September 13, 2023 • 33 mins
Buckle up as we dive into the murky waters of international politics with our esteemed guest, former CIA intelligence analyst Sue Mi Terry, and Professor Robert English. This episode takes you to the heart of the surprising alliance between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. We dissect the possible implications of this event, the potential impact on the conflict in Ukraine, and the threats this union may pose to regional security due to North Korea's burgeoning nuclear ambitions.
In a world where alliances can shift like sand, we're left to wonder at Russia's newfound audacity towards North Korea and Putin's motivations. Robert English helps us understand the possible shift in Putin's ideology and the staggering number of artillery shells raining down on Ukraine. More than just another news analysis, we bring you a vivid exploration of a dangerous power-play and its potential global consequences. Let's question together what this unholy alliance might mean for the future of international relations. Stay tuned!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dana Lewis (00:03):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, reclusive and paranoid, has
just ventured out of his countryto meet President Putin in
Russia's Far East.
The two of them pariahs, thedespot duo.
Putin wants arms for his war inUkraine artillery shells and
(00:26):
more and Kim wants satellitetechnology to frighten his
neighbors, even the US, withadvanced nuclear weapons
programs.
This week I talked to a formerCIA intelligence analyst on
North Korea Sue Mi Terry, and onPutin's Russia, American
professor Robert English, andhow the modern day leader finds
solace in old ways of thinkingborrowed from the USSR.
(00:50):
All right, Sue Mi Terry is aformer CIA officer, a researcher
, a former intelligence analystwho specialized in East Asia and
is an expert on internationalpolitics involving North and
South Korea.
Welcome, Sue Mi.
Sue Mi Terry (01:13):
Thank you for having me on.
Dana Lewis (01:14):
Can you first of all tell me why now this meeting
in Vladivostok in Russiabetween President Putin and Kim
Jong-un?
Sue Mi Terry (01:27):
Well, there are two leaders that are completely
isolated from the world andthere is a mutual interest that
are served by meeting at thispoint.
Putin needs badly neededammunition for his war efforts
in Ukraine and Kim Jong-un needsfood aid and fuel and, more
than that, technical support forhis military satellites, for
(01:51):
his long-range intercontinentalballistic missiles, for nuclear
power submarine.
So it makes sense from Putinand Kim Jong-un's perspective to
meet now and COVID restrictionsyou know we're just coming out
of a pandemic so it makes sensefrom both of their perspectives.
Dana Lewis (02:09):
Do you believe that this is a new road that the
Russians are paving or do youthink that, in fact, behind the
scenes, russia was alreadysupplying technology?
I mean, a lot of people aresaying that the last
intercontinental ballisticmissile test by North Korea
looked remarkably similar to theRussian technology on the
(02:29):
Topol-M missile, for instance.
Sue Mi Terry (02:33):
Well, first, I think it's pre-pathetic and
ironic that Russia, which isused to be this nuclear power
country that's a patron and wasthe one who was aiding North
Korea, is now turning to NorthKorea, 198th ranked economy in
the world that cannot feed itsown population for support.
(02:55):
Now, in terms of Russia'ssupport to North Korea, that may
be very well true that Russiahas always provided some
technology and help, but nowthis is overt, which means I
think it's about degrees.
Right, they can just amp upmuch more in terms of supporting
North Korea.
(03:15):
Now, if you remember, in 2017,in the fall of 2017, china and
Russia actually implementedsanctions against North Korea,
so it's not supposed to be suchan overt thing.
But now, russia beinginternationally isolated itself,
I guess it doesn't care.
So it's about degrees and I amconcerned about this overt
(03:37):
technology transfer.
Dana Lewis (03:39):
Where could it potentially lead?
I mean, I know North Koreawants food and energy, but
Russia in return could givethings like nuclear submarine
technology, and North Koreaalready has a very advanced
nuclear program.
What's the danger here?
Sue Mi Terry (04:02):
Well, Kim Jong-un's goal is to perfect his
nuclear weapons program, hisWMD program.
He's been expanding,modernizing his nuclear missile
arsenal.
North Korea tested some 80missiles last year, so this will
help North Korea furtheradvance and perfect their
(04:23):
program.
This month North Korea rolledout a diesel-based submarine.
Now they can have nuclearsubmarines.
So this is not good news.
It's win-win for Putin and KimJong-un, but this is not good
news for the United States andthe West.
Dana Lewis (04:41):
Why, do you think, did Russia first of all signed
onto the sanctions in the firstplace?
I mean, some people said thatthey were worried about North
Korea themselves and they werein fear of perhaps, the
satellite program that NorthKorea is after.
So why do 180-degree turnaboutnow for some artillery shells?
In essence, I mean millions ofartillery shells and it's
(05:03):
critical in the war effort.
But I mean, president Putin iswalking a dangerous road here.
Sue Mi Terry (05:07):
He's walking a dangerous road, but Russia's
number one priority right now iswinning the war in Ukraine, and
this is a war about supplylines, and so he needs his
ammunition.
So he's turning to North KoreaNow.
When Putin actually decided toimplement sanctions in the fall
of 2017, this was under theTrump era.
(05:29):
Remember this Fire and fury erawhen President Trump was
calling Kim Jong-un a rocket manon a suicide mission?
So there was a concern thatthere could have been a conflict
.
So Russia and Chinasurprisingly implemented
sanctions.
But now it's no longer 2017.
It's a very different worldthat we're living in, and
there's a loose alliancerelationship between Russia and
(05:52):
China and North Korea, and Putinand Kim Jong-un's meeting is
really a meeting of this unholyduel right.
This is not good, as I said,but I think Putin is focused
more on Russia's war on Ukraine,so he needs help from North
Korea, and North Korea has alarge stockpile of munitions.
Dana Lewis (06:14):
What does this marriage of despots bring us?
Sue Mi Terry (06:18):
Well, it threatens the region further.
This will help Russia's warefforts in Ukraine, so that
makes that situation moredangerous.
It will help modernize andexpand North Korea's nuclear
weapons program, which will makeNorth Korea more dangerous to
the region, to South Korea, toJapan and to the rest of the
(06:40):
world.
So this is again not from US'sperspective and West's
perspective.
This is very concerningdevelopment.
Dana Lewis (06:50):
You believe that Russia and North Korea sought
the blessing of China for this.
If you want to call it anunholy alliance, but it's an
alliance nonetheless.
