we're
in perhaps and I'm braced for it, and so are other Canadians for
that kind of an argument.
We've always known we hadcultural similarities.
We give them many singers andmovie stars and they become
blended into America.
You know, you?
Just you can barely separatethe two countries.
Dana Lewis (13:02):
Some of that's just money.
I mean, I went to work for anAmerican broadcaster.
Arlene Bynon (13:06):
Yes, you did.
Dana Lewis (13:07):
Some of it was just dough and a bigger audience.
It doesn't necessarily meanthat they wanted to be American
right.
Arlene Bynon (13:13):
No, it doesn't, but they become it.
And then America absorbs themand we see them there.
We don't see them sometimes asCanadians.
They have to remind us of thatstuff.
But we're heading into a newargument.
I think you've touched on itand it may.
This is a test.
Let me put it this way.
This is a test of how Canadiansfeel about their country.
(13:35):
This is a test, in many ways,of a lot of the things that
former Prime Minister PierreTrudeau, justin Trudeau's father
, talked about.
This is a test, and youremember working here, all the
money that was spent bygovernments to make sure that we
had cultural identity,including in the media,
enforcing things.
But now things are different.
(13:56):
Messaging is different.
Dana Lewis (13:57):
What will happen?
I mean, just to expand on thatfor people that don't know
Canada, that was if you worked,worked in radio or you worked in
television, you had to producea certain amount of Canadian
content, whether it be music,whether it be your newscasts.
You just weren't allowed to be.
You know, you couldn't repeatABC News, radio or whatever on
(14:19):
your station.
You had to produce Canadianidentity.
You had to report on Canada,which I always thought was fair.
I mean, our employers hated itbecause they had to spend money.
Arlene Bynon (14:29):
They did, but it gave people like you and I a
voice and a platform.
But that's not there now.
It's been all exploded.
As we know, things are justmoving in on their own accord
social media, and that's anotheraspect of this.
Moving in on their own accord,social media, and that's another
aspect of this.
I mean we have tech titans likeElon Musk swanning around
(14:50):
taking credit for what happenedin the American election with
messaging using it.
We have Canadians like KevinO'Leary now saying he wants to
buy TikTok, meeting atMar-a-Lago with Donald Trump in
the last couple of days.
Dana Lewis (15:06):
So we have this movement of canadians early, he
ran for the conservative party Idid dragons down.
Arlene Bynon (15:14):
Yeah, you know, famous for the television show
dragon's den and he's known forbeing an entrepreneur at the
same time.
And now he's down there talkingto Donald Trump trying to buy
TikTok.
So we have, let me put it thisway, canadians who are
(15:34):
sympathetic to, I mean some aresaying maybe we just call it an
economic union, maybe it's likethe EU already is being
presented, but the first feelingin the last couple of days is
shock that this could happen.
Can you imagine an economic?
Dana Lewis (15:51):
union, where Canadians adopt American
currency and where the borderyou know where Trump says this.
You know false line was drawnacross the country, referring to
the Canada-US border.
He doesn't say that about theMexican border, but okay.
So, can you imagine Canadiansswallowing any of them?
Arlene Bynon (16:14):
Right now.
No, there's outrage, butthere's also a little bit of
fear.
I can smell it a little bitbecause the reality is, as you
know, dana you lived hereAmerica is such a powerful this
one, it's the most powerfulcountry in the world.
It's right next door.
We felt that power because theyprotected us.
But in his own words, he hassaid we protect them, we'll
(16:37):
continue to protect you,dangling that they won't.
He said he wants to pull out ofNATO.
That was a great fear here inCanada as well.
If America pulls out of NATO,who protects Canada?
We're very vulnerable right nowand we're feeling how about
this?
The greatest hits of DonaldTrump are starting to affect us
right now.
Dana Lewis (16:56):
Yes, and they've been sworn into office.
You know, I mean pretty, pretty, pretty nutty.
I know I think to you I'm goingto make you work hard.
I haven't already.
How are we different?
What is it to be a Canadian?
If you're asking yourself that,and you think a lot of
(17:17):
Canadians are right now, isthere a simple answer then?
Arlene Bynon (17:21):
I don't think there is now, but I think people
are searching and remembering,and that's the good part of this
.
As Canadians, we used toidentify ourselves, rightly or
wrongly, as not being American,didn't we?
And we've always been sochuffed with ourselves that we
weren't like American, thosebrazen Americans poking their
nose into places.
(17:41):
We could travel all over theworld and people would say, oh,
you're Canadian, you're allright.
Dana Lewis (17:49):
Or if you were an American, you would sew a
Canadian flag on your back FlagBecause it would be safer.
You got it.
Arlene Bynon (17:56):
It would be safer .
We had that and I think in alot of ways it was gifted to us
and we haven't had.
I'll go back to that word Iused earlier test.
This is a test and then if wepass it, we deserve it.
In a lot of ways, we have toask ourselves what are our
values?
Have deserve it?
In a lot of ways, we have toask ourselves what are our
values?
Have we been fighting for thosevalues?
Do we believe them any longeras a country, or are we willing
(18:19):
to toss them out?
You know, sometimes youappreciate things, don't?
You love her as she's walkingout the door, as the door is
saying, and she may be walkingout the door, and I think we
have to decide how much we're inlove and committed, which is a
good thing.
Dana Lewis (18:35):
You're going to make me hum that song all night
now.
So, arlene, thanks, all right.
Arlene Bynon (18:40):
Hey, great to see you, great to talk, dana Cheers
.
Dana Lewis (18:47):
Okay, to Ukraine now.
And Lucian Kim, who is with theInternational Crisis Group.
He's also written a book calledPutin's Revenge.
And Lucien welcome.
Lucian Kim (18:56):
Thank you Great to be here.
Dana Lewis (18:58):
I was reading your book a little bit today of what
you sent me and trying torapidly go through it, and a lot
of the topics and chapters arelittle pieces of my life too,
things that we covered becausewe were both covering Russia
around the same time of my lifetoo, you know things that we
covered because we were bothcovering Russia around the same
time and I thought Putin'sRevenge would automatically be a
(19:20):
book about Putin getting backat kind of lost lands in the
sense that you know NATOexpansion.
But it's not that at all, is it, you know?
Lucian Kim (19:36):
nato expansion?
Um, but it's not that at all,is it?
Nato expansion?
