February 22, 2024 • 37 mins
Could the untimely demise of Alexei Navalny herald a darker turn in the Ukraine conflict? On Back Story this week, Dana Lewis, examines the disturbing allegations of President Putin's involvement in the death of the Russian opposition figure. Mikhail Kasyanov, former Prime Minister, joins me to offer an insider's perspective on the Kremlin's opaque refusal to release Navalny's body We dissect the chilling repercussions that Navalny's passing may have, not just within Russia's borders but also in galvanizing Western resolve to support Ukraine's sovereignty struggle.
More on Ukraine with Crisis Group Director Olga Oliker who says talking has been going on a long time, but decisions are quickly needed to save Ukraine.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fm (00:00):
I'm sure in the future we'll know
what's real circumstances of hisdeath.
Dana Lewis (00:06):
Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in
the Valny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (00:10):
He's responsible, absolutely he's
responsible for that.
Dana Lewis (00:13):
You have said it's shorter weapons and personnel
money stalled in Washington.
Europe's ability to deliverweapons is also in question.
You're not painting a verybright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (00:26):
It's not a very bright picture.
I suppose the good news is thatall is not lost yet.
But look, these are thingspeople have been talking about
for months and they're stilltalking about them.
Dana Lewis (00:45):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Was Russian opposition figureAlexei Navalny murdered by
President Putin?
Well, as we say in crimereporting, where I got my
journalism start, motive, meansand opportunity Add up to the
main suspect being Putin.
His fingerprints are all overNavalny's death Motive Navalny
(01:08):
was a threat to Putin's choking,stifling stranglehold on
freedom and democracy in Russia.
Means Navalny's wife says itwas poisoning.
Regardless, the Russians won'trelease the body for examination
Opportunity.
I mean, navalny's been atPutin's care in Putin's prisons
since returning home in Januaryof 2021, when he had survived an
(01:30):
earlier poisoning attempt bythe Russian security services.
Tragic end that was stunning,but not altogether shocking, as
Putin rules now by terrorizinghis own citizens.
What does Navalny's death meanfor the war in Ukraine?
Could it reignite American andEuropean commitment to defeating
Russian forces in Ukraine?
(01:52):
Maybe, and on this Backstory,former Prime Minister of Russia
Mikhail Kasyanov, who is now adeclared enemy of Putin's state,
and the brilliant Olga Olegurfrom the International Crisis
Group on Ukraine.
The Russian Army is now athreat to Ukraine.
Mikhail Kasyanov is the formerPrime Minister of Russia now
(02:14):
labeled by the Kremlin as anenemy of the state, and he is
living in exile in Europe.
Mikhail, welcome back to thepodcast.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fm (02:22):
Yes , hello, happy to be in the
program again, thank you.
Dana Lewis (02:25):
It is heart-wrenching to hear pleas
from Alexei Navalny's mother andhis wife asking for the body of
Navalny back.
In a video released Monday, forinstance, yulia Navalny accused
Putin of killing her husband.
She says that the refusal tohand over the body is part of a
cover-up Quote.
(02:46):
They are cowardly and meanlyhiding his body, refusing to
give it to his mother and lyingmiserably while waiting for the
trace of poison to disappear.
She suggested that her husbandmight have been killed with a
Novichok-style nerve agent.
What would you say about whatwe're hearing?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (03:05):
Yeah , I think there are a number of
aspects on why just authoritiesdidn't passing, just giving the
body to the mother and the wife.
In fact, first we don't knowwhat the circumstances of his
death were.
Maybe he was poisoned, maybenot just that what people, of
(03:25):
course the whole world and ofcourse family, first of all,
would like to know.
But the second important issueis that, in fact, authorities
quite nervous right now,concerned about just potential
funeral process, because thatwill be just actual
demonstration.
They couldn't prohibit this.
(03:46):
But they don't know what to do.
That's why they're keeping thebody they have by law, they have
a right to keep it up to 30days and that's what they will
definitely will do, just if theyhave no decision how to get out
of this situation.
(04:07):
And, of course, if Alexei waspoisoned, as I hear from
different experts, just the,just the remainers of Novichok
or other chemical agents couldlive more in the body, could
(04:30):
more than 30 days, and that'swhy, just, maybe there's not a
solution.
But in any case, in any case,they, in short, they don't know
what to do with this, althoughof course there is no doubt that
he was killed, if not directly,it means that he was killed,
keeping himself for three yearsin the torture conditions, just
(04:53):
all these times, and in fact, infact that really, really,
really was a difficult periodfor Alexei and they pressing him
just trying to destroy hismental, say, strong position,
his bravery, etc.
But he was very strong and theybring him to this final end
(05:18):
with the death.
We will probably show in thefuture we will know what was
real circumstances of his death.
Dana Lewis (05:25):
Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in
Navalny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (05:29):
He is responsible, absolutely he
is responsible for that.
First of all, he gave an orderto put him in jail, and
unlawfully, and in fact he spentthere just three years and
within three years, just throughthe torture, he came to death.
And that's what absolutely theresponsibility of the regime and
(05:54):
Putin in, just first of all.
Dana Lewis (05:58):
So a lot of people don't know.
After you left the inner circleof President Putin, because you
were the prime minister underYeltsin and then, when Putin
came, you continued on as primeminister for a couple of years.
A lot of people don't know that.
Then you just didn't retire.
I mean, you launched your ownpolitical party, parnas.
(06:18):
You tried to challengePresident Putin democratically.
You were unable to do so, butat one point you were partnered
with Navalny's party, trying tochallenge the Kremlin and trying
to bring about political changein Russia.
What do you remember in yourconversations about Navalny that
(06:39):
really strike you now that hehas died and imprisoned?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (06:47):
Yeah , we were just in cooperation
just a few times here Once, thefirst when Alexei appeared to be
one of the leaders of theopposition.
That was 2011 and 2012 just onall our demonstrations in Moscow
, of course, he was a leadingperson on the streets, and that
(07:08):
time, in 2013, my party justnominated him for the elections
of mayor of Moscow and at thattime he got almost 30% and we
all believe that he got evenmore than that here and
potentially, if there would bethe second to the second voting
in the second round, hepotentially could win at that
(07:33):
time.
And then, of course, navalnybecame just one of the most
important critics of Putin andone of the most bright leader
opposition.
In 2016, we had the coalitionelections in federal elections
(07:53):
to Duma.
Dana Lewis (07:56):
That was not quite successful, but at least we were
in close cooperation with himand his team at that period, and
what kind of things would hesay to you, knowing the uphill
and possible fight that both ofyou had taken on?