Sue Mi Terry (07:04):
It's interesting how much China knows and how
much China will approve of this.
I think it's complicated andChina is a wild card here.
North Korea traditionally hasalways played China and Russia
off one another I remember goingback to Sino-Soviet rivalry and
(07:25):
by relying on Russia it willreduce North Korea's dependence
on China, which China will notlike.
So I think China is going tolook at this whole situation
with a little bit of weary eye,so we'll see how Beijing
responds, but it's a little bitcomplicated from China's
perspective.
Dana Lewis (07:43):
It's a little bit complicated from Washington's
perspective too.
I mean, here you have thespokesman yesterday wagging his
finger at Russia, saying inNorth Korea saying that they
better not start trading inweapons and that there will be
consequences.
I mean, they have been puttinga tighter hold on the throat of
(08:05):
North Korea for several decadesand the nuclear program has just
gone ahead regardless.
Sue Mi Terry (08:13):
Absolutely.
Jake Sullivan, nationalSecurity Advisor, said there was
a price, that was going to be aprice to pay, but in reality,
what price?
Both countries are already veryisolated in terms of
sanctioning North Korea.
For sanctions to be effective,china and Russia have to
implement sanctions, and theyhave not been doing that in
recent years.
So what more can we do to NorthKorea?
(08:35):
The talks between Washingtonand Pyongyang have completely
broken down.
There's a complete impassebetween Washington and Pyongyang
, so I'm not sure what price.
North Korea conducted 80 testslast year missile tests or in
violation of United NationsSecurity Council resolutions.
Did United Nations SecurityCouncil respond in any way?
(08:56):
China, russia and UNSC couldnot even come up with a
condemnation of these launches.
So again, price to pay?
I don't know what price.
There's not a whole lot ofoptions here in terms of
pressuring North Korea.
Dana Lewis (09:10):
What are the options?
If you say there's not verymany, are there any and what
would they be?
Sue Mi Terry (09:17):
The options are what the Biden administration is
already doing, which is tostrengthen territorial
relationship between UnitedStates, south Korea and Japan to
make sure that we're all on thesame page in responding to
future North Korean provocations.
President Biden did hostPresident Yoon-Sang-Yoon of
South Korea and Prime MinisterKishida of Japan at Camp David.
Thankfully, korea and Japanrelationship has improved.
(09:40):
Now that we're going to dotrilateral military exercises,
there's going to be a greaterinformation intelligence sharing
.
So in terms of trying to stopthis meeting and stop this trade
, I think that's very difficultto do at this moment.
Dana Lewis (09:55):
Last question to you your impressions of Kim
Jong-un, who was largely silentduring the pandemic, disappeared
for months at a time.
What do you think is happeningto him?
With him in North Korea?
Sue Mi Terry (10:12):
Well, kim is rapidly expanding his WMD
program, but internally, theeconomic situation is quite dire
.
North Korea was the firstcountry to close the border with
China at the beginning of COVIDpandemic in January 2020.
So the economic situation isdire in the sense that that
(10:34):
border closure had more of animpact in North Korea's economy
than sanctions ever could.
So there is an internalsituation that's bad in terms of
food shortages and malnutritionand so on.
Then, of course, he's stillfocusing all on expanding his
WMD program.
So we'll see.
(10:54):
I think this is why Kim Jong-unis making this trip to Russia.
He's looking for fuel, food aidfrom Russia, as well as
technology transfer to expandhis WMD program.
Dana Lewis (11:06):
To me, terry.
It's great for you to shareyour thoughts and thank you so
much.
I appreciate your time.
Sue Mi Terry (11:11):
Thank you for having me on.
Dana Lewis (11:18):
Robert English is an American academic, author,
historian and internationalrelations scholar who
specializes in Eastern Europe,and particularly in the former
USSR and Russia.
His official title he's anassociate professor of
international foreign policy anddefense analysis at the
University of SouthernCalifornia School of
(11:40):
International Relations.
With that out of the way,welcome, robert.
Good to meet you.
Thank you, nice to be here.
What is Russia doing?
This will play later, but as wespeak, the Kim Jong-un is in
Vladivostok.
He's gotten off his armoredtrain and he's going to be
(12:01):
meeting with President Putin.
What are they doing?
Robert English (12:07):
They are the leaders of what we might say two
pariah states that areextraordinarily at odds with the
West right now, who have foundour finding common ground, not
just because the enemy of myenemy is my friend although
that's part of it but becausethey have very compatible
(12:29):
economic and technological needsand it looks like they're going
to do a deal how expansive wedon't know, but the outlines
have been described in all thenews media.
Right, North Korea has theselarge stockpiles of good old
fashioned artillery shells andunguided rockets, you know, for
(12:50):
multiple launch rocket systemsthat the Russians could very
well use in Ukraine.
Their supplies are running lowand of course, Russia has a lot
of things that North Korea needs, from basic food stuffs to
missile and submarine technology.
So some kind of deals are inthe offing, and how extensive
(13:10):
they are and how broadly they'regoing to violate sanctions,
that's going to be interestingto follow.
Dana Lewis (13:16):
Yeah, and some of the numbers are staggering.
I mean because Russia up untilthis point if people have any
understanding what's going on inthe frontline of Ukraine had
fired about a million and a halfto a million point seven
artillery shells.
They were trying to ratchet uptheir military industrial
complex to deliver like two anda half million.
(13:36):
Now they're saying they couldin the coming year hope to fire
seven million rounds ofartillery.
I mean, that's how grindingbloody that frontline conflict
is In North Korea doesn't haveanything really high tech for
them or cutting edge, but theydo, since the 1950s, have these
(13:57):
huge stockpiles.
Yeah.
Robert English (14:00):
And they built their arms production, they
built their army basically onSoviet models.
So guess what?
The caliber is exactly right.
The charge is fit.
They're not high tech guidedprojectiles.
This is good old fashioned,essentially World War II, 1950s
technology.
But for the kind of poundingthat you accurately describe,
(14:23):
it's just the thing.
And unless Russia can doubleagain I think I saw the same
numbers as you from about 1.5.
They're hoping to produce threemillion shells this year, but
if they're going to fire twicethat many, then they can't keep
up.
Their own reserve stockpilesare being depleted.
Whatever Iran, North Korea,maybe some African countries
(14:46):
we've heard can provide will beneeded to fill that gap.