Uh, the enlargement of natothat happened over over years
following the collapse of thesoviet union was sort of a
pretext.
Now, if we look at whatactually was happening, the last
time that nato uh, well, Ishould say the first and last
time that NATO accepted any newmembers that were in the former
(20:00):
Soviet Union the three Balticnations of Lithuania, latvia and
Estonia was in 2004.
And after that there was nomore enlargement into the
territory of the former SovietUnion, which was sort of a red
line for Putin.
He accomplished that, of course, by invading Georgia in 2008
and Ukraine in 2014.
(20:22):
But the suggestion that somehow, before the full-scale invasion
, ukraine was on the brink ofjoining NATO is completely
fallacious.
On the contrary, after George WBush President, george W Bush
made a push for NATO to acceptUkraine, no US president was
(20:46):
interested in the least inUkraine or Ukraine in NATO.
Dana Lewis (20:52):
So you really say two things.
Or Ukraine in NATO.
So you really say two things.
And if I can quote your book orthe introduction to it, the
root cause of the war was thelegacy of Russian imperialism,
the idea of Russia as the centerof a Euro-Asian empire, whether
it was ruled by the czars orthe communist party.
In that empire, ukraine playeda crucial supporting role as
(21:14):
breadbasket, industrialpowerhouse and strategic buffer
zone, straddling the Black Seaand stretching into Central
Europe.
And then you said fundamentallya Soviet man, putin, could not
comprehend Ukraine as anindependent country.
His view of Ukraine was basedon outdated empires, ideas of a
(21:35):
shared empire, and he could notaccept that a new generation of
Ukrainians, so close to Russiansin language, culture and
religion, was choosing a futurein Europe.
Do you want to help me kind ofwrap that up in terms of exactly
what you meant?
A lot of self-explanatory.
Lucian Kim (21:59):
Well, I would certainly agree with everything
you quoted me to say.
I think the basic idea was,when the Soviet Union collapsed
and turned into 15 independentcountries, for most of those new
countries the direction wasquite clear.
It was they had the job ofturning themselves into
(22:22):
functioning nation states.
That would be true for theBaltic nations, for countries
such as Georgia or Armenia,azerbaijan and the Central Asian
countries.
For Russia, this was a muchbigger, I would say it was a
problem.
The question of so who are wegoing to identify with Russia?
(22:43):
For centuries its identity hasbeen wrapped up with the idea of
empire, not of Russia as anation state, but of Russia as a
multi-ethnic empire.
So for Russians to overcomethis imperial legacy was
extremely difficult becausetheir history, their recent
(23:06):
history, is so intertwined withempire.
And again, I think the pointI'm trying to make is it doesn't
matter if we call it the SovietUnion or if we call it the
Russian Empire.
Under the Tsars it wasfundamentally the same kind of
territorially the same body, andthe idea behind it was that
(23:28):
Russia would be at the center ofsome kind, whether it was a
communist state or not, thatRussia was at the core of some
kind of whether it was acommunist state or not, that
Russia was at the core of somegreat Eurasian empire.
Dana Lewis (23:38):
Do you think under Yeltsin, Russia embarked on a
journey of being European versusPutin?
Lucian Kim (23:48):
I don't think necessarily Yeltsin abandoned
this imperial idea.
I think what we saw in 1991with the dissolution of the
Soviet Union was obviously agreat collapse of an empire and
it would take years and yearsfor people to internalize, to
(24:10):
understand what happened.
So I think Boris Yeltsinalthough in some places in some
former Soviet republics he issort of celebrated as someone
who facilitated theirindependence I think a lot of
that had to do with his owninternal power struggle with
(24:30):
Mikhail Gorbachev inside theSoviet Union, rather than some
new way of thinking.
Dana Lewis (24:37):
Right, but I didn't .
I guess in covering Yeltsin Ididn't see this frantic struggle
to identify what is Russia.
It was just a journey to joinEurope, get the economy going
and make Russia prosper.
At least that's what I saw.
Lucian Kim (24:55):
Absolutely no.
I don't think we're in any waydisagreeing.
My point was that Boris Yeltsinand his contemporaries, people,
russians of that period of time, of course they were not
concerned first and foremostwith this question of who we are
.
This was a question that muchmore coincided with the rise of
(25:18):
Vladimir Putin after the year2000.
I think in the 1990s Russia verymuch was concerned with its
economic survival and it wasunclear whether these
centrifugal forces that had beenreleased by the collapse of the
Soviet Union, whether theywould continue inside Russia,
(25:38):
and by that obviously I'mreferring to the Chechen Wars,
when Chechnya said well, theSoviet Union disintegrated, we
also don't want to stay in anyrump Russia.
So I think in the 1990s were avery turbulent time.
(25:59):
I think, correctly, one couldsay it was a traumatic time for
many Russians.
It's just a matter of whatconclusions people drew for that
.
And obviously Vladimir Putin,representative representative, I
should say, of millions ofRussians, uh, uh felt that, um,
(26:20):
you know, what had to follow wasa time of restoration and, um,
even rebuilding of, of, if notthat uh empire, at least, uh,
its influence.
Dana Lewis (26:32):
And he used Chechnya to reinvade, to be the
strong prime minister andeventually the president, when
Yeltsin stepped aside and usedthat to show that he would bind
Russia together, that he wasstability, that he was strength,
and he used that.
But then after that there comesthis evolution about okay, now
(26:54):
what?
What is Russia now under Putin?
And then they start kind ofidentifying and playing
experimental ping pong withWorld War II memorials and the
fact that so many Russians lostyou know, every family was
touched by World War II and thatthey lost somebody in that
conflict.
They began to see that assomething that really bound the
(27:18):
country together somehow andthey began to use those images
and even talked of possiblybreathing back life into
Stalin's image, shockingly.
Lucian Kim (27:32):
Absolutely In that search for identity and sort of
a commonality.
World War II and the SovietUnion's World War II experience
was certainly one of the commonexperiences that Putin could go
back to and I think in fact theWorld War II experience.
(27:56):
It touched lives of peoplethroughout the Soviet Union.
It did not have to benecessarily a symbol of
nationalism, of Russian revival.
It could have been also.
It was a shared pain.
But Vladimir Putin chose to usethe World War II and in some
(28:19):
way co-opt the memory of WorldWar II for his own purposes and
to sort of cloak his ownauthoritarian regime and
legitimize it by taking over thememory of that horrible war.