What kind of things would hesay?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian (08:14):
Alexei is different from me, for
instance, but he is a realpolitician on the street.
He is just the best leader ofthe street protests and that is
an important part of anyopposition and, in fact, all
changes could come, especiallyin such country like the
Austrian regime, like in Russia,or even dictatorship, of course
(08:38):
.
Without street protests youcannot have any changes.
And now we don't have justAlexei, and he was a real bright
leader of the streets In thepast.
There was also my friend, borisNemtsov, who was also killed,
and that is, we lost just two ofthe most important parts of the
(08:59):
opposition who could movepeople and call people and lead
people on the streets, which isvery important.
Without this, we cannot getchanges.
That is why we have a tragic,dramatic loss in our position,
and this is what is representedby Alexei Navalny.
(09:21):
He led this.
That is what is absolutelyclear.
Dana Lewis (09:27):
Do you remember anything that he ever said about
fighting the Kremlin, aboutfighting Putin?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (09:35):
He always called me and said, just
even from the jail, just callfor everyone Do something, don't
stop and don't give up on that.
That is definitely what he didtill the last day of his life.
He did something.
Just protests and all thosecourt discussions which he
(09:59):
participated on video just manytimes as he called for people
for that.
Don't give up and continue afight.
That is.
I say that he is very brightand brave person.
Dana Lewis (10:13):
I don't think anybody would ever say he is not
exceptionally brave.
He was poisoned with Novichak,he was treated in Germany and he
returned back to Russia,knowing very well, probably,
that he would go to jail.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (10:27):
In fact, I didn't recommend him to
.
I talked to him one monthbefore he is coming back to
Russia in 2021.
I talked to him and recommendedhim not to come back because
the risk of getting to be put injail just wasn't very high In
that time.
(10:47):
The reason was like four yearsin jail at that time, but still
it was just very risky.
Dana Lewis (10:56):
What did he tell you?
What did he say?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (10:58):
He didn't answer just directly
because I wanted him to lead myparty instead of me.
I was prepared on that time, ofcourse, just to, and I talked
to people in my party so that inCongress they would vote and
elect him while he would bestaying in Germany.
(11:20):
But he could be elected as aleader of Parnass people's
freedom party and then on thelater stage he could come back
as a leader of the party, butnot as a popular blogger, as
Kremlin and all authorities arejust calling him just popular
blogger, but to be a leader ofpolitical party with the program
(11:42):
, a very sustainable, liberal,democratic program.
Of course it's important, but Idon't know why he came back
just in a very short period oftime and was immediately put in
jail.
Dana Lewis (11:56):
Why now?
Why would President Putin orderhis death now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (12:02):
I think that's clear, because
Putin eliminated all enemies andof course Navalny was enemy for
Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (12:12):
Of course it was Could have killed him three
years ago, or he could havekilled him a year ago.
Why now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (12:17):
They didn't want to do this, like
they did with Prigoshin, becauseit's a little bit different.
Prigoshin is Putin's person whobetrayed him, but Navalny is
different.
He has nothing to do withPutin's team or whatever Putin's
circle.
That's the different things.
Dana Lewis (12:35):
Is it because the elections are approaching, in
the spring, in March, and theKremlin just doesn't want to?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (12:40):
have that.
The speculation could be justvery, very lens on this, but I
think that there was notnecessarily just some kind of
instructions to kill him now.
It could be some kind of end ofthe process, but ended in this
(13:01):
period of time.
But on the other hand, we canalso take into consideration
that Putin already likes justdemonstrative events, like he
killed Prigoshin so that tocreate such a feeling among
people, so that for everyonecould take such an end and now
(13:22):
just we could also think orspeak away that the death of
Navalny was in the same way todemonstrate to others that
despite of any circumstances andany period of time, just these
people could be eliminated,could be killed.
We don't know.
Dana Lewis (13:40):
It's setting another fire of fear through
Russia.
He is ruling through terror.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (13:51):
In some ways, exactly that is one
of the instruments of Mr Putin'srule.
The whole environment in Russia, the environment of the fear,
and people are afraid to protestand to identify themselves as
against the regime or againstthe decisions the regime takes.
Dana Lewis (14:14):
Last, question to you.
We're two years since the warbegan in Ukraine.
What is the best reaction thatthe West can give to the death
of Navalny?
Obviously calls for humanrights and democracy.
We're well beyond that.
The West can't pressure Russiaright now on that.
(14:34):
Sanctions are not bringingabout change within Russia.
Is supporting Ukraine and thebattlefront against Russia
perhaps some of the best changethat the West can do in terms of
?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russ (14:51):
defeating Putin.
Two directions, I guess.
One of them, of course, theprotecting human rights, and
continue to demonstrate thathuman rights is the highest
priority for the civilized world, for Western countries, of
course, and not close eyes forhuman rights violations taking
place in Russia every day.
(15:12):
Secondly, of course, justsupporting Ukraine.
We cannot accept Putin'sbehavior.
We cannot accept Putin's way ofchanging the whole world, just
the whole world order.
He tries to destroy this.
It's not acceptable.
Of course, he already destroyedthe whole architecture of
(15:35):
European security.
But what is next if Ukrainewould be defeated by Putin?
It means just another threatappears Putin would try to test
Article 5 of NATO chatter.
It means one or the smallerNATO countries which, nearby to
Russia, would be subject of nextaggression.
(15:58):
That's what's not possible evento imagine.
That's why Ukraine is not justUkraine.
Ukraine fights in Ukraine orsupports Ukraine.
That's fighting to keep theorder that European and all J7
countries would like to keep.
They created this system.
(16:19):
There's a liberal order.
Putin wants to destroy this.
We shouldn't allow him to dothis.
Dana Lewis (16:26):
Mr Prime Minister, thank you very much.
Mikhail Kassianov, thank you somuch.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian (16:30):
Thank you, Dana.
Thank you very much, Dana Lewis.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (16:39):
Olga Oleg is the International Crisis Group's
Program Director for Europe andCentral Asia.
She's just, I think, what aterrific voice when it comes to
understanding what's going on inRussia and Ukraine.
Olga, thanks so much fortalking to us again.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (16:53):
Very happy to be back.
Dana Lewis (16:55):
Ukraine is emerging from a disappointing
counter-offensive.
You have said it's shorterweapons and personnel Money
stalled in Washington.
Europe's ability to deliverweapons is also in question.
You're not painting a verybright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (17:15):
It's not a very bright picture.
I suppose the good news is thatall is not lost yet.