Let's hope they're not allfired and the war ends before
another seven million rounds arefired by Russia and an
equivalent amount by theUkrainians.
Dana Lewis (15:01):
What's happened to Russia's caution?
They originally were cautiousof North Korea.
Like everybody else.
They didn't really want them tohave a nuclear program.
They were certainly worriedabout their rockets being able
to set up a satellite program.
What's happened to Putin?
Is this just an act ofdesperation, or is it something
(15:22):
more?
Robert English (15:25):
I'm a little hesitant to use the word
desperation only because theUkrainian side is in a similar
condition.
They, of course, can't producemany shells at all.
They're entirely dependent ontheir Western backers.
We in the United States andEuropean Union NATO countries
are having big difficultyfilling their stockpiles.
We are, in a sense, just aboutas desperate in supporting our
(15:49):
Ukrainian friends as theRussians are.
Desperation isn't quite theword.
Both sides are just scramblingto keep up this brutal, passive
killing.
That's part of it.
But you're right to point toPutin and ask what something
more fundamental has changed,not just his approach to North
(16:10):
Korea, his regard for thatregime and what Kim Jong-un
represents, but his place in theworld.
This is one pariah stateembracing another.
What will follow from this isthis open flouting of UN
sanctions, which Russia helpedcraft as you know you made
(16:31):
allusion to that Back after 2009, 2014,.
15 various rounds of sanctionsthat Russia backed in concert
with the United States, france,other Western allies.
So this kind of activity isflouting those sanctions here to
four.
They had been doing it quietlysmaller purchases, clandestine
(16:51):
transfers but if they embraceeach other publicly and announce
a deal, then they're sayingheck with everyone else.
I was going to use the vulgarterm, but maybe this is for
family audiences.
We will just do it openly and,yes, that's crossing a line in
saying we don't care.
We're not going to try to getback into the West's good graces
(17:12):
.
We have no problem makingcommon cause with another pariah
state and I, like you, wonderhow thoroughly that's thought
through.
Does Putin have no concern forat some point having sanctions
relief on his own country,reestablishing technological
investment ties with the West sohis battered economy can
(17:35):
recover?
It is, I think you'resuggesting, another fateful step
down a path of total isolationfor maybe decades to come.
It's a very sad moment forRussia.
Dana Lewis (17:49):
You've written a lot about the former Soviet
Union and the USSR.
Putin watched the collapse ofthe former Soviet Union.
I'm not sure he embraced it,but he certainly later on cashed
in on capitalism and of thetrade that was filtered through
(18:10):
the Kremlin.
Do you have a sense of whereRussia is going under Vladimir
Putin?
Does he have a philosophy, likeyou could at least say there
was a philosophical branch ofcommunism and how they saw their
(18:31):
state and socialism.
What is Putin's raison d'etre?
Robert English (18:38):
I think he's ad-libbing.
I think he hasn't thoughtthrough these latest ventures.
Since they haven't gone asexpected, he's forced to adjust.
Those decisions and thosepolicies are taking Russia down
this path of isolation completeisolation, complete pariah
status.
What do I mean by that?
(19:00):
We go back to, let's say, 2008,2009, and the George Bush
administration that announcedthat at some point in the future
, georgia and Ukraine would beadmitted to NATO.
That infuriated Putin.
We saw then armed clasheswithin Georgia turn into a
Russian invasion shortlythereafter.
(19:22):
But Putin obviously could havesubdued all of Georgia and taken
it if he wanted to.
He didn't.
That and other moves continuedcooperation with the West over
some things like Iran or NorthKorea at that time suggest that
he was trying to have it bothways expand Russian influence,
(19:43):
push back against Westerninfluence and the NATO alliance
in his perceived backyard, butkeep good relations All the way
up to February, march of 2022,they were still finishing the
North Stream pipeline.
They didn't plan to blow it up.
They didn't plan to end allenergy relations with Western
(20:03):
Europe.
This all came as an unpleasantsurprise, a spillover from this
quick invasion that was supposedto subdue Ukraine in a flash,
instead going wrong, and nowhe's embroiled in a massive,
bloody, brutal war filled withcivilian casualties and war
crimes, and that's what I meanby ad-libbing.
(20:23):
I don't think he planned a yearand a half ago to be dancing
with Kim Jong-un and burning allthese bridges with the West.
But I don't know inside his headif he's not maybe even happy
with this, maybe on some levelreverting back to kind of a
Brezhnev style almost SovietUnion that is in permanent
(20:45):
hostility with the West, wherehe can have this propaganda
right of a country under siege,where it becomes more and more
like the Soviet Union that youand I knew in those last years,
those last decades, is somethinghe's unhappy with A closed
country, a country of sort ofpolice state, iron discipline,
(21:06):
even if it's going to costeconomic growth and put them on
a second rate status for decadesto come.
Maybe he's made his peace withthat and even likes the idea of
being some kind of generalissimoof a police state.
I can't understand him, but Idon't think it was thought
through and I do believe theseare ad hoc decisions.
(21:27):
And so, again, the North Koreaembrace right now proceeds from
necessity to get the arms heneeds, but along with it he
seems very comfortable withBrezhnev style Soviet relations
with these odious client states.
Dana Lewis (21:45):
So can I just explore that with you for a
moment, because you've writtenabout it and maybe you could
explain it and I understand wedon't have that much time to go
through it, but we have sometime and you wrote about the old
way of thinking in the formerSoviet Union and then that there
was an intellectual sort ofrevolution under Gorbachev.
If Putin is adopting the oldway of thinking in the former
(22:12):
Soviet Union, can you give mesome clue what he's latched onto
or latched back onto?
Robert English (22:20):
Well, as for an ideological anchor, he's
thrashing around.
He himself was a product ofthat Soviet KGB Cold War
hostility with the Westmentality, but that was of
course based on Marxism-Leninismand he doesn't believe that
they chose Jung At the same time.
He has more recently voicedthis kind of messianic Russian
(22:43):
nationalism, the Alexander Dugan, the Eurasianism.
I don't think he believes thateither.
He wasn't propagating that justa few years ago.
I think a lot of that is forhis domestic audience to justify
Ukraine.
So I don't think he has anideological anchor.
He doesn't deeply believe inRussian history or those kinds
(23:03):
of anti-Western philosophers.
He certainly doesn't believe inMarxism-Leninism.
What does that leave us with?