Dana Lewis (28:38):
So, it comes as maybe no sort of jump in, but it
kind of comes as no surprisethen, by extension, that he uses
those images in the Ukraineconflict Things like Nazism and
denazifying Ukraine becausethat's something that Russians
will identify with from theirpast.
Lucian Kim (28:57):
Absolutely From the um, from also the popular
culture, from the movies, um,this became kind of a, it became
almost natural for for uh,Vladimir Putin to refer back to
that.
Dana Lewis (29:11):
So it's a hell of a jump, though, from all of that
to Putin suddenly waking up insome weird dream in the pandemic
.
And I think you make the pointin your book that he was largely
isolated.
And lots of my sources, peoplewho have met with Putin, who
said you know, talked about thefact he would hold a couple of
dozen meetings a day.
A day, people lined up in thelobby to see him.
(29:38):
Suddenly, he's largely isolatedfor a couple of years, and then
you raise questions in yourbook about how does he survive
that isolation and how does heemerge from that.
I don't mean to be crass, butdo you think he blew a fuse in
there?
Lucian Kim (30:00):
he blew a fuse in there.
What we know is that he wasextremely, uh, isolated, and I
think what's important toemphasize is that the people
that did see him, or and that hedid allow to see him, were
members of a very hardcoreideology, or adherence to a
hardcore ideology, seeing Russiasort of as a victim of Western
aggression and calling for somesort of restoration.
(30:23):
I think another factor thatgoes along with Putin's COVID
isolation is the fact that inOctober 2022, he was going to
turn 70 years old.
In October 2022, he was goingto turn 70 years old For Putin
also.
Researching this book, I againbecame very aware of this.
For Putin, anniversaries areextremely important.
(30:43):
Almost all of the big dates inthis book are somehow tied up to
some anniversary, some kind ofholiday, and I believe that
Putin understood that the clockis ticking uh, literally uh on
his, on his reign and uh.
That time was uh running outfor him to either, you know,
(31:05):
make a big play, uh and um andreconquer ukraine, or go down in
history as the russian leaderwho I'm using air quotes lost
Ukraine once and for all.
Dana Lewis (31:19):
But this is not about NATO again, right?
So if you believe that andyou've written that and a lot of
other people do as well, theysay this is just a ruse that
Putin used to go into Ukraine torestore the Russian empire, to
capitalize on the fact thatthere are, you know, trillions
(31:39):
of dollars, for instance, in rawminerals, that are in the east
part of Ukraine that interestRussian oligarchs in business
and the Kremlin in a big way.
But without going into that, ifyou then look at Trump today
and his notion that he cansomehow be sympathetic to the
(32:04):
fact that Putin doesn't wantNATO up against its border in
Ukraine, then his recipe somehowthat he'll go in and talk to
Vladimir and they'll make surethat there's a promise that
Ukraine won't join NATO maybesome demilitarization although I
can't believe the Ukrainianswould go for it and they'll
(32:27):
allow Russia to bite off part ofEastern Ukraine for a deal for
a ceasefire at least.
Isn't that all incredibly?
Lucian Kim (32:37):
naive.
I think the way that worldleaders have been dealing with
Putin ever since he came topower you could call naive.
I think there has always beenthis idea that, okay, russia has
a strong man, but we can reachsome kind of agreement.
(32:59):
When Emmanuel Macron waselected France's president, he
had the same idea.
We are a grand nation andRussia has a glorious history,
and I'm going to sit down withVladimir Putin man to man man
and we'll hammer out ourdifferences.
Incidentally, volodymyrZelensky, when he became
(33:19):
president, had the same ideathat it was just a matter of
sitting down with Putin and,sort of like, finally hammering
out all the differences in kindof a long session.
So Trump is not approachingthis in a new way.
Of course, we know that Putinhas his own ideas of how he
(33:47):
wants to end this conflict.
So, yes, I would agree that itis dangerous to go into any kind
of talks, um, with sort ofthese simplistic ideas that it's
just a matter of of.
Dana Lewis (34:01):
It's a matter of having a having a good talk with
mr putin it seems to me thatthe the conflict could escalate
rather than de-escalate in theshort term, because if trump
wants to be in a position ofstrength and bring Russia to the
table with some muscle, he'snot going to be able to stop
(34:22):
funding Ukraine and back awayfrom supplying weapons to
Ukraine.
In fact, they might have togive more to Ukraine to get
Putin to sober up and comearound to the idea that he
better end this sooner thanlater.
Lucian Kim (34:34):
I agree that there's a danger that uh, and
come around to the idea that hebetter end this sooner than
later.
I agree that's.
I agree that there's a, a, adanger that, despite um, even if
we can call them um Trump'sbest intentions to end this war,
or anybody's best intentions toend this war, um, it does not
necessarily mean that we'regoing to see a quick end.
I see one big danger, dana, inthe idea of talks also that
(34:59):
Putin may be incentivized tobegin talks, to actually come to
the negotiating table and tonever finish them.
We know that in thenegotiations that led up to the
so-called Minsk agreements of2014 and 2015,.
Even as Putin was negotiatingwith people like German
(35:19):
Chancellor Angela Merkel, atthat moment, russian troops were
fighting on the ground inUkraine, creating new facts on
the ground that were influencingthe negotiations.
Dana Lewis (35:30):
So I can see that there's also a danger of talks
starting, starting, uh, andnever ending, and, and and
russia using the, the situationto continue its, its, its, uh,
westward grind in, in, in inukraine you're being very
generous, generous with yourtime and I promise not to ask
you too much more, but becauseand I know you got to go but but
(35:52):
let me just touch on this itseems ironic to me that Trump,
even as we watch him in the last48 hours of news cycle, is
talking about possibly using notruling out force in Greenland
because it's in America's sphereand it's critical to security,
to security.
(36:12):
He's talked about possibly usingmilitary force in the Panama
Canal because it was there,built by the US military and
it's critical that it not betaken by China.
And you know he talks aboutNorth American sphere of
influence, in essence renamingthe Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of
(36:32):
America, and then my country,canada, you know he talks about
it becoming maybe the 51st state, and then he's not going to
roll the military in, but he'lluse the muscle of economic
tariffs and pressure to possiblybring Canada into some kind of
closer relationship.
I think it'll alienate Canada.