But look, these are thingspeople have been talking about
for months and they're stilltalking about them, and you can
go to places like the MunichSecurity Conference and
everybody talks this great talkabout support for Ukraine and
(17:37):
this war is existential forEurope, but the reality is that
the money is very much not wheretheir mouths are.
Dana Lewis (17:45):
Some people would say that the Munich Security
Conference because you broughtit up was one of the most
disappointing securityconferences in memory.
There was a lot of talk butwhen you really look at, was
there any traction on Ukraine?
There's a lot of disappointment.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (18:05):
Well , I wasn't there so I can't give
you a personal impression, butI think that, look, we're in a
place where Zdenensky came tothat conference on the heels of
signing security assistancedeals with the French and the
Germans, which in turn followedsuch a deal with the UK.
So what they're doing is makinggood on G7 commitments that they
(18:25):
made on the sidelines of theVilnius NATO Summit, which are
that we're going to sign dealswith Ukraine that promise that
we will continue to providesupport of the sort we are
providing, and I think they meanit right, they will.
They really do see this ascrucial to their security.
The problem is that it's theUnited States that has had the
(18:46):
easiest logistical time of itproviding more weapons, and the
United States has pretty muchstopped doing that because of
domestic politics, and what theUK and France and Germany and
Sweden and the Czech Republicand all of the rest of them can
do is simply more limited.
Now they could still do more.
I think the big gap in Europehas been an unwillingness to
(19:09):
sign the long-term contractsthat European firms want in
order to produce a kind ofweaponry that the governments
want them to produce.
So they could do that, but itstill, it takes time, it's not
push a button and ammunitionstarts to come off the assembly
line.
Dana Lewis (19:27):
Precisely, precisely.
So has time slipped away.
I mean, we're two years intothis and they're still talking
about revving up assembly linesand doing more to provide what
the US is not providing.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (19:41):
So this has been, I think, a huge
gap for the Europeans, and it'snot an absence of capacity.
European firms can do this.
What they need is the contracts.
And, yes, a certain amount oftime has slipped away, and I
think a lot of it is aboutexpecting the United States to
continue to fill the gap.
But the United States hasn'tright, because a small group of
(20:05):
congressional Republicans hasbeen able to be
disproportionately influentialand prevent the money, and
therefore the guns, from flowing.
Dana Lewis (20:18):
So is President Trump helping right now?
Former President Trumpsuggesting that his country will
not protect NATO member statesif they fail to meet the
spending minimums, and that he'seven said he would invite
Russia to attack NATO memberstates.
So surely he's helping peopleget serious, as ludicrous as
(20:42):
some of his comments may be.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (20:45):
So , look, the commitments to spend
more on defense on the part ofthe NATO members were made at
Vilnius.
They were made before Vilnius.
They keep getting more and morecommitmenty.
They also are spending more.
Another commitment they madewas to spend, I believe, 20% of
their defense budgets on defenseindustry.
That would be a good one tomove along.
(21:05):
I don't know about a year ago,but we'll settle for now.
So, look, does Donald Trumphelp?
In a kind of perverse way?
He does, because he drives homethe point that this isn't
perhaps an aberration, that theUnited States maybe isn't as
reliable as you'd like it to be.
And if indeed, europe, this isa war for your security, for
(21:29):
your existential, for yourexistence as Europe, then you
need to think about what to doif the United States isn't fully
reliable.
And, of course, during the fouryears of Donald Trump's
presidency, this was somethingthat occurred to everybody.
But then that presidency endedand they all breathed a giant
sigh of relief.
And now they're starting to getserious again.
(21:53):
And I think, watching well,from the inside I'm sitting here
in Brussels, but watching notas a European but as an American
it's frustrating, but it's avery slow process.
The problem is, ukraine doesnot have a ton of time.
Dana Lewis (22:13):
They certainly don't.
Do you think that the frontlines in Ukraine, given what
we've just seen in Avdivka andthere's a lot of different
pictures that were painted onthe retreat Some say it was an
orderly retreat.
The stuff I've read is that itwas pretty chaotic and a lot of
Ukrainians died in that retreat.
(22:34):
Do you think the front linesare beginning to collapse in
Ukraine, that it is thatcritical, or what's your
analysis?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (22:42):
Look , ukraine is moving to a
defensive footing, which itneeds to do.
It needs to do that for severalreasons.
One is pushing the counteroffensive didn't work.
Two is their low on weapons,and a defensive position
basically just uses lessammunition than trying to be on
the offense.
They also need to build uptheir force size.
(23:04):
They need to mobilize and trainmore people, as well as get
more weapons into the stockpile.
So all of those call or shiftedto defensive positions.
Some of that means falling backand getting two positions that
are defensive.
Now you can do that in a veryorganized, thought out way, but
there's no way to do thatwithout looking like you're
(23:24):
retreating.
You are retreating.
As it happens, they're doing itunder Russian fire, as they're
being forced back by Russians,taking generally small amounts
of territory, but the Russiansare taking that territory and
they're pushing the Ukrainiansback.
In terms of what happened inIvidevka specifically, yes,
you're absolutely going to getall sorts of stories.
(23:46):
I think the bottom line isthere was not a way for the
Ukrainians to hold it, whetherthey could have done a better
job on the retreat.
You could always do a betterjob.
Dana Lewis (23:58):
You think it's the first in a series?
Do you think that we shouldunderstand there's going to be
more of Ividevkas?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (24:06):
So Russia is pushing pretty much
all along the line of contactand Ukraine has to determine
what it can defend and where itwants to dig in and how it wants
to get to those positions, andthen from that point it can see
what it can do, whether it'slaunching offensive actions
(24:26):
where possible and when that'spossible.
I don't know, but I think rightnow we are seeing the Russians
continue to push forward.
Dana Lewis (24:35):
Do you think that some of this plays into the
replacement of Ukraine's topgeneral Zelensky, that he and
Zelensky just didn't see eye toeye?
Zelensky was pushing offensiveoperations.
Zelensky was reportedly justsaying that they were in a
stalemate, months beforeZelensky actually acknowledged
(24:58):
it and that he had a differentvision of where the war was
going.
And it may be that Zelensky wasspot on versus Zelensky, who
was always campaigning for moreWestern support, always painting
a picture of an optimisticpicture, that maybe some of that
replacement of Zelensky wasrooted in some stark realities.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (25:19):
Look , I don't like the term
stalemate for this conflictbecause I think of it in chess
terms, and in chess terms it'sthe end of the game.
And we're not at the end of thegame.
We are at a place where theUkrainians were unable to move
forward and the Russians now aremoving forward with tiny
amounts of territory, withtremendous losses.