He believes in a strong Russianstate standing up to the West,
refusing to become part of theliberal American-led world order
just for the sake of refusing.
Russia has to be unequal.
(23:26):
Russia has to have its ownbackyard, its own Monroe
doctrine.
It must never be second-rate inany alliance or international
organization.
And so it's better to add libwith this anti-Western
confrontation, add back incontrol over these territories
(23:49):
where there are Russianpopulations, where he can make
some kind of historic claim.
Catherine the Great built up theCrimea and behind that wall and
it will be an iron curtain ofsorts.
He will be satisfied, eventhough any economist left if he
has any left who are Westernlooking will tell him that's his
(24:10):
path of steady degradation.
And we don't even have to lookmuch further than out our
windows to see what climatechange will do to Petro-states
or his perceived economic basebased on selling oil and gas and
maybe some coal minerals.
Well, of course, dwindle.
If we're still pumping as muchoil and gas in 10 years as we
(24:32):
are now, then we're all fried.
So it's a wasting asset.
But he's not looking out 10years.
I don't believe it's.
Again, I come back to this he'sad-libbing.
It's an ad hoc set of decisionsand he's grabbing at pieces of
history or philosophy to justifyit in this sort of incoherent
fashion.
Dana Lewis (24:51):
He's grabbing at it , but I mean a lot of people
would say that during thepandemic, I mean he immersed
himself, he was surrounded bythe Kremlin.
Historian, I think.
And some people wonder you knowPutin never, you're right, he
never had these big visions ofrestoring the empire and
reclaiming Russian lands.
He expressed some sorrow at thebreakup of the Soviet Union and
(25:17):
that there was a humancatastrophe.
As many as Russian slavs wereleft in Kazakhstan, uzbekistan,
ukraine, elsewhere.
But he didn't have that.
What are the chances?
There's been a kind of I mean,a lot of people see him as the
dawn of a crime family.
Do you think that some of thosemembers of the family of his
(25:41):
inner circle?
There's been kind of a coupduring the Kremlin.
The hardliners have come topower, people like Petrashiv,
and that Putin is really notsteering the ship at all.
Robert English (25:55):
I can't answer about that.
This is now pure speculation,as is, I suppose, the sort of
long distance cycle analysiswe're performing, trying to
understand how much of this wasa gradual evolution on his part.
Maybe during COVID, thatisolation, he did start
believing or embracing some ofthis, but it's still not a
deeply held, lifelong commitment.
(26:17):
I don't know how to answer.
I like to come back I'll try totell this story quickly and
you'll understand it to ananecdote that Russians tell that
to me sums up what reallymotivates Putin.
You remember, back in the early2000s there was the debate not
only about bringing back the oldSoviet anthem, but they
actually considered bringingback the red flag.
(26:39):
They have the tricolor, butindeed they did decide to bring
back the old Soviet anthem.
So the joke goes like this Anaide to Putin says Vladimir
Vladimirovich, we have aproposal from a capitalist
country for $10 billion.
They want to give us $10 billion, absolutely $10 billion.
(27:01):
That's right.
They only have one smallrequest yes, what do they want
in return for $10 billion?
They want us to embrace the redflag, go back to that red flag
that so many of our countrymenwant anyway.
Is that all they want for $10billion?
They want us to do something wemight do anyway.
(27:22):
Well, yes, and one more littlestipulation.
What's that Down in the cornerof that flag drink Coca-Cola,
hmm, says Putin.
$10 billion.
Tell me, when does our contractwith AquaFresh expire?
We know the tricolor toothpaste.
(27:43):
What's the point of that joke?
He doesn't believe in anythingexcept money, or let's say,
money and power.
All these nationalists weresaying we must go back to the
glory of the Stalin era or theczarist symbolism of this.
What was he thinking about?
Which one will profit me more?
That's certainly how most of usanalysts in Russia, in the West
(28:07):
Kremlin watchers, regardedPutin and his true motivations
for a long time.
Dana Lewis (28:13):
Although a lot of people would say in recent
history, it tells you hecertainly got the power part
because it's isolated, thecountry, he's controlled the
country, he's cut off Russia andhe's all they have now.
But in terms of money, billionsof dollars, hundreds of
(28:34):
billions of dollars are lost.
Robert English (28:36):
He and his top oligarchs, of course are
fabulously wealthy because theycan still skim off enormous
petrol profits, but of coursethe country at large is becoming
more and more impoverished.
But the point of that joke isjust that for a long time, in
coming to power and in rulingfor the first decade at least,
he didn't seem to have strongphilosophical principled beliefs
(28:59):
.
It was about power.
It was about his own power andthe power of Russia.
It didn't go much beyond thatand at that time it still meant
decent economic relations withthe West.
They wanted to sell gas toWestern Europe highly equitable.
They needed foreign investmentin their not just petroleum
industry, but automobiles,aircraft and much else.
(29:21):
So of course, power maximizing,power maximizing economic gain
meant a certain level ofeconomic good relations with the
West.
And again, the history of theNorth Korean pipeline and all
the money and effort theRussians invested into that
right up to the spring of 2022suggests that that was a
(29:42):
surprise.
They somehow thought the warwould be quick.
They'd still be selling gas toWestern Europe that the Western
Europeans would accept.
A quick and clean victory, atleast in conquest of half of
Ukraine.
Who knows what would have comeremove Zelensky, put in a puppet
regime, but clearly he plannedfor something quick that would
(30:03):
not upset all of these relations, political and economic with
the West.
Militarily it was a disaster.
Maybe politically it wasn'twell thought out either.
But it's actually interestingfor us to speculate.
What would our German friendsand our Italian and French
allies Macron, angela Merkel atthe time and, who knows, in
(30:23):
Italy have done in the event ofa quick and clean Russian
victory?
Maybe they would have madetheir peace with it, nato
wouldn't have had time to reactand those business interests in
Germany would have said you know, we can deal with this.
It didn't work out that way, sowe're improvising too.
But certainly Putin.
If he's found a heartfeltideology I don't know how
(30:48):
heartfelt it can be over acouple of years.
I still look forward to thepsycho historians who have all
the records, all the archives,all the interviews a decade
hence, maybe 20 years hence,post Putin, to fill us in on
just what happened to him inthose recent years.
I'm still not convinced by anyone version.
So I'm very dubious abouttaking any of Putin's
(31:12):
philosophical pronouncementsseriously.