But if you apply all of thatlogic, you know, the Greenland,
(36:56):
the Panama Canal, what he'sgoing to do with Mexico, isn't
he just feeding President Putinthat, yeah, you can have a
sphere of influence because wehave one?
And isn't he telling China yeah, taiwan is right there, and
surely that should be withinyour sphere of influence.
Isn't this all double standard?
Lucian Kim (37:16):
And it gets a bit convoluted doesn't it Convoluted
and maybe in some sense forVladimir Putin?
In fact, it adds some clarity.
Finally, there's a US leaderthat's speaking the truth about
American intentions on landssurrounding the United States.
(37:37):
So I think it's a very goodpoint that you make, because for
years now we have beenlamenting Vladimir Putin's 19th
century thinking, and here, allof a sudden, we're about to have
a US president who is repeatingthat same kind of language.
Dana Lewis (37:57):
It's dangerous if it feeds Putin's narrative and
his belief that he shouldsubject all of the countries on
his border to Russian rule, andthat includes the ones that are
already part of NATO and part ofEurope.
The ones you mentioned inLatvia, lithuania, already part
of NATO and part of Europe.
The ones you mentioned inLatvia, lithuania, estonia.
Lucian Kim (38:23):
Georgia and on, and Poland maybe?
Yes, I mean, it gives credenceto what Putin has been saying
all these years, that Russiadoes have a sphere of influence
over its neighbors.
Dana Lewis (38:28):
Lucien Kim, great to talk to you.
Lucian Kim (38:31):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Dana Lewis (38:32):
And that's our backstory.
This week, trump tends toprovide news people with an
endless supply of what I callcrazy.
It's entertaining, exhausting,but we're just getting started.
Four more years of a PresidentTrump is going to be a long time
.
Keep your sense of humor, ifyou can.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
(38:53):
No-transcript.
We are way past the joke stage on Donald Trump and
Canada becoming the 51st state.
He posted an image of Canadacovered in the stars and stripes
, you know, so he's obviouslyenjoying it.
Arlene Bynon (00:14):
It has.
It's changed, it's intensified.
You know, everything was sopartisan here.
We had what we called megamaple, those who admired Donald
Trump and admired what washappening in the United States,
and I started to notice in someof the commentary yesterday that
there was a little bit of aconflict happening even within
the conservatives in Canada.
Lucian Kim (00:35):
Trump is not approaching this in a new way.
Of course, we know that Putinhas his own ideas of how he
wants to end this conflict.
So, yes, I would agree that itis dangerous to go into any kind
(00:56):
of talks with sort of thesesimplistic ideas that it's just
a matter of having a good talkwith Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (01:16):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory, our first edition of2025.
I'm Daniel Lewis On everyone'smind, as Donald Trump is to be
sworn in as US President January20th.
What will happen to Ukraine?
Will Trump force Ukraine to thenegotiating table to give up
and give in to Putin's Russia?
(01:37):
We discuss Trump'soversimplification of the issues
with the international crisisgroups, lucienne Kim, who, like
many, say this was never aboutNATO, but Trump thinks it is, so
his no-NATO membership solutionis unlikely to fly.
(01:58):
But first Trump initially jokedabout Canada becoming the 51st
state, and then it got serious.
He has threatened economicforce against my country, while
threatening Greenland withmilitary force and also the
Panama Canal.
Pretty bizarre stuff, and Trumpisn't even sworn in yet.
But Canadians have somesoul-searching to do about what
(02:21):
makes us different thanAmericans, what makes this great
country special, unique, amosaic that wouldn't exist in
America's melting pot.
And yes, we play better hockey,by the way a lot better, really
.
But it's more complicated thanthat.
Arlene Bynum is a Toronto-basedbroadcaster and a longtime
(02:45):
friend and colleague.
Hi, arlene, good to see you.
Arlene Bynon (02:48):
Great to see you, Dana, in this ever-changing
world.
Dana Lewis (02:51):
Ever-changing and more rapid than ever.
Tell me we are way past thejoke stage on Donald Trump and
Canada becoming the 51st state.
I sense Canadians now aretaking it much more seriously.
Arlene Bynon (03:10):
You know I thought something happened.
You know we've been living withthis haunting of Donald Trump
during the election.
Yesterday, when he said thewords using economic might to
take over Canada, I felt thatsomething had kind of snapped in
the country.
People are taking it veryserious, they're very concerned
and we're also very vulnerable,Our prime minister resigning on
(03:34):
Monday.
So there is a scramble rightnow and it's a feeling that I've
never experienced here inCanada.
It's serious.
Dana Lewis (03:44):
He posted an image of Canada covered in the stars
and stripes, you know, so he'sobviously enjoying it.
It may just be the art of thedeal and the way he is going to
negotiate trade and tariffs, butyou know, the longer it goes on
, the more potential traction itmight get.
(04:07):
I mean, what are you seeing inCanada in terms of commentary,
in terms of the headlines, interms of the media coverage?
Arlene Bynon (04:14):
now, here we had what we called MAGA Maple, those
who admired Donald Trump andadmired what was happening in
the United States.
And I started to notice in someof the commentary yesterday
that there was a little bit of aconflict happening even within
(04:35):
the conservatives in Canada.
Some are saying hey, you, youfellow conservatives, now see
what you get, and there's kindof a sense of dangling out there
.
You thought this was about theeconomy, you thought this was
about groceries.
Here's what people werefrightened about.
But there's the beginning,perhaps, of coming together a
(04:57):
little bit in Canada, which Iwouldn't have said if you and I
were talking on Monday Very,very different.
This threat is real and you'reright.
Is he joking?
Is this the art of the deal?
But if it's the art of the deal, those tariffs are working.
The other thing that thishappens is a time where we
realize our militaryvulnerability.
(05:17):
It's been there for a long time.
We've taken America for granted, and now we're talking about
election interference and we'reseeing Russia do flybys over our
Arctic and now this.
Dana Lewis (05:30):
So it has, it's hit home losing 200 billion a year
in trade and trade deficit, andother people would say that the
(05:53):
Canadians would say the realityis it's really about 100 billion
and almost the vast majority ofit is oil revenue and oil
exports, crude exports.
So if you take away crude, infact there may be a trade
surplus on the American side.
So the $200 billion figure isvastly overstated.
Arlene Bynon (06:14):
It is and this was part of the argument.