(25:41):
This is a fight that favorsdefense, so that's just kind of
what it is.
I think the very public fightbetween Zelensky and Zelensky is
a breakdown of civil-militaryrelations and a reflection of
the problem with civil-militaryrelations in Ukraine, which is a
(26:02):
long-standing one.
But I also don't know.
It's not that I think Zalushnywould have somehow prevented the
Russians from taking Aviv-Divka, and I try not to be an
armchair warrior that questionsthe decisions made by people who
(26:25):
have more information than I doand who are actually
responsible for the lives of thepeople under their command.
These are very tough choicesand war is unpredictable.
Dana Lewis (26:39):
What would you say about Ukraine's manpower
situation?
And I know you covered it insome of your material from the
International Crisis Group andsome of your experts have talked
about it.
I mean, I was struck by one ofthe sessions that you did where
they said you know a lot of theguys in the front line.
They've been there two years Imean two years in some of the
(27:01):
worst conditions since World WarII, getting in the army.
You know very few breaks.
They're tired, they're worn out.
The average age, according toone of your experts on the front
line, is 43 years old.
Did I get that right?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (27:17):
So Ukraine made a conscious
decision not to mobilize youngpeople.
They mobilized people withprior military experience and
just prior experience in general.
So you get an older fightingforce and, as one Ukrainian
official pointed out to me, youalso get people who don't run
this fast, right or as long.
You get people who you know butyou also get.
(27:38):
You get people with experienceand you're not drawing down your
young men and it ispredominantly men.
One of the things they arelooking at doing now is
mobilizing younger people.
The big challenge for Ukraine isfixing a mobilization system so
that people feel confidentcoming in and joining this force
(28:01):
.
Because if you look at thepublic opinion polls, they
support this war right, it's awar for their very survival.
They get it.
But the reports you hear fromsoldiers are that it's not clear
where you're going to beassigned when you're mobilized,
that it's not clear what therotation is, if there is a
rotation.
So if they can fix that,they're probably going to get at
(28:23):
least somewhat better responses.
When people get mobilizationnotices, they're going to be
more likely to show up.
Ukraine hasn't run out ofpeople it could mobilize, but it
has to make decisions toactually mobilize them and it
needs to set up a system thatdoesn't punish them and their
families for responding.
Dana Lewis (28:44):
The assistance piece as you've referred to it,
and even if the US can unclogits very difficult politics in
Washington, and there's no signof that.
But right now, essentially theUS works on sending needed
(29:05):
equipment to Ukraine usingexisting stocks and then new
procurements.
Do I get it right that theexisting stocks are dwindling to
the point that the Departmentof Defense is not comfortable
sending anymore and that the newstocks are several years in a
pipeline, even if you direct themoney to commission those new
(29:27):
weapons?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (29:29):
So yeah, I mean, as you said,
there's two pots of weapons forwhich the US is drawing.
One is stockpiles, and what theUS has like to do is send
Ukraine stuff as they replenish.
They don't have thesupplemental.
If they don't have the fundingto replenish, they don't want to
keep sending the stockpiles,because then the US doesn't have
a stockpile anymore.
(29:49):
So that's kind of the first pot, the first bucket.
Dana Lewis (29:56):
And that's one of the most critical ones, because
that arise quickly.
Yeah, exactly.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (30:00):
Take that out of a warehouse.
Dana Lewis (30:01):
Push it on a plane and get it rolling.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (30:03):
That stuff that exists.
The other piece of this isprocurement and those are
contracts, and different thingstake different amounts of time
to build on contracts.
Some things take six months,some things take two years.
So there are things that havebeen contracted for that Ukraine
is going to keep receivingbecause they are being built
right.
Whatever defense firm got theorder, is assembling whatever it
(30:24):
is and it is going to getshipped when it's finished.
But with no new contractsyou're not going to get more of
this stuff and that's theproblem with that.
So on the one hand, you don'thave the replenishment of US
stockpiles and on the other, youdon't have the money to just
buy new things that the defenseindustrial firms which are.
(30:45):
They're American firms, it'sAmerican jobs, it's money to
American towns and cities, butthey're not producing without
the contracts.
Dana Lewis (30:55):
And even if the log jam is broken in Washington,
there's lag time.
There's a lag there is acommission and manufacture and
delivery.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis G (31:06):
Right , you can't.
I mean, yeah, it's not magical.
Dana Lewis (31:09):
In the meantime, people are dying.
I probably you know I left theheadline to the last and it
maybe should have been the firstthing I asked you about,
because it also plays into this.
But when you look at the deathof Alexei Navalny in prison in
(31:31):
Russia, they still haven'tturned over the body.
There are all sorts of demandsfor that.
Now they're saying it could betwo weeks before they do that
and lots of questions about whythey don't want to do that.
Do you think there, what is thefallout from it in terms of
does it play in the West in suchan alarming way of how brutal
(31:55):
and nasty this regime is inRussia that that may provide
some new impetus to peoplesaying you know, Putin's got to
be dealt with, We've got to getbehind Ukraine, because that's
the last line of defense?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (32:09):
Look , I think it certainly lends
strength to that argument, right?
The answer to the question,what do you do about this?
Is support Ukraine.
I also will say that I don'tknow a Russian citizen who isn't
wrecked you know who has notbeen wrecked since Friday, and I
(32:30):
think it's important tounderstand it.
That for Russians who have adifferent vision for their
country, this is a kick in theribs to somebody who's bleeding
out from having been brutallybeaten anyway, right, and that's
(32:52):
an effort to tell all of thosepeople give up.
There is no hope for adifferent Russia.
This is the Russia, and youknow you're seeing that
community, or that set ofcommunities, grapple with that
situation.
But I think for the rest of us,for Americans and Europeans, it
(33:17):
really does have to be abouteither supporting Ukraine or
figuring out how you're going todeal with the consequences if
you don't.
Dana Lewis (33:25):
Olga, olikot Olga.
Thank you so much for your time.
Olga from the InternationalCrisis Group, it's always a
privilege to talk to you.
I think your terrific, and yourorganization has such great
insights on what's been takingplace, so I thank you so much
for sharing some of your wisdomwith us.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis G (33:43):
Thank you so much for inviting me.
Dana Lewis (33:44):
And that's our Backstory.
This Week, as we speak, newsemerged a Russian helicopter
pilot who defected to Ukrainemurdered in Spain.
Putin's security serviceslikely suspects he was shot 12
times under a bridge.
