November 19, 2024 • 40 mins
How close are we to the use of a nuclear weapon in current conflicts?
Join me, Dana Lewis, as I discuss the nuclear arms race with Rose Gottemoeller, a distinguished former arms control negotiator. We dissect the deployment of long-range ATACMS missiles by Ukraine into Russian territory, exploring the nuanced strategic implications and potential nuclear fallout.
And marking the milestone of 1,000 days since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we reflect on the relentless assault on Ukrainian infrastructure and the role of Western military aid. I am joined by Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko who says any deal with Russia has to bring peace, not just a ceasefire.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dana Lewis (00:00):
attack on Russian territory.
Does that bring us to the brinkof some kind of possible
nuclear exchange with Russia, oris that just alarmist?
Rose Gottemoeller (00:15):
Well, I think it takes a lot of caution
thinking through how thesesystems will be used, the
ATACOMs.
If I were in the White Houseand were advising the president,
I would advise very stronglythat the Ukrainians be not
permitted to launch any attacksagainst nuclear targets.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (00:35):
With this permission it can make a
difference, at least in thatpart Hi everyone and welcome to
another edition of Backstory.
Dana Lewis (00:50):
I'm Dana Lewis.
Nuclear threats, a new armsrace, russia, america, china
arms control is broken down, warin Ukraine and the Middle East
Are we at the brink of theunthinkable?
This week, former arms controlnegotiator Rose Gottemoeller
tells us exactly what thedangers are and President Biden
(01:13):
approves long-range attackumsfor Ukraine's use inside Russia,
just two months before the endof his term and as North Korean
soldiers join Russia's shocktroops in Putin's illegal war.
Joining me from Odessa, ukraine, on the day the city was bombed
and 10 were killed, ukrainianlawmaker Olexei Goncharenko All
(01:40):
right, I don't think anybodyknows more about arms control
and nuclear threats than RoseGottemoeller.
She was the deputy secretarygeneral of NATO and before that
she was the chief armsnegotiator for the US on the
nuclear arms agreement known asSTART with Russia.
And Rose is now a seniorlecturer at Stanford University
in the US and joins me fromthere.
(02:01):
What do I have to do to getinto your classroom?
Rose Gottemoeller (02:05):
Well, you have to sign up and pay Stanford
tuition, which is I'll do it Tobe able to listen to you as
somebody who was in the room.
Dana Lewis (02:15):
What a privilege.
Rose Gottemoeller (02:18):
Thank you, dana.
I actually worked on the treatythat we call the New START
Treaty.
The START Treaty entered intoforce in 1994.
I also worked on that one as avery young staffer at the
Department of State, but NewSTART is the one that we
completed in 2010.
It entered into force in 2011.
Dana Lewis (02:37):
President Biden has given a green light for Ukraine
to use long-rangeAmerican-manufactured and
supplied ATAKOMs on Russianterritory.
Does that bring us to the brinkof some kind of possible
nuclear exchange with Russia, oris that just alarmist?
Rose Gottemoeller (03:08):
or is that just alarmist?
Well, I think it takes a lot ofcaution thinking through how
these systems will be used, theATACMs.
From reading the press, Icannot tell what kinds of
limitations the White House mayhave placed on the Ukrainians
with regard to targets.
For example, if I were in theWhite House and were advising
the president, I would advisevery strongly that the
Ukrainians be not permitted tolaunch any attacks against
(03:32):
nuclear targets like bases wherenuclear weapons are stored or
nuclear deployment sites likesilos for intercontinental
ballistic missiles.
I would specifically excludenuclear-related targets from the
list.
But for targets that arerelevant to what the Ukrainians
are suffering right now, whichis severe attacks against their
(03:55):
energy infrastructure, yeah sure, but it all depends on what
instructions or guidance wasgiven to the Ukrainians.
Dana Lewis (04:04):
And I think they're being careful not to release
all of that, and it may be thatthey're just using ATAKOMs in
the Kursk area, just over theborder.
I mean, it's only 180 mile, 190mile range on the ATAKOMs.
You know the idea that thesemissiles are going to be flying
into Moscow or something, it'sjust silly, right.
So it's really against, youknow, supposedly against arms
(04:27):
depots, command and controlcenters, any of the launch sites
that they may be hittingUkraine from.
If they can reach them withthose, attack them.
Rose Gottemoeller (04:37):
Yes, and I also have read in the press that
it appears that the NorthKoreans, who have come to aid
the Russians, are now preparingto launch attacks in order to
regain the Kursk regionterritory that the Ukrainians
have seized from the Russians.
They did that last August andhave been holding it ever since,
and apparently the NorthKoreans are going to be thrown
(05:00):
into the battle to try to getthat territory back, into the
battle to try to get thatterritory back.
So perhaps the Atacoms willhave a special role in defending
that territory?
Dana Lewis (05:10):
I think you just answered my question.
Why now?