You know, when he tried to pullthe NAFTA, we had to
renegotiate NAFTA and thatargument was quite successful,
kind of getting through.
There were people around himwho said those things, but he's
stubborn and he will not listenand this is the way he wants to
(06:34):
project that he's kind ofsubsidizing Canada.
I think he used those words andyou're very correct.
Those numbers do not match thereality of things, because the
things that they're taking fromCanada and buying from Canada,
they need from Canada andthey're getting a heck of a good
deal.
But we have a whole differentscenario with America now.
Dana Lewis (06:58):
And it's multi-layered right Because you
have Trudeau announces he'sgoing to resign, then you have a
leadership race within theLiberal Party and then you will
have a national election, Iassume sometime in the spring,
and this becomes trade withAmerica.
(07:20):
The economy, canadian identity,the ability for Canadian
politicians to stand tall andpush back all of these become
critical lightning rods on anelection campaign.
Arlene Bynon (07:35):
You know it's changed everything.
I was just thinking yesterdayas I watched this unfold bang.
I mean this was about.
We saw Pierre Pauliev and wesaw him with that economic
message driving at home, makingJustin Trudeau look like he had
been tone deaf the housingcrisis, groceries, talking to
what he believed were everydayCanadians.
(07:56):
He spent 20 points ahead, trendover time.
It worked.
Yesterday I saw the ballotquestion change.
What does it mean to be aCanadian?
How will you support Canada?
It's very different and thechallenge in a lot of ways is on
the Conservatives and theConservative leader.
(08:17):
Can he pivot to be the defenderof Canada?
You know we had a kind ofdangle that they had friends in
high places, friends of JD Vance, the vice president.
Now it's very, very different.
He put out a strong messageyesterday Canada first, but what
can he?
Many?
Dana Lewis (08:44):
ways marketing himself, aka Donald Trump.
I mean in many wayssimilarities were being drawn
and parallels between the two.
Not today, because that'spolitical folly if he does that.
Arlene Bynon (08:59):
Absolutely, and you know just to your point
there it was true.
Yesterday he put out a verystrong message Canada first,
this will never happen.
And then it exploded on socialmedia going oh my God, the
conservative leader, no, look at, he's sticking up for Canada.
Dana Lewis (09:28):
And honestly, you had to say this is where we are
when we say isn't that great?
Oh, we're thrilled, we'rerelieved, because there were
some Canadians who weren't sosure how they would position
themselves.
Canadians would favor joiningAmerica.
I'm sorry, but I think 13% ispretty high and this is just at
(09:49):
the beginning of the discussionand the debate.
You know that those numberswould change if this debate and
it looks like it's going to goon increases in intensity.
So the 13% I thought was a bitsurprising.
Some 80% of Canadians opposeever being American, but I don't
(10:10):
think that's a great startingpoint, Do you?
Arlene Bynon (10:12):
Yeah, I totally agree.
I was surprised, but not really.
Things have changed.
There's been a creep,especially during the election
campaign, a creep into Canadaand this Canada that's fighting
America and this threat ofannexation.
Right now.
All the things that divided usbefore are there.
We have Quebec and the rise ofthe Bloc Québécois.
(10:35):
We have that, it's always beenthere Well, quebec.
Then we have Western alienation, separation always been there,
intensified.
But then we have, especially inthe Western part of the country
, an appreciation I'll put itthat way for what's been
happening in America.
We've seen it grow.
When I heard that 13%, Ithought it was a pretty good
(10:58):
starting point for America.
And you're right.
Dana Lewis (11:11):
Look at what we're seeing in messaging now, it's
going to start to look likeperhaps a good deal At this
point.
Canada's rallied though aroundtheir country, and I covered him
and his justice minister at thetime, jean Chrétien.
But Trudeau now, as I read backbecause I read in a bit today I
(11:32):
always thought that Trudeau Srwho has passed away, as you know
, many years ago was very big onCanadian identity, thought
Canada was more European thanAmerican, wanted to debate the
(11:53):
Canadian identity.
And are we a melting pot?
Are we a mosaic?
These are the things that Iread about in high school, right
, and now when I read back onTrudeau.
In fact, they say that PierreElliott Trudeau didn't believe
very much in a national agenda.
He felt that it was inevitablyracist to promote ethnic
identity within a country.
(12:14):
And I guess where I'm goingwith all of this.
Is that okay if you don'tdebate Canadian identity, if
you're unable to say well, whatthe hell makes us Canadian and
why are we not American?
If you're unable to identifythat and call that out, then you
(12:34):
may as well be American, right,but the danger in that is it
also splinters the country.
Arlene Bynon (12:41):
It does splinter the country, and I think we're
in perhaps and I'm braced for it, and so are other Canadians for
that kind of an argument.
We've always known we hadcultural similarities.
We give them many singers andmovie stars and they become
blended into America.
You know, you?
Just you can barely separatethe two countries.
Dana Lewis (13:02):
Some of that's just money.
I mean, I went to work for anAmerican broadcaster.
Arlene Bynon (13:06):
Yes, you did.
Dana Lewis (13:07):
Some of it was just dough and a bigger audience.
It doesn't necessarily meanthat they wanted to be American
right.
Arlene Bynon (13:13):
No, it doesn't, but they become it.
And then America absorbs themand we see them there.
We don't see them sometimes asCanadians.
They have to remind us of thatstuff.
But we're heading into a newargument.
I think you've touched on itand it may.
This is a test.
Let me put it this way.
This is a test of how Canadiansfeel about their country.
(13:35):
This is a test, in many ways,of a lot of the things that
former Prime Minister PierreTrudeau, justin Trudeau's father
, talked about.
This is a test, and youremember working here, all the
money that was spent bygovernments to make sure that we
had cultural identity,including in the media,
enforcing things.
But now things are different.
(13:56):
Messaging is different.
Dana Lewis (13:57):
What will happen?
I mean, just to expand on thatfor people that don't know
Canada, that was if you worked,worked in radio or you worked in
television, you had to producea certain amount of Canadian
content, whether it be music,whether it be your newscasts.
You just weren't allowed to be.
You know, you couldn't repeatABC News, radio or whatever on
(14:19):
your station.
You had to produce Canadianidentity.
You had to report on Canada,which I always thought was fair.
I mean, our employers hated itbecause they had to spend money.
Arlene Bynon (14:29):
They did, but it gave people like you and I a
voice and a platform.