Revelations the so-calledinformant for the FBI trying to
frame President Biden and hisson was connected to Russian
(34:06):
intelligence.
The accusations against theBiden's false More election
meddling in America andcandidate Trump failed to
condemn or blame Putin.
He never wants to confrontRussia.
Wonder why, and many peoplewonder about that.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
I'm sure in the future we'll know
what's real circumstances of hisdeath.
Dana Lewis (00:06):
Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in
the Valny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (00:10):
He's responsible, absolutely he's
responsible for that.
Dana Lewis (00:13):
You have said it's shorter weapons and personnel
money stalled in Washington.
Europe's ability to deliverweapons is also in question.
You're not painting a verybright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (00:26):
It's not a very bright picture.
I suppose the good news is thatall is not lost yet.
But look, these are thingspeople have been talking about
for months and they're stilltalking about them.
Dana Lewis (00:45):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Was Russian opposition figureAlexei Navalny murdered by
President Putin?
Well, as we say in crimereporting, where I got my
journalism start, motive, meansand opportunity Add up to the
main suspect being Putin.
His fingerprints are all overNavalny's death Motive Navalny
(01:08):
was a threat to Putin's choking,stifling stranglehold on
freedom and democracy in Russia.
Means Navalny's wife says itwas poisoning.
Regardless, the Russians won'trelease the body for examination
Opportunity.
I mean, navalny's been atPutin's care in Putin's prisons
since returning home in Januaryof 2021, when he had survived an
(01:30):
earlier poisoning attempt bythe Russian security services.
Tragic end that was stunning,but not altogether shocking, as
Putin rules now by terrorizinghis own citizens.
What does Navalny's death meanfor the war in Ukraine?
Could it reignite American andEuropean commitment to defeating
Russian forces in Ukraine?
(01:52):
Maybe, and on this Backstory,former Prime Minister of Russia
Mikhail Kasyanov, who is now adeclared enemy of Putin's state,
and the brilliant Olga Olegurfrom the International Crisis
Group on Ukraine.
The Russian Army is now athreat to Ukraine.
Mikhail Kasyanov is the formerPrime Minister of Russia now
(02:14):
labeled by the Kremlin as anenemy of the state, and he is
living in exile in Europe.
Mikhail, welcome back to thepodcast.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fm (02:22):
Yes , hello, happy to be in the
program again, thank you.
Dana Lewis (02:25):
It is heart-wrenching to hear pleas
from Alexei Navalny's mother andhis wife asking for the body of
Navalny back.
In a video released Monday, forinstance, yulia Navalny accused
Putin of killing her husband.
She says that the refusal tohand over the body is part of a
cover-up Quote.
(02:46):
They are cowardly and meanlyhiding his body, refusing to
give it to his mother and lyingmiserably while waiting for the
trace of poison to disappear.
She suggested that her husbandmight have been killed with a
Novichok-style nerve agent.
What would you say about whatwe're hearing?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (03:05):
Yeah , I think there are a number of
aspects on why just authoritiesdidn't passing, just giving the
body to the mother and the wife.
In fact, first we don't knowwhat the circumstances of his
death were.
Maybe he was poisoned, maybenot just that what people, of
(03:25):
course the whole world and ofcourse family, first of all,
would like to know.
But the second important issueis that, in fact, authorities
quite nervous right now,concerned about just potential
funeral process, because thatwill be just actual
demonstration.
They couldn't prohibit this.
(03:46):
But they don't know what to do.
That's why they're keeping thebody they have by law, they have
a right to keep it up to 30days and that's what they will
definitely will do, just if theyhave no decision how to get out
of this situation.
(04:07):
And, of course, if Alexei waspoisoned, as I hear from
different experts, just the,just the remainers of Novichok
or other chemical agents couldlive more in the body, could
(04:30):
more than 30 days, and that'swhy, just, maybe there's not a
solution.
But in any case, in any case,they, in short, they don't know
what to do with this, althoughof course there is no doubt that
he was killed, if not directly,it means that he was killed,
keeping himself for three yearsin the torture conditions, just
(04:53):
all these times, and in fact, infact that really, really,
really was a difficult periodfor Alexei and they pressing him
just trying to destroy hismental, say, strong position,
his bravery, etc.
But he was very strong and theybring him to this final end
(05:18):
with the death.
We will probably show in thefuture we will know what was
real circumstances of his death.
Dana Lewis (05:25):
Do you believe that Putin is guilty of murder in
Navalny's case?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (05:29):
He is responsible, absolutely he
is responsible for that.
First of all, he gave an orderto put him in jail, and
unlawfully, and in fact he spentthere just three years and
within three years, just throughthe torture, he came to death.
And that's what absolutely theresponsibility of the regime and
(05:54):
Putin in, just first of all.
Dana Lewis (05:58):
So a lot of people don't know.
After you left the inner circleof President Putin, because you
were the prime minister underYeltsin and then, when Putin
came, you continued on as primeminister for a couple of years.
A lot of people don't know that.
Then you just didn't retire.
I mean, you launched your ownpolitical party, parnas.
(06:18):
You tried to challengePresident Putin democratically.
You were unable to do so, butat one point you were partnered
with Navalny's party, trying tochallenge the Kremlin and trying
to bring about political changein Russia.
What do you remember in yourconversations about Navalny that
(06:39):
really strike you now that hehas died and imprisoned?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (06:47):
Yeah , we were just in cooperation
just a few times here Once, thefirst when Alexei appeared to be
one of the leaders of theopposition.
That was 2011 and 2012 just onall our demonstrations in Moscow
, of course, he was a leadingperson on the streets, and that
(07:08):
time, in 2013, my party justnominated him for the elections
of mayor of Moscow and at thattime he got almost 30% and we
all believe that he got evenmore than that here and
potentially, if there would bethe second to the second voting
in the second round, hepotentially could win at that
(07:33):
time.
And then, of course, navalnybecame just one of the most
important critics of Putin andone of the most bright leader
opposition.
In 2016, we had the coalitionelections in federal elections
(07:53):
to Duma.
Dana Lewis (07:56):
That was not quite successful, but at least we were
in close cooperation with himand his team at that period, and
what kind of things would hesay to you, knowing the uphill
and possible fight that both ofyou had taken on?
What kind of things would hesay?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian (08:14):
Alexei is different from me, for
instance, but he is a realpolitician on the street.
He is just the best leader ofthe street protests and that is
an important part of anyopposition and, in fact, all
changes could come, especiallyin such country like the
Austrian regime, like in Russia,or even dictatorship, of course
(08:38):
.
Without street protests youcannot have any changes.