Dana Lewis (31:15):
I'm deeply disappointed, robert, because I
don't have the answers either,and I thought you would have
them all today.
But anyway, you have greatquestions, better than mine, and
I appreciate your time.
It's great to meet you.
Thank you so much.
Robert English (31:26):
You're quite welcome.
This was a pleasure.
Maybe we'll talk again soon.
Dana Lewis (32:00):
Thanks for listening to Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, reclusive and paranoid, has
just ventured out of his countryto meet President Putin in
Russia's Far East.
The two of them pariahs, thedespot duo.
Putin wants arms for his war inUkraine artillery shells and
(00:26):
more and Kim wants satellitetechnology to frighten his
neighbors, even the US, withadvanced nuclear weapons
programs.
This week I talked to a formerCIA intelligence analyst on
North Korea Sue Mi Terry, and onPutin's Russia, American
professor Robert English, andhow the modern day leader finds
solace in old ways of thinkingborrowed from the USSR.
(00:50):
All right, Sue Mi Terry is aformer CIA officer, a researcher
, a former intelligence analystwho specialized in East Asia and
is an expert on internationalpolitics involving North and
South Korea.
Welcome, Sue Mi.
Sue Mi Terry (01:13):
Thank you for having me on.
Dana Lewis (01:14):
Can you first of all tell me why now this meeting
in Vladivostok in Russiabetween President Putin and Kim
Jong-un?
Sue Mi Terry (01:27):
Well, there are two leaders that are completely
isolated from the world andthere is a mutual interest that
are served by meeting at thispoint.
Putin needs badly neededammunition for his war efforts
in Ukraine and Kim Jong-un needsfood aid and fuel and, more
than that, technical support forhis military satellites, for
(01:51):
his long-range intercontinentalballistic missiles, for nuclear
power submarine.
So it makes sense from Putinand Kim Jong-un's perspective to
meet now and COVID restrictionsyou know we're just coming out
of a pandemic so it makes sensefrom both of their perspectives.
Dana Lewis (02:09):
Do you believe that this is a new road that the
Russians are paving or do youthink that, in fact, behind the
scenes, russia was alreadysupplying technology?
I mean, a lot of people aresaying that the last
intercontinental ballisticmissile test by North Korea
looked remarkably similar to theRussian technology on the
(02:29):
Topol-M missile, for instance.
Sue Mi Terry (02:33):
Well, first, I think it's pre-pathetic and
ironic that Russia, which isused to be this nuclear power
country that's a patron and wasthe one who was aiding North
Korea, is now turning to NorthKorea, 198th ranked economy in
the world that cannot feed itsown population for support.
(02:55):
Now, in terms of Russia'ssupport to North Korea, that may
be very well true that Russiahas always provided some
technology and help, but nowthis is overt, which means I
think it's about degrees.
Right, they can just amp upmuch more in terms of supporting
North Korea.
(03:15):
Now, if you remember, in 2017,in the fall of 2017, china and
Russia actually implementedsanctions against North Korea,
so it's not supposed to be suchan overt thing.
But now, russia beinginternationally isolated itself,
I guess it doesn't care.
So it's about degrees and I amconcerned about this overt
(03:37):
technology transfer.
Dana Lewis (03:39):
Where could it potentially lead?
I mean, I know North Koreawants food and energy, but
Russia in return could givethings like nuclear submarine
technology, and North Koreaalready has a very advanced
nuclear program.
What's the danger here?
Sue Mi Terry (04:02):
Well, Kim Jong-un's goal is to perfect his
nuclear weapons program, hisWMD program.
He's been expanding,modernizing his nuclear missile
arsenal.
North Korea tested some 80missiles last year, so this will
help North Korea furtheradvance and perfect their
(04:23):
program.
This month North Korea rolledout a diesel-based submarine.
Now they can have nuclearsubmarines.
So this is not good news.
It's win-win for Putin and KimJong-un, but this is not good
news for the United States andthe West.
Dana Lewis (04:41):
Why, do you think, did Russia first of all signed
onto the sanctions in the firstplace?
I mean, some people said thatthey were worried about North
Korea themselves and they werein fear of perhaps, the
satellite program that NorthKorea is after.
So why do 180-degree turnaboutnow for some artillery shells?
In essence, I mean millions ofartillery shells and it's
(05:03):
critical in the war effort.
But I mean, president Putin iswalking a dangerous road here.
Sue Mi Terry (05:07):
He's walking a dangerous road, but Russia's
number one priority right now iswinning the war in Ukraine, and
this is a war about supplylines, and so he needs his
ammunition.
So he's turning to North KoreaNow.
When Putin actually decided toimplement sanctions in the fall
of 2017, this was under theTrump era.
(05:29):
Remember this Fire and fury erawhen President Trump was
calling Kim Jong-un a rocket manon a suicide mission?
So there was a concern thatthere could have been a conflict
.
So Russia and Chinasurprisingly implemented
sanctions.
But now it's no longer 2017.
It's a very different worldthat we're living in, and
there's a loose alliancerelationship between Russia and
(05:52):
China and North Korea, and Putinand Kim Jong-un's meeting is
really a meeting of this unholyduel right.
This is not good, as I said,but I think Putin is focused
more on Russia's war on Ukraine,so he needs help from North
Korea, and North Korea has alarge stockpile of munitions.
Dana Lewis (06:14):
What does this marriage of despots bring us?
Sue Mi Terry (06:18):
Well, it threatens the region further.
This will help Russia's warefforts in Ukraine, so that
makes that situation moredangerous.
It will help modernize andexpand North Korea's nuclear
weapons program, which will makeNorth Korea more dangerous to
the region, to South Korea, toJapan and to the rest of the
(06:40):
world.
So this is again not from US'sperspective and West's
perspective.
This is very concerningdevelopment.
Dana Lewis (06:50):
You believe that Russia and North Korea sought
the blessing of China for this.
If you want to call it anunholy alliance, but it's an
alliance nonetheless.
Sue Mi Terry (07:04):
It's interesting how much China knows and how
much China will approve of this.
I think it's complicated andChina is a wild card here.
North Korea traditionally hasalways played China and Russia
off one another I remember goingback to Sino-Soviet rivalry and
(07:25):
by relying on Russia it willreduce North Korea's dependence
on China, which China will notlike.