Rose Gottemoeller (05:14):
Well, a number of reasons.
No doubt, one is that thepresident is in his final months
in office and I think it'sincumbent on him now to decide
what additional major decisionshe wants to get made in that
time and carried forward.
And so that, I think, isdoubtless one reason.
But there has been a longconsideration of the situation
(05:36):
that Ukraine is suffering thiswinter, and once again the
Russians are launching massattacks against energy
infrastructure.
An attack against the city ofSumy only last night killed a
number of people, including twochildren, and left a lot of
people seriously injured.
So, in addition to the attackson energy infrastructure, the
Russians keep going aftercivilian targets.
(05:58):
In this case they hit a coupleof schools as well as other
civilian facilities in Sumy.
Dana Lewis (06:04):
So it's really quite well, it's awful, what
they're doing Something like 900missile and drone attacks last
week, 200 of them alone onSaturday.
I don't think.
Unless you're there on theground, you really can't kind of
digest the scale at whichRussia is coming after Ukraine
right now.
Digest the scale at whichRussia is coming after Ukraine
(06:28):
right now and do you think thatthey're winding up the throttle
right now because theyanticipate that they want to be
in the best position as a newTrump administration talks about
possible ceasefire talks?
Rose Gottemoeller (06:40):
Yes, I do think that that's coming into
the calculations as well in allcapitals Kiev, moscow and
Washington, as well as theEuropean capitals, as they think
through what the dynamics aregoing to be as President Trump
arrives in office on January 20.
And so, for that reason,there's a very interesting
transitional dynamic going onnow that I think everyone's
(07:08):
trying to get into the bestpossible position for upcoming
negotiations as President Trumpincoming.
President Trump has promisedthat he will end this war,
famously, within 24 hours.
I'm not sure he can do that,but he seems to be wanting to
get into a negotiation very,very quickly.
Dana Lewis (07:25):
You know Putin and the Kremlin.
They watch the news just likethe rest of us.
They think that maybe PresidentTrump will be more sympathetic
to the Kremlin on the issue ofUkraine.
Do you think that that may be amiscalculation If Trump pushes
a ceasefire and doesn't get whathe wants?
In fact, this could go theother way.
(07:46):
It could escalate more.
Rose Gottemoeller (07:49):
Absolutely.
Mr Trump really prides himselfon being a master dealmaker, and
if he doesn't see the deal hewants shaping up, he's easily
able to walk away from the table, as he did with Kim Jong-un,
the North Korean leader, duringhis first term in office, the
North Korean leader during hisfirst term in office.
And so I think that all alongwe've heard from Putin this very
(08:14):
kind of zero-sum approach.
I'm going to deal out acrushing defeat to Ukraine, to
NATO and to the United States ofAmerica.
Very zero-sum approach,winner-take-all and I think that
what he's going to have toconsider with Donald Trump is
that that's not the kind of dealthat Trump will go for.
So Putin's going to have todecide where he can give a
little as well, and we'll seehow that works out.
But I really do think that thisis not going to be a winner
(08:36):
take all kind of negotiation butgoing to have to have some
win-win solutions for allparticipants.
Dana Lewis (08:42):
Do you worry about the state of NATO?
I mean, you were there.
You know what the alliance hasbeen able to accomplish in terms
of security for Europe inpost-World War II.
Do you think that the Trumpadministration and Trump
specifically, rather than justtrying to make a deal
(09:03):
understands what NATO hasbrought to the stability of
Europe and you worry aboutwhether he's prepared to abandon
that?
Rose Gottemoeller (09:11):
The NATO that Mr Trump will find now is much
different from the one that hevisited a number of times and,
in a very tough manner, demandedthat the NATO allies pay more.
This was during his firstadministration, when I was the
deputy secretary general and Iobserved the president come to
NATO several times.
He was really rough on theallies and said pay up or I'm
(09:34):
not going to fulfill the Article5 commitments.
That's in the NATO foundingtreaty, the Washington Treaty.
It's Article 5 is if one NATOally is attacked, then other
NATO allies must come to itsassistance if asked for help.
So he said I'm not going tohelp you If you don't pay up.
Forget about it.
Or at times he threatened evenwithdrawing from NATO.
(09:55):
But he's going to find a muchdifferent NATO now.
The allies have gotten it clearin their minds that they need
to pay more for their owndefense at least 2% of their
gross domestic product, which isa different attitude than they
had five years ago and that wasborn of Putin's aggression in
Ukraine.
I think Mr Trump started themomentum toward more defense
(10:16):
spending, but it was Putin'sinvasion of Ukraine that was the
real wake-up call and certainlyNATO has, I think, performed
very well in terms of assistingUkraine.
Dana Lewis (10:28):
Rose, could NATO survive without the United
States in it?
Rose Gottemoeller (10:33):
I believe it could.
For one thing, I don't believethat Trump would completely
withdraw from NATO.
It's possible that he'llattempt something like