But that's not there now.
It's been all exploded.
As we know, things are justmoving in on their own accord
social media, and that's anotheraspect of this.
Moving in on their own accord,social media, and that's another
aspect of this.
I mean we have tech titans likeElon Musk swanning around
(14:50):
taking credit for what happenedin the American election with
messaging using it.
We have Canadians like KevinO'Leary now saying he wants to
buy TikTok, meeting atMar-a-Lago with Donald Trump in
the last couple of days.
Dana Lewis (15:06):
So we have this movement of canadians early, he
ran for the conservative party Idid dragons down.
Arlene Bynon (15:14):
Yeah, you know, famous for the television show
dragon's den and he's known forbeing an entrepreneur at the
same time.
And now he's down there talkingto Donald Trump trying to buy
TikTok.
So we have, let me put it thisway, canadians who are
(15:34):
sympathetic to, I mean some aresaying maybe we just call it an
economic union, maybe it's likethe EU already is being
presented, but the first feelingin the last couple of days is
shock that this could happen.
Can you imagine an economic?
Dana Lewis (15:51):
union, where Canadians adopt American
currency and where the borderyou know where Trump says this.
You know false line was drawnacross the country, referring to
the Canada-US border.
He doesn't say that about theMexican border, but okay.
So, can you imagine Canadiansswallowing any of them?
Arlene Bynon (16:14):
Right now.
No, there's outrage, butthere's also a little bit of
fear.
I can smell it a little bitbecause the reality is, as you
know, dana you lived hereAmerica is such a powerful this
one, it's the most powerfulcountry in the world.
It's right next door.
We felt that power because theyprotected us.
But in his own words, he hassaid we protect them, we'll
(16:37):
continue to protect you,dangling that they won't.
He said he wants to pull out ofNATO.
That was a great fear here inCanada as well.
If America pulls out of NATO,who protects Canada?
We're very vulnerable right nowand we're feeling how about
this?
The greatest hits of DonaldTrump are starting to affect us
right now.
Dana Lewis (16:56):
Yes, and they've been sworn into office.
You know, I mean pretty, pretty, pretty nutty.
I know I think to you I'm goingto make you work hard.
I haven't already.
How are we different?
What is it to be a Canadian?
If you're asking yourself that,and you think a lot of
(17:17):
Canadians are right now, isthere a simple answer then?
Arlene Bynon (17:21):
I don't think there is now, but I think people
are searching and remembering,and that's the good part of this
.
As Canadians, we used toidentify ourselves, rightly or
wrongly, as not being American,didn't we?
And we've always been sochuffed with ourselves that we
weren't like American, thosebrazen Americans poking their
nose into places.
(17:41):
We could travel all over theworld and people would say, oh,
you're Canadian, you're allright.
Dana Lewis (17:49):
Or if you were an American, you would sew a
Canadian flag on your back FlagBecause it would be safer.
You got it.
Arlene Bynon (17:56):
It would be safer .
We had that and I think in alot of ways it was gifted to us
and we haven't had.
I'll go back to that word Iused earlier test.
This is a test and then if wepass it, we deserve it.
In a lot of ways, we have toask ourselves what are our
values?
Have deserve it?
In a lot of ways, we have toask ourselves what are our
values?
Have we been fighting for thosevalues?
Do we believe them any longeras a country, or are we willing
(18:19):
to toss them out?
You know, sometimes youappreciate things, don't?
You love her as she's walkingout the door, as the door is
saying, and she may be walkingout the door, and I think we
have to decide how much we're inlove and committed, which is a
good thing.
Dana Lewis (18:35):
You're going to make me hum that song all night
now.
So, arlene, thanks, all right.
Arlene Bynon (18:40):
Hey, great to see you, great to talk, dana Cheers
.
Dana Lewis (18:47):
Okay, to Ukraine now.
And Lucian Kim, who is with theInternational Crisis Group.
He's also written a book calledPutin's Revenge.
And Lucien welcome.
Lucian Kim (18:56):
Thank you Great to be here.
Dana Lewis (18:58):
I was reading your book a little bit today of what
you sent me and trying torapidly go through it, and a lot
of the topics and chapters arelittle pieces of my life too,
things that we covered becausewe were both covering Russia
around the same time of my lifetoo, you know things that we
covered because we were bothcovering Russia around the same
time and I thought Putin'sRevenge would automatically be a
(19:20):
book about Putin getting backat kind of lost lands in the
sense that you know NATOexpansion.
But it's not that at all, is it, you know?
Lucian Kim (19:36):
nato expansion?
Um, but it's not that at all,is it?
Nato expansion?
Uh, the enlargement of natothat happened over over years
following the collapse of thesoviet union was sort of a
pretext.
Now, if we look at whatactually was happening, the last
time that nato uh, well, Ishould say the first and last
time that NATO accepted any newmembers that were in the former
(20:00):
Soviet Union the three Balticnations of Lithuania, latvia and
Estonia was in 2004.
And after that there was nomore enlargement into the
territory of the former SovietUnion, which was sort of a red
line for Putin.
He accomplished that, of course, by invading Georgia in 2008
and Ukraine in 2014.
(20:22):
But the suggestion that somehow, before the full-scale invasion
, ukraine was on the brink ofjoining NATO is completely
fallacious.
On the contrary, after George WBush President, george W Bush
made a push for NATO to acceptUkraine, no US president was
(20:46):
interested in the least inUkraine or Ukraine in NATO.
Dana Lewis (20:52):
So you really say two things.
Or Ukraine in NATO.
So you really say two things.
And if I can quote your book orthe introduction to it, the
root cause of the war was thelegacy of Russian imperialism,
the idea of Russia as the centerof a Euro-Asian empire, whether
it was ruled by the czars orthe communist party.
In that empire, ukraine playeda crucial supporting role as
(21:14):
breadbasket, industrialpowerhouse and strategic buffer
zone, straddling the Black Seaand stretching into Central
Europe.
And then you said fundamentallya Soviet man, putin, could not
comprehend Ukraine as anindependent country.
His view of Ukraine was basedon outdated empires, ideas of a
(21:35):
shared empire, and he could notaccept that a new generation of
Ukrainians, so close to Russiansin language, culture and
religion, was choosing a futurein Europe.
Do you want to help me kind ofwrap that up in terms of exactly
what you meant?
A lot of self-explanatory.