So I think China is going tolook at this whole situation
with a little bit of weary eye,so we'll see how Beijing
responds, but it's a little bitcomplicated from China's
perspective.
Dana Lewis (07:43):
It's a little bit complicated from Washington's
perspective too.
I mean, here you have thespokesman yesterday wagging his
finger at Russia, saying inNorth Korea saying that they
better not start trading inweapons and that there will be
consequences.
I mean, they have been puttinga tighter hold on the throat of
(08:05):
North Korea for several decadesand the nuclear program has just
gone ahead regardless.
Sue Mi Terry (08:13):
Absolutely.
Jake Sullivan, nationalSecurity Advisor, said there was
a price, that was going to be aprice to pay, but in reality,
what price?
Both countries are already veryisolated in terms of
sanctioning North Korea.
For sanctions to be effective,china and Russia have to
implement sanctions, and theyhave not been doing that in
recent years.
So what more can we do to NorthKorea?
(08:35):
The talks between Washingtonand Pyongyang have completely
broken down.
There's a complete impassebetween Washington and Pyongyang
, so I'm not sure what price.
North Korea conducted 80 testslast year missile tests or in
violation of United NationsSecurity Council resolutions.
Did United Nations SecurityCouncil respond in any way?
(08:56):
China, russia and UNSC couldnot even come up with a
condemnation of these launches.
So again, price to pay?
I don't know what price.
There's not a whole lot ofoptions here in terms of
pressuring North Korea.
Dana Lewis (09:10):
What are the options?
If you say there's not verymany, are there any and what
would they be?
Sue Mi Terry (09:17):
The options are what the Biden administration is
already doing, which is tostrengthen territorial
relationship between UnitedStates, south Korea and Japan to
make sure that we're all on thesame page in responding to
future North Korean provocations.
President Biden did hostPresident Yoon-Sang-Yoon of
South Korea and Prime MinisterKishida of Japan at Camp David.
Thankfully, korea and Japanrelationship has improved.
(09:40):
Now that we're going to dotrilateral military exercises,
there's going to be a greaterinformation intelligence sharing
.
So in terms of trying to stopthis meeting and stop this trade
, I think that's very difficultto do at this moment.
Dana Lewis (09:55):
Last question to you your impressions of Kim
Jong-un, who was largely silentduring the pandemic, disappeared
for months at a time.
What do you think is happeningto him?
With him in North Korea?
Sue Mi Terry (10:12):
Well, kim is rapidly expanding his WMD
program, but internally, theeconomic situation is quite dire
.
North Korea was the firstcountry to close the border with
China at the beginning of COVIDpandemic in January 2020.
So the economic situation isdire in the sense that that
(10:34):
border closure had more of animpact in North Korea's economy
than sanctions ever could.
So there is an internalsituation that's bad in terms of
food shortages and malnutritionand so on.
Then, of course, he's stillfocusing all on expanding his
WMD program.
So we'll see.
(10:54):
I think this is why Kim Jong-unis making this trip to Russia.
He's looking for fuel, food aidfrom Russia, as well as
technology transfer to expandhis WMD program.
Dana Lewis (11:06):
To me, terry.
It's great for you to shareyour thoughts and thank you so
much.
I appreciate your time.
Sue Mi Terry (11:11):
Thank you for having me on.
Dana Lewis (11:18):
Robert English is an American academic, author,
historian and internationalrelations scholar who
specializes in Eastern Europe,and particularly in the former
USSR and Russia.
His official title he's anassociate professor of
international foreign policy anddefense analysis at the
University of SouthernCalifornia School of
(11:40):
International Relations.
With that out of the way,welcome, robert.
Good to meet you.
Thank you, nice to be here.
What is Russia doing?
This will play later, but as wespeak, the Kim Jong-un is in
Vladivostok.
He's gotten off his armoredtrain and he's going to be
(12:01):
meeting with President Putin.
What are they doing?
Robert English (12:07):
They are the leaders of what we might say two
pariah states that areextraordinarily at odds with the
West right now, who have foundour finding common ground, not
just because the enemy of myenemy is my friend although
that's part of it but becausethey have very compatible
(12:29):
economic and technological needsand it looks like they're going
to do a deal how expansive wedon't know, but the outlines
have been described in all thenews media.
Right, North Korea has theselarge stockpiles of good old
fashioned artillery shells andunguided rockets, you know, for
(12:50):
multiple launch rocket systemsthat the Russians could very
well use in Ukraine.
Their supplies are running lowand of course, Russia has a lot
of things that North Korea needs, from basic food stuffs to
missile and submarine technology.
So some kind of deals are inthe offing, and how extensive
(13:10):
they are and how broadly they'regoing to violate sanctions,
that's going to be interestingto follow.
Dana Lewis (13:16):
Yeah, and some of the numbers are staggering.
I mean because Russia up untilthis point if people have any
understanding what's going on inthe frontline of Ukraine had
fired about a million and a halfto a million point seven
artillery shells.
They were trying to ratchet uptheir military industrial
complex to deliver like two anda half million.
(13:36):
Now they're saying they couldin the coming year hope to fire
seven million rounds ofartillery.
I mean, that's how grindingbloody that frontline conflict
is In North Korea doesn't haveanything really high tech for
them or cutting edge, but theydo, since the 1950s, have these
(13:57):
huge stockpiles.
Yeah.
Robert English (14:00):
And they built their arms production, they
built their army basically onSoviet models.
So guess what?
The caliber is exactly right.
The charge is fit.
They're not high tech guidedprojectiles.
This is good old fashioned,essentially World War II, 1950s
technology.
But for the kind of poundingthat you accurately describe,
(14:23):
it's just the thing.
And unless Russia can doubleagain I think I saw the same
numbers as you from about 1.5.
They're hoping to produce threemillion shells this year, but
if they're going to fire twicethat many, then they can't keep
up.
Their own reserve stockpilesare being depleted.
Whatever Iran, North Korea,maybe some African countries
(14:46):
we've heard can provide will beneeded to fill that gap.
Let's hope they're not allfired and the war ends before
another seven million rounds arefired by Russia and an
equivalent amount by theUkrainians.
Dana Lewis (15:01):
What's happened to Russia's caution?
They originally were cautiousof North Korea.
Like everybody else.
They didn't really want them tohave a nuclear program.
They were certainly worriedabout their rockets being able
to set up a satellite program.
What's happened to Putin?
Is this just an act ofdesperation, or is it something
(15:22):
more?