And now we don't have justAlexei, and he was a real bright
leader of the streets In thepast.
There was also my friend, borisNemtsov, who was also killed,
and that is, we lost just two ofthe most important parts of the
(08:59):
opposition who could movepeople and call people and lead
people on the streets, which isvery important.
Without this, we cannot getchanges.
That is why we have a tragic,dramatic loss in our position,
and this is what is representedby Alexei Navalny.
(09:21):
He led this.
That is what is absolutelyclear.
Dana Lewis (09:27):
Do you remember anything that he ever said about
fighting the Kremlin, aboutfighting Putin?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (09:35):
He always called me and said, just
even from the jail, just callfor everyone Do something, don't
stop and don't give up on that.
That is definitely what he didtill the last day of his life.
He did something.
Just protests and all thosecourt discussions which he
(09:59):
participated on video just manytimes as he called for people
for that.
Don't give up and continue afight.
That is.
I say that he is very brightand brave person.
Dana Lewis (10:13):
I don't think anybody would ever say he is not
exceptionally brave.
He was poisoned with Novichak,he was treated in Germany and he
returned back to Russia,knowing very well, probably,
that he would go to jail.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (10:27):
In fact, I didn't recommend him to
.
I talked to him one monthbefore he is coming back to
Russia in 2021.
I talked to him and recommendedhim not to come back because
the risk of getting to be put injail just wasn't very high In
that time.
(10:47):
The reason was like four yearsin jail at that time, but still
it was just very risky.
Dana Lewis (10:56):
What did he tell you?
What did he say?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (10:58):
He didn't answer just directly
because I wanted him to lead myparty instead of me.
I was prepared on that time, ofcourse, just to, and I talked
to people in my party so that inCongress they would vote and
elect him while he would bestaying in Germany.
(11:20):
But he could be elected as aleader of Parnass people's
freedom party and then on thelater stage he could come back
as a leader of the party, butnot as a popular blogger, as
Kremlin and all authorities arejust calling him just popular
blogger, but to be a leader ofpolitical party with the program
(11:42):
, a very sustainable, liberal,democratic program.
Of course it's important, but Idon't know why he came back
just in a very short period oftime and was immediately put in
jail.
Dana Lewis (11:56):
Why now?
Why would President Putin orderhis death now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (12:02):
I think that's clear, because
Putin eliminated all enemies andof course Navalny was enemy for
Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (12:12):
Of course it was Could have killed him three
years ago, or he could havekilled him a year ago.
Why now?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (12:17):
They didn't want to do this, like
they did with Prigoshin, becauseit's a little bit different.
Prigoshin is Putin's person whobetrayed him, but Navalny is
different.
He has nothing to do withPutin's team or whatever Putin's
circle.
That's the different things.
Dana Lewis (12:35):
Is it because the elections are approaching, in
the spring, in March, and theKremlin just doesn't want to?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian F (12:40):
have that.
The speculation could be justvery, very lens on this, but I
think that there was notnecessarily just some kind of
instructions to kill him now.
It could be some kind of end ofthe process, but ended in this
(13:01):
period of time.
But on the other hand, we canalso take into consideration
that Putin already likes justdemonstrative events, like he
killed Prigoshin so that tocreate such a feeling among
people, so that for everyonecould take such an end and now
(13:22):
just we could also think orspeak away that the death of
Navalny was in the same way todemonstrate to others that
despite of any circumstances andany period of time, just these
people could be eliminated,could be killed.
We don't know.
Dana Lewis (13:40):
It's setting another fire of fear through
Russia.
He is ruling through terror.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian Fmr (13:51):
In some ways, exactly that is one
of the instruments of Mr Putin'srule.
The whole environment in Russia, the environment of the fear,
and people are afraid to protestand to identify themselves as
against the regime or againstthe decisions the regime takes.
Dana Lewis (14:14):
Last, question to you.
We're two years since the warbegan in Ukraine.
What is the best reaction thatthe West can give to the death
of Navalny?
Obviously calls for humanrights and democracy.
We're well beyond that.
The West can't pressure Russiaright now on that.
(14:34):
Sanctions are not bringingabout change within Russia.
Is supporting Ukraine and thebattlefront against Russia
perhaps some of the best changethat the West can do in terms of
?
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russ (14:51):
defeating Putin.
Two directions, I guess.
One of them, of course, theprotecting human rights, and
continue to demonstrate thathuman rights is the highest
priority for the civilized world, for Western countries, of
course, and not close eyes forhuman rights violations taking
place in Russia every day.
(15:12):
Secondly, of course, justsupporting Ukraine.
We cannot accept Putin'sbehavior.
We cannot accept Putin's way ofchanging the whole world, just
the whole world order.
He tries to destroy this.
It's not acceptable.
Of course, he already destroyedthe whole architecture of
(15:35):
European security.
But what is next if Ukrainewould be defeated by Putin?
It means just another threatappears Putin would try to test
Article 5 of NATO chatter.
It means one or the smallerNATO countries which, nearby to
Russia, would be subject of nextaggression.
(15:58):
That's what's not possible evento imagine.
That's why Ukraine is not justUkraine.
Ukraine fights in Ukraine orsupports Ukraine.
That's fighting to keep theorder that European and all J7
countries would like to keep.
They created this system.
(16:19):
There's a liberal order.
Putin wants to destroy this.
We shouldn't allow him to dothis.
Dana Lewis (16:26):
Mr Prime Minister, thank you very much.
Mikhail Kassianov, thank you somuch.
Mikhail Kasyanov/Russian (16:30):
Thank you, Dana.
Thank you very much, Dana Lewis.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (16:39):
Olga Oleg is the International Crisis Group's
Program Director for Europe andCentral Asia.
She's just, I think, what aterrific voice when it comes to
understanding what's going on inRussia and Ukraine.
Olga, thanks so much fortalking to us again.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (16:53):
Very happy to be back.
Dana Lewis (16:55):
Ukraine is emerging from a disappointing
counter-offensive.
You have said it's shorterweapons and personnel Money
stalled in Washington.
Europe's ability to deliverweapons is also in question.
You're not painting a verybright picture.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (17:15):
It's not a very bright picture.
I suppose the good news is thatall is not lost yet.
But look, these are thingspeople have been talking about
for months and they're stilltalking about them, and you can
go to places like the MunichSecurity Conference and
everybody talks this great talkabout support for Ukraine and
(17:37):
this war is existential forEurope, but the reality is that
the money is very much not wheretheir mouths are.
Dana Lewis (17:45):
Some people would say that the Munich Security
Conference because you broughtit up was one of the most
disappointing securityconferences in memory.