Lucian Kim (21:59):
Well, I would certainly agree with everything
you quoted me to say.
I think the basic idea was,when the Soviet Union collapsed
and turned into 15 independentcountries, for most of those new
countries the direction wasquite clear.
It was they had the job ofturning themselves into
(22:22):
functioning nation states.
That would be true for theBaltic nations, for countries
such as Georgia or Armenia,azerbaijan and the Central Asian
countries.
For Russia, this was a muchbigger, I would say it was a
problem.
The question of so who are wegoing to identify with Russia?
(22:43):
For centuries its identity hasbeen wrapped up with the idea of
empire, not of Russia as anation state, but of Russia as a
multi-ethnic empire.
So for Russians to overcomethis imperial legacy was
extremely difficult becausetheir history, their recent
(23:06):
history, is so intertwined withempire.
And again, I think the pointI'm trying to make is it doesn't
matter if we call it the SovietUnion or if we call it the
Russian Empire.
Under the Tsars it wasfundamentally the same kind of
territorially the same body, andthe idea behind it was that
(23:28):
Russia would be at the center ofsome kind, whether it was a
communist state or not, thatRussia was at the core of some
kind of whether it was acommunist state or not, that
Russia was at the core of somegreat Eurasian empire.
Dana Lewis (23:38):
Do you think under Yeltsin, Russia embarked on a
journey of being European versusPutin?
Lucian Kim (23:48):
I don't think necessarily Yeltsin abandoned
this imperial idea.
I think what we saw in 1991with the dissolution of the
Soviet Union was obviously agreat collapse of an empire and
it would take years and yearsfor people to internalize, to
(24:10):
understand what happened.
So I think Boris Yeltsinalthough in some places in some
former Soviet republics he issort of celebrated as someone
who facilitated theirindependence I think a lot of
that had to do with his owninternal power struggle with
(24:30):
Mikhail Gorbachev inside theSoviet Union, rather than some
new way of thinking.
Dana Lewis (24:37):
Right, but I didn't .
I guess in covering Yeltsin Ididn't see this frantic struggle
to identify what is Russia.
It was just a journey to joinEurope, get the economy going
and make Russia prosper.
At least that's what I saw.
Lucian Kim (24:55):
Absolutely no.
I don't think we're in any waydisagreeing.
My point was that Boris Yeltsinand his contemporaries, people,
russians of that period of time, of course they were not
concerned first and foremostwith this question of who we are
.
This was a question that muchmore coincided with the rise of
(25:18):
Vladimir Putin after the year2000.
I think in the 1990s Russia verymuch was concerned with its
economic survival and it wasunclear whether these
centrifugal forces that had beenreleased by the collapse of the
Soviet Union, whether theywould continue inside Russia,
(25:38):
and by that obviously I'mreferring to the Chechen Wars,
when Chechnya said well, theSoviet Union disintegrated, we
also don't want to stay in anyrump Russia.
So I think in the 1990s were avery turbulent time.
(25:59):
I think, correctly, one couldsay it was a traumatic time for
many Russians.
It's just a matter of whatconclusions people drew for that
.
And obviously Vladimir Putin,representative representative, I
should say, of millions ofRussians, uh, uh felt that, um,
(26:20):
you know, what had to follow wasa time of restoration and, um,
even rebuilding of, of, if notthat uh empire, at least, uh,
its influence.
Dana Lewis (26:32):
And he used Chechnya to reinvade, to be the
strong prime minister andeventually the president, when
Yeltsin stepped aside and usedthat to show that he would bind
Russia together, that he wasstability, that he was strength,
and he used that.
But then after that there comesthis evolution about okay, now
(26:54):
what?
What is Russia now under Putin?
And then they start kind ofidentifying and playing
experimental ping pong withWorld War II memorials and the
fact that so many Russians lostyou know, every family was
touched by World War II and thatthey lost somebody in that
conflict.
They began to see that assomething that really bound the
(27:18):
country together somehow andthey began to use those images
and even talked of possiblybreathing back life into
Stalin's image, shockingly.
Lucian Kim (27:32):
Absolutely In that search for identity and sort of
a commonality.
World War II and the SovietUnion's World War II experience
was certainly one of the commonexperiences that Putin could go
back to and I think in fact theWorld War II experience.
(27:56):
It touched lives of peoplethroughout the Soviet Union.
It did not have to benecessarily a symbol of
nationalism, of Russian revival.
It could have been also.
It was a shared pain.
But Vladimir Putin chose to usethe World War II and in some
(28:19):
way co-opt the memory of WorldWar II for his own purposes and
to sort of cloak his ownauthoritarian regime and
legitimize it by taking over thememory of that horrible war.
Dana Lewis (28:38):
So, it comes as maybe no sort of jump in, but it
kind of comes as no surprisethen, by extension, that he uses
those images in the Ukraineconflict Things like Nazism and
denazifying Ukraine becausethat's something that Russians
will identify with from theirpast.
Lucian Kim (28:57):
Absolutely From the um, from also the popular
culture, from the movies, um,this became kind of a, it became
almost natural for for uh,Vladimir Putin to refer back to
that.
Dana Lewis (29:11):
So it's a hell of a jump, though, from all of that
to Putin suddenly waking up insome weird dream in the pandemic
.
And I think you make the pointin your book that he was largely
isolated.
And lots of my sources, peoplewho have met with Putin, who
said you know, talked about thefact he would hold a couple of
dozen meetings a day.
A day, people lined up in thelobby to see him.
(29:38):
Suddenly, he's largely isolatedfor a couple of years, and then
you raise questions in yourbook about how does he survive
that isolation and how does heemerge from that.
I don't mean to be crass, butdo you think he blew a fuse in
there?
Lucian Kim (30:00):
he blew a fuse in there.
What we know is that he wasextremely, uh, isolated, and I
think what's important toemphasize is that the people
that did see him, or and that hedid allow to see him, were
members of a very hardcoreideology, or adherence to a
hardcore ideology, seeing Russiasort of as a victim of Western
aggression and calling for somesort of restoration.
(30:23):
I think another factor thatgoes along with Putin's COVID
isolation is the fact that inOctober 2022, he was going to
turn 70 years old.
In October 2022, he was goingto turn 70 years old For Putin
also.
Researching this book, I againbecame very aware of this.
For Putin, anniversaries areextremely important.