Robert English (15:25):
I'm a little hesitant to use the word
desperation only because theUkrainian side is in a similar
condition.
They, of course, can't producemany shells at all.
They're entirely dependent ontheir Western backers.
We in the United States andEuropean Union NATO countries
are having big difficultyfilling their stockpiles.
We are, in a sense, just aboutas desperate in supporting our
(15:49):
Ukrainian friends as theRussians are.
Desperation isn't quite theword.
Both sides are just scramblingto keep up this brutal, passive
killing.
That's part of it.
But you're right to point toPutin and ask what something
more fundamental has changed,not just his approach to North
(16:10):
Korea, his regard for thatregime and what Kim Jong-un
represents, but his place in theworld.
This is one pariah stateembracing another.
What will follow from this isthis open flouting of UN
sanctions, which Russia helpedcraft as you know you made
(16:31):
allusion to that Back after 2009, 2014,.
15 various rounds of sanctionsthat Russia backed in concert
with the United States, france,other Western allies.
So this kind of activity isflouting those sanctions here to
four.
They had been doing it quietlysmaller purchases, clandestine
(16:51):
transfers but if they embraceeach other publicly and announce
a deal, then they're sayingheck with everyone else.
I was going to use the vulgarterm, but maybe this is for
family audiences.
We will just do it openly and,yes, that's crossing a line in
saying we don't care.
We're not going to try to getback into the West's good graces
(17:12):
.
We have no problem makingcommon cause with another pariah
state and I, like you, wonderhow thoroughly that's thought
through.
Does Putin have no concern forat some point having sanctions
relief on his own country,reestablishing technological
investment ties with the West sohis battered economy can
(17:35):
recover?
It is, I think you'resuggesting, another fateful step
down a path of total isolationfor maybe decades to come.
It's a very sad moment forRussia.
Dana Lewis (17:49):
You've written a lot about the former Soviet
Union and the USSR.
Putin watched the collapse ofthe former Soviet Union.
I'm not sure he embraced it,but he certainly later on cashed
in on capitalism and of thetrade that was filtered through
(18:10):
the Kremlin.
Do you have a sense of whereRussia is going under Vladimir
Putin?
Does he have a philosophy, likeyou could at least say there
was a philosophical branch ofcommunism and how they saw their
(18:31):
state and socialism.
What is Putin's raison d'etre?
Robert English (18:38):
I think he's ad-libbing.
I think he hasn't thoughtthrough these latest ventures.
Since they haven't gone asexpected, he's forced to adjust.
Those decisions and thosepolicies are taking Russia down
this path of isolation completeisolation, complete pariah
status.
What do I mean by that?
(19:00):
We go back to, let's say, 2008,2009, and the George Bush
administration that announcedthat at some point in the future
, georgia and Ukraine would beadmitted to NATO.
That infuriated Putin.
We saw then armed clasheswithin Georgia turn into a
Russian invasion shortlythereafter.
(19:22):
But Putin obviously could havesubdued all of Georgia and taken
it if he wanted to.
He didn't.
That and other moves continuedcooperation with the West over
some things like Iran or NorthKorea at that time suggest that
he was trying to have it bothways expand Russian influence,
(19:43):
push back against Westerninfluence and the NATO alliance
in his perceived backyard, butkeep good relations All the way
up to February, march of 2022,they were still finishing the
North Stream pipeline.
They didn't plan to blow it up.
They didn't plan to end allenergy relations with Western
(20:03):
Europe.
This all came as an unpleasantsurprise, a spillover from this
quick invasion that was supposedto subdue Ukraine in a flash,
instead going wrong, and nowhe's embroiled in a massive,
bloody, brutal war filled withcivilian casualties and war
crimes, and that's what I meanby ad-libbing.
(20:23):
I don't think he planned a yearand a half ago to be dancing
with Kim Jong-un and burning allthese bridges with the West.
But I don't know inside his headif he's not maybe even happy
with this, maybe on some levelreverting back to kind of a
Brezhnev style almost SovietUnion that is in permanent
(20:45):
hostility with the West, wherehe can have this propaganda
right of a country under siege,where it becomes more and more
like the Soviet Union that youand I knew in those last years,
those last decades, is somethinghe's unhappy with A closed
country, a country of sort ofpolice state, iron discipline,
(21:06):
even if it's going to costeconomic growth and put them on
a second rate status for decadesto come.
Maybe he's made his peace withthat and even likes the idea of
being some kind of generalissimoof a police state.
I can't understand him, but Idon't think it was thought
through and I do believe theseare ad hoc decisions.
(21:27):
And so, again, the North Koreaembrace right now proceeds from
necessity to get the arms heneeds, but along with it he
seems very comfortable withBrezhnev style Soviet relations
with these odious client states.
Dana Lewis (21:45):
So can I just explore that with you for a
moment, because you've writtenabout it and maybe you could
explain it and I understand wedon't have that much time to go
through it, but we have sometime and you wrote about the old
way of thinking in the formerSoviet Union and then that there
was an intellectual sort ofrevolution under Gorbachev.
If Putin is adopting the oldway of thinking in the former
(22:12):
Soviet Union, can you give mesome clue what he's latched onto
or latched back onto?
Robert English (22:20):
Well, as for an ideological anchor, he's
thrashing around.
He himself was a product ofthat Soviet KGB Cold War
hostility with the Westmentality, but that was of
course based on Marxism-Leninismand he doesn't believe that
they chose Jung At the same time.
He has more recently voicedthis kind of messianic Russian
(22:43):
nationalism, the Alexander Dugan, the Eurasianism.
I don't think he believes thateither.
He wasn't propagating that justa few years ago.
I think a lot of that is forhis domestic audience to justify
Ukraine.
So I don't think he has anideological anchor.
He doesn't deeply believe inRussian history or those kinds
(23:03):
of anti-Western philosophers.
He certainly doesn't believe inMarxism-Leninism.
What does that leave us with?
He believes in a strong Russianstate standing up to the West,
refusing to become part of theliberal American-led world order
just for the sake of refusing.
Russia has to be unequal.
(23:26):
Russia has to have its ownbackyard, its own Monroe
doctrine.
It must never be second-rate inany alliance or international
organization.
And so it's better to add libwith this anti-Western
confrontation, add back incontrol over these territories
(23:49):
where there are Russianpopulations, where he can make
some kind of historic claim.