There was a lot of talk butwhen you really look at, was
there any traction on Ukraine?
There's a lot of disappointment.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (18:05):
Well , I wasn't there so I can't give
you a personal impression, butI think that, look, we're in a
place where Zdenensky came tothat conference on the heels of
signing security assistancedeals with the French and the
Germans, which in turn followedsuch a deal with the UK.
So what they're doing is makinggood on G7 commitments that they
(18:25):
made on the sidelines of theVilnius NATO Summit, which are
that we're going to sign dealswith Ukraine that promise that
we will continue to providesupport of the sort we are
providing, and I think they meanit right, they will.
They really do see this ascrucial to their security.
The problem is that it's theUnited States that has had the
(18:46):
easiest logistical time of itproviding more weapons, and the
United States has pretty muchstopped doing that because of
domestic politics, and what theUK and France and Germany and
Sweden and the Czech Republicand all of the rest of them can
do is simply more limited.
Now they could still do more.
I think the big gap in Europehas been an unwillingness to
(19:09):
sign the long-term contractsthat European firms want in
order to produce a kind ofweaponry that the governments
want them to produce.
So they could do that, but itstill, it takes time, it's not
push a button and ammunitionstarts to come off the assembly
line.
Dana Lewis (19:27):
Precisely, precisely.
So has time slipped away.
I mean, we're two years intothis and they're still talking
about revving up assembly linesand doing more to provide what
the US is not providing.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (19:41):
So this has been, I think, a huge
gap for the Europeans, and it'snot an absence of capacity.
European firms can do this.
What they need is the contracts.
And, yes, a certain amount oftime has slipped away, and I
think a lot of it is aboutexpecting the United States to
continue to fill the gap.
But the United States hasn'tright, because a small group of
(20:05):
congressional Republicans hasbeen able to be
disproportionately influentialand prevent the money, and
therefore the guns, from flowing.
Dana Lewis (20:18):
So is President Trump helping right now?
Former President Trumpsuggesting that his country will
not protect NATO member statesif they fail to meet the
spending minimums, and that he'seven said he would invite
Russia to attack NATO memberstates.
So surely he's helping peopleget serious, as ludicrous as
(20:42):
some of his comments may be.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (20:45):
So , look, the commitments to spend
more on defense on the part ofthe NATO members were made at
Vilnius.
They were made before Vilnius.
They keep getting more and morecommitmenty.
They also are spending more.
Another commitment they madewas to spend, I believe, 20% of
their defense budgets on defenseindustry.
That would be a good one tomove along.
(21:05):
I don't know about a year ago,but we'll settle for now.
So, look, does Donald Trumphelp?
In a kind of perverse way?
He does, because he drives homethe point that this isn't
perhaps an aberration, that theUnited States maybe isn't as
reliable as you'd like it to be.
And if indeed, europe, this isa war for your security, for
(21:29):
your existential, for yourexistence as Europe, then you
need to think about what to doif the United States isn't fully
reliable.
And, of course, during the fouryears of Donald Trump's
presidency, this was somethingthat occurred to everybody.
But then that presidency endedand they all breathed a giant
sigh of relief.
And now they're starting to getserious again.
(21:53):
And I think, watching well,from the inside I'm sitting here
in Brussels, but watching notas a European but as an American
it's frustrating, but it's avery slow process.
The problem is, ukraine doesnot have a ton of time.
Dana Lewis (22:13):
They certainly don't.
Do you think that the frontlines in Ukraine, given what
we've just seen in Avdivka andthere's a lot of different
pictures that were painted onthe retreat Some say it was an
orderly retreat.
The stuff I've read is that itwas pretty chaotic and a lot of
Ukrainians died in that retreat.
(22:34):
Do you think the front linesare beginning to collapse in
Ukraine, that it is thatcritical, or what's your
analysis?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (22:42):
Look , ukraine is moving to a
defensive footing, which itneeds to do.
It needs to do that for severalreasons.
One is pushing the counteroffensive didn't work.
Two is their low on weapons,and a defensive position
basically just uses lessammunition than trying to be on
the offense.
They also need to build uptheir force size.
(23:04):
They need to mobilize and trainmore people, as well as get
more weapons into the stockpile.
So all of those call or shiftedto defensive positions.
Some of that means falling backand getting two positions that
are defensive.
Now you can do that in a veryorganized, thought out way, but
there's no way to do thatwithout looking like you're
(23:24):
retreating.
You are retreating.
As it happens, they're doing itunder Russian fire, as they're
being forced back by Russians,taking generally small amounts
of territory, but the Russiansare taking that territory and
they're pushing the Ukrainiansback.
In terms of what happened inIvidevka specifically, yes,
you're absolutely going to getall sorts of stories.
(23:46):
I think the bottom line isthere was not a way for the
Ukrainians to hold it, whetherthey could have done a better
job on the retreat.
You could always do a betterjob.
Dana Lewis (23:58):
You think it's the first in a series?
Do you think that we shouldunderstand there's going to be
more of Ividevkas?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (24:06):
So Russia is pushing pretty much
all along the line of contactand Ukraine has to determine
what it can defend and where itwants to dig in and how it wants
to get to those positions, andthen from that point it can see
what it can do, whether it'slaunching offensive actions
(24:26):
where possible and when that'spossible.
I don't know, but I think rightnow we are seeing the Russians
continue to push forward.
Dana Lewis (24:35):
Do you think that some of this plays into the
replacement of Ukraine's topgeneral Zelensky, that he and
Zelensky just didn't see eye toeye?
Zelensky was pushing offensiveoperations.
Zelensky was reportedly justsaying that they were in a
stalemate, months beforeZelensky actually acknowledged
(24:58):
it and that he had a differentvision of where the war was
going.
And it may be that Zelensky wasspot on versus Zelensky, who
was always campaigning for moreWestern support, always painting
a picture of an optimisticpicture, that maybe some of that
replacement of Zelensky wasrooted in some stark realities.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (25:19):
Look , I don't like the term
stalemate for this conflictbecause I think of it in chess
terms, and in chess terms it'sthe end of the game.
And we're not at the end of thegame.
We are at a place where theUkrainians were unable to move
forward and the Russians now aremoving forward with tiny
amounts of territory, withtremendous losses.
(25:41):
This is a fight that favorsdefense, so that's just kind of
what it is.
I think the very public fightbetween Zelensky and Zelensky is
a breakdown of civil-militaryrelations and a reflection of
the problem with civil-militaryrelations in Ukraine, which is a
(26:02):
long-standing one.