(30:43):
Almost all of the big dates inthis book are somehow tied up to
some anniversary, some kind ofholiday, and I believe that
Putin understood that the clockis ticking uh, literally uh on
his, on his reign and uh.
That time was uh running outfor him to either, you know,
(31:05):
make a big play, uh and um andreconquer ukraine, or go down in
history as the russian leaderwho I'm using air quotes lost
Ukraine once and for all.
Dana Lewis (31:19):
But this is not about NATO again, right?
So if you believe that andyou've written that and a lot of
other people do as well, theysay this is just a ruse that
Putin used to go into Ukraine torestore the Russian empire, to
capitalize on the fact thatthere are, you know, trillions
(31:39):
of dollars, for instance, in rawminerals, that are in the east
part of Ukraine that interestRussian oligarchs in business
and the Kremlin in a big way.
But without going into that, ifyou then look at Trump today
and his notion that he cansomehow be sympathetic to the
(32:04):
fact that Putin doesn't wantNATO up against its border in
Ukraine, then his recipe somehowthat he'll go in and talk to
Vladimir and they'll make surethat there's a promise that
Ukraine won't join NATO maybesome demilitarization although I
can't believe the Ukrainianswould go for it and they'll
(32:27):
allow Russia to bite off part ofEastern Ukraine for a deal for
a ceasefire at least.
Isn't that all incredibly?
Lucian Kim (32:37):
naive.
I think the way that worldleaders have been dealing with
Putin ever since he came topower you could call naive.
I think there has always beenthis idea that, okay, russia has
a strong man, but we can reachsome kind of agreement.
(32:59):
When Emmanuel Macron waselected France's president, he
had the same idea.
We are a grand nation andRussia has a glorious history,
and I'm going to sit down withVladimir Putin man to man man
and we'll hammer out ourdifferences.
Incidentally, volodymyrZelensky, when he became
(33:19):
president, had the same ideathat it was just a matter of
sitting down with Putin and,sort of like, finally hammering
out all the differences in kindof a long session.
So Trump is not approachingthis in a new way.
Of course, we know that Putinhas his own ideas of how he
(33:47):
wants to end this conflict.
So, yes, I would agree that itis dangerous to go into any kind
of talks, um, with sort ofthese simplistic ideas that it's
just a matter of of.
Dana Lewis (34:01):
It's a matter of having a having a good talk with
mr putin it seems to me thatthe the conflict could escalate
rather than de-escalate in theshort term, because if trump
wants to be in a position ofstrength and bring Russia to the
table with some muscle, he'snot going to be able to stop
(34:22):
funding Ukraine and back awayfrom supplying weapons to
Ukraine.
In fact, they might have togive more to Ukraine to get
Putin to sober up and comearound to the idea that he
better end this sooner thanlater.
Lucian Kim (34:34):
I agree that there's a danger that uh, and
come around to the idea that hebetter end this sooner than
later.
I agree that's.
I agree that there's a, a, adanger that, despite um, even if
we can call them um Trump'sbest intentions to end this war,
or anybody's best intentions toend this war, um, it does not
necessarily mean that we'regoing to see a quick end.
I see one big danger, dana, inthe idea of talks also that
(34:59):
Putin may be incentivized tobegin talks, to actually come to
the negotiating table and tonever finish them.
We know that in thenegotiations that led up to the
so-called Minsk agreements of2014 and 2015,.
Even as Putin was negotiatingwith people like German
(35:19):
Chancellor Angela Merkel, atthat moment, russian troops were
fighting on the ground inUkraine, creating new facts on
the ground that were influencingthe negotiations.
Dana Lewis (35:30):
So I can see that there's also a danger of talks
starting, starting, uh, andnever ending, and, and and
russia using the, the situationto continue its, its, its, uh,
westward grind in, in, in inukraine you're being very
generous, generous with yourtime and I promise not to ask
you too much more, but becauseand I know you got to go but but
(35:52):
let me just touch on this itseems ironic to me that Trump,
even as we watch him in the last48 hours of news cycle, is
talking about possibly using notruling out force in Greenland
because it's in America's sphereand it's critical to security,
to security.
(36:12):
He's talked about possibly usingmilitary force in the Panama
Canal because it was there,built by the US military and
it's critical that it not betaken by China.
And you know he talks aboutNorth American sphere of
influence, in essence renamingthe Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of
(36:32):
America, and then my country,canada, you know he talks about
it becoming maybe the 51st state, and then he's not going to
roll the military in, but he'lluse the muscle of economic
tariffs and pressure to possiblybring Canada into some kind of
closer relationship.
I think it'll alienate Canada.
But if you apply all of thatlogic, you know, the Greenland,
(36:56):
the Panama Canal, what he'sgoing to do with Mexico, isn't
he just feeding President Putinthat, yeah, you can have a
sphere of influence because wehave one?
And isn't he telling China yeah, taiwan is right there, and
surely that should be withinyour sphere of influence.
Isn't this all double standard?
Lucian Kim (37:16):
And it gets a bit convoluted doesn't it Convoluted
and maybe in some sense forVladimir Putin?
In fact, it adds some clarity.
Finally, there's a US leaderthat's speaking the truth about
American intentions on landssurrounding the United States.
(37:37):
So I think it's a very goodpoint that you make, because for
years now we have beenlamenting Vladimir Putin's 19th
century thinking, and here, allof a sudden, we're about to have
a US president who is repeatingthat same kind of language.
Dana Lewis (37:57):
It's dangerous if it feeds Putin's narrative and
his belief that he shouldsubject all of the countries on
his border to Russian rule, andthat includes the ones that are
already part of NATO and part ofEurope.
The ones you mentioned inLatvia, lithuania, already part
of NATO and part of Europe.
The ones you mentioned inLatvia, lithuania, estonia.
Lucian Kim (38:23):
Georgia and on, and Poland maybe?
Yes, I mean, it gives credenceto what Putin has been saying
all these years, that Russiadoes have a sphere of influence
over its neighbors.
Dana Lewis (38:28):
Lucien Kim, great to talk to you.
Lucian Kim (38:31):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Dana Lewis (38:32):
And that's our backstory.
This week, trump tends toprovide news people with an
endless supply of what I callcrazy.
It's entertaining, exhausting,but we're just getting started.
Four more years of a PresidentTrump is going to be a long time
.
Keep your sense of humor, ifyou can.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
(38:53):
No-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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