Catherine the Great built up theCrimea and behind that wall and
it will be an iron curtain ofsorts.
He will be satisfied, eventhough any economist left if he
has any left who are Westernlooking will tell him that's his
(24:10):
path of steady degradation.
And we don't even have to lookmuch further than out our
windows to see what climatechange will do to Petro-states
or his perceived economic basebased on selling oil and gas and
maybe some coal minerals.
Well, of course, dwindle.
If we're still pumping as muchoil and gas in 10 years as we
(24:32):
are now, then we're all fried.
So it's a wasting asset.
But he's not looking out 10years.
I don't believe it's.
Again, I come back to this he'sad-libbing.
It's an ad hoc set of decisionsand he's grabbing at pieces of
history or philosophy to justifyit in this sort of incoherent
fashion.
Dana Lewis (24:51):
He's grabbing at it , but I mean a lot of people
would say that during thepandemic, I mean he immersed
himself, he was surrounded bythe Kremlin.
Historian, I think.
And some people wonder you knowPutin never, you're right, he
never had these big visions ofrestoring the empire and
reclaiming Russian lands.
He expressed some sorrow at thebreakup of the Soviet Union and
(25:17):
that there was a humancatastrophe.
As many as Russian slavs wereleft in Kazakhstan, uzbekistan,
ukraine, elsewhere.
But he didn't have that.
What are the chances?
There's been a kind of I mean,a lot of people see him as the
dawn of a crime family.
Do you think that some of thosemembers of the family of his
(25:41):
inner circle?
There's been kind of a coupduring the Kremlin.
The hardliners have come topower, people like Petrashiv,
and that Putin is really notsteering the ship at all.
Robert English (25:55):
I can't answer about that.
This is now pure speculation,as is, I suppose, the sort of
long distance cycle analysiswe're performing, trying to
understand how much of this wasa gradual evolution on his part.
Maybe during COVID, thatisolation, he did start
believing or embracing some ofthis, but it's still not a
deeply held, lifelong commitment.
(26:17):
I don't know how to answer.
I like to come back I'll try totell this story quickly and
you'll understand it to ananecdote that Russians tell that
to me sums up what reallymotivates Putin.
You remember, back in the early2000s there was the debate not
only about bringing back the oldSoviet anthem, but they
actually considered bringingback the red flag.
(26:39):
They have the tricolor, butindeed they did decide to bring
back the old Soviet anthem.
So the joke goes like this Anaide to Putin says Vladimir
Vladimirovich, we have aproposal from a capitalist
country for $10 billion.
They want to give us $10 billion, absolutely $10 billion.
(27:01):
That's right.
They only have one smallrequest yes, what do they want
in return for $10 billion?
They want us to embrace the redflag, go back to that red flag
that so many of our countrymenwant anyway.
Is that all they want for $10billion?
They want us to do something wemight do anyway.
(27:22):
Well, yes, and one more littlestipulation.
What's that Down in the cornerof that flag drink Coca-Cola,
hmm, says Putin.
$10 billion.
Tell me, when does our contractwith AquaFresh expire?
We know the tricolor toothpaste.
(27:43):
What's the point of that joke?
He doesn't believe in anythingexcept money, or let's say,
money and power.
All these nationalists weresaying we must go back to the
glory of the Stalin era or theczarist symbolism of this.
What was he thinking about?
Which one will profit me more?
That's certainly how most of usanalysts in Russia, in the West
(28:07):
Kremlin watchers, regardedPutin and his true motivations
for a long time.
Dana Lewis (28:13):
Although a lot of people would say in recent
history, it tells you hecertainly got the power part
because it's isolated, thecountry, he's controlled the
country, he's cut off Russia andhe's all they have now.
But in terms of money, billionsof dollars, hundreds of
(28:34):
billions of dollars are lost.
Robert English (28:36):
He and his top oligarchs, of course are
fabulously wealthy because theycan still skim off enormous
petrol profits, but of coursethe country at large is becoming
more and more impoverished.
But the point of that joke isjust that for a long time, in
coming to power and in rulingfor the first decade at least,
he didn't seem to have strongphilosophical principled beliefs
(28:59):
.
It was about power.
It was about his own power andthe power of Russia.
It didn't go much beyond thatand at that time it still meant
decent economic relations withthe West.
They wanted to sell gas toWestern Europe highly equitable.
They needed foreign investmentin their not just petroleum
industry, but automobiles,aircraft and much else.
(29:21):
So of course, power maximizing,power maximizing economic gain
meant a certain level ofeconomic good relations with the
West.
And again, the history of theNorth Korean pipeline and all
the money and effort theRussians invested into that
right up to the spring of 2022suggests that that was a
(29:42):
surprise.
They somehow thought the warwould be quick.
They'd still be selling gas toWestern Europe that the Western
Europeans would accept.
A quick and clean victory, atleast in conquest of half of
Ukraine.
Who knows what would have comeremove Zelensky, put in a puppet
regime, but clearly he plannedfor something quick that would
(30:03):
not upset all of these relations, political and economic with
the West.
Militarily it was a disaster.
Maybe politically it wasn'twell thought out either.
But it's actually interestingfor us to speculate.
What would our German friendsand our Italian and French
allies Macron, angela Merkel atthe time and, who knows, in
(30:23):
Italy have done in the event ofa quick and clean Russian
victory?
Maybe they would have madetheir peace with it, nato
wouldn't have had time to reactand those business interests in
Germany would have said you know, we can deal with this.
It didn't work out that way, sowe're improvising too.
But certainly Putin.
If he's found a heartfeltideology I don't know how
(30:48):
heartfelt it can be over acouple of years.
I still look forward to thepsycho historians who have all
the records, all the archives,all the interviews a decade
hence, maybe 20 years hence,post Putin, to fill us in on
just what happened to him inthose recent years.
I'm still not convinced by anyone version.
So I'm very dubious abouttaking any of Putin's
(31:12):
philosophical pronouncementsseriously.
Dana Lewis (31:15):
I'm deeply disappointed, robert, because I
don't have the answers either,and I thought you would have
them all today.
But anyway, you have greatquestions, better than mine, and
I appreciate your time.
It's great to meet you.
Thank you so much.
Robert English (31:26):
You're quite welcome.
This was a pleasure.
Maybe we'll talk again soon.
Dana Lewis (32:00):
Thanks for listening to Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.