But I also don't know.
It's not that I think Zalushnywould have somehow prevented the
Russians from taking Aviv-Divka, and I try not to be an
armchair warrior that questionsthe decisions made by people who
(26:25):
have more information than I doand who are actually
responsible for the lives of thepeople under their command.
These are very tough choicesand war is unpredictable.
Dana Lewis (26:39):
What would you say about Ukraine's manpower
situation?
And I know you covered it insome of your material from the
International Crisis Group andsome of your experts have talked
about it.
I mean, I was struck by one ofthe sessions that you did where
they said you know a lot of theguys in the front line.
They've been there two years Imean two years in some of the
(27:01):
worst conditions since World WarII, getting in the army.
You know very few breaks.
They're tired, they're worn out.
The average age, according toone of your experts on the front
line, is 43 years old.
Did I get that right?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (27:17):
So Ukraine made a conscious
decision not to mobilize youngpeople.
They mobilized people withprior military experience and
just prior experience in general.
So you get an older fightingforce and, as one Ukrainian
official pointed out to me, youalso get people who don't run
this fast, right or as long.
You get people who you know butyou also get.
(27:38):
You get people with experienceand you're not drawing down your
young men and it ispredominantly men.
One of the things they arelooking at doing now is
mobilizing younger people.
The big challenge for Ukraine isfixing a mobilization system so
that people feel confidentcoming in and joining this force
(28:01):
.
Because if you look at thepublic opinion polls, they
support this war right, it's awar for their very survival.
They get it.
But the reports you hear fromsoldiers are that it's not clear
where you're going to beassigned when you're mobilized,
that it's not clear what therotation is, if there is a
rotation.
So if they can fix that,they're probably going to get at
(28:23):
least somewhat better responses.
When people get mobilizationnotices, they're going to be
more likely to show up.
Ukraine hasn't run out ofpeople it could mobilize, but it
has to make decisions toactually mobilize them and it
needs to set up a system thatdoesn't punish them and their
families for responding.
Dana Lewis (28:44):
The assistance piece as you've referred to it,
and even if the US can unclogits very difficult politics in
Washington, and there's no signof that.
But right now, essentially theUS works on sending needed
(29:05):
equipment to Ukraine usingexisting stocks and then new
procurements.
Do I get it right that theexisting stocks are dwindling to
the point that the Departmentof Defense is not comfortable
sending anymore and that the newstocks are several years in a
pipeline, even if you direct themoney to commission those new
(29:27):
weapons?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Grou (29:29):
So yeah, I mean, as you said,
there's two pots of weapons forwhich the US is drawing.
One is stockpiles, and what theUS has like to do is send
Ukraine stuff as they replenish.
They don't have thesupplemental.
If they don't have the fundingto replenish, they don't want to
keep sending the stockpiles,because then the US doesn't have
a stockpile anymore.
(29:49):
So that's kind of the first pot, the first bucket.
Dana Lewis (29:56):
And that's one of the most critical ones, because
that arise quickly.
Yeah, exactly.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (30:00):
Take that out of a warehouse.
Dana Lewis (30:01):
Push it on a plane and get it rolling.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (30:03):
That stuff that exists.
The other piece of this isprocurement and those are
contracts, and different thingstake different amounts of time
to build on contracts.
Some things take six months,some things take two years.
So there are things that havebeen contracted for that Ukraine
is going to keep receivingbecause they are being built
right.
Whatever defense firm got theorder, is assembling whatever it
(30:24):
is and it is going to getshipped when it's finished.
But with no new contractsyou're not going to get more of
this stuff and that's theproblem with that.
So on the one hand, you don'thave the replenishment of US
stockpiles and on the other, youdon't have the money to just
buy new things that the defenseindustrial firms which are.
(30:45):
They're American firms, it'sAmerican jobs, it's money to
American towns and cities, butthey're not producing without
the contracts.
Dana Lewis (30:55):
And even if the log jam is broken in Washington,
there's lag time.
There's a lag there is acommission and manufacture and
delivery.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis G (31:06):
Right , you can't.
I mean, yeah, it's not magical.
Dana Lewis (31:09):
In the meantime, people are dying.
I probably you know I left theheadline to the last and it
maybe should have been the firstthing I asked you about,
because it also plays into this.
But when you look at the deathof Alexei Navalny in prison in
(31:31):
Russia, they still haven'tturned over the body.
There are all sorts of demandsfor that.
Now they're saying it could betwo weeks before they do that
and lots of questions about whythey don't want to do that.
Do you think there, what is thefallout from it in terms of
does it play in the West in suchan alarming way of how brutal
(31:55):
and nasty this regime is inRussia that that may provide
some new impetus to peoplesaying you know, Putin's got to
be dealt with, We've got to getbehind Ukraine, because that's
the last line of defense?
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis Gr (32:09):
Look , I think it certainly lends
strength to that argument, right?
The answer to the question,what do you do about this?
Is support Ukraine.
I also will say that I don'tknow a Russian citizen who isn't
wrecked you know who has notbeen wrecked since Friday, and I
(32:30):
think it's important tounderstand it.
That for Russians who have adifferent vision for their
country, this is a kick in theribs to somebody who's bleeding
out from having been brutallybeaten anyway, right, and that's
(32:52):
an effort to tell all of thosepeople give up.
There is no hope for adifferent Russia.
This is the Russia, and youknow you're seeing that
community, or that set ofcommunities, grapple with that
situation.
But I think for the rest of us,for Americans and Europeans, it
(33:17):
really does have to be abouteither supporting Ukraine or
figuring out how you're going todeal with the consequences if
you don't.
Dana Lewis (33:25):
Olga, olikot Olga.
Thank you so much for your time.
Olga from the InternationalCrisis Group, it's always a
privilege to talk to you.
I think your terrific, and yourorganization has such great
insights on what's been takingplace, so I thank you so much
for sharing some of your wisdomwith us.
Olga Oliker/Int. Crisis G (33:43):
Thank you so much for inviting me.
Dana Lewis (33:44):
And that's our Backstory.
This Week, as we speak, newsemerged a Russian helicopter
pilot who defected to Ukrainemurdered in Spain.
Putin's security serviceslikely suspects he was shot 12
times under a bridge.
Revelations the so-calledinformant for the FBI trying to
frame President Biden and hisson was connected to Russian
(34:06):
intelligence.
The accusations against theBiden's false More election
meddling in America andcandidate Trump failed to
condemn or blame Putin.
He never wants to confrontRussia.
Wonder why, and many peoplewonder about that.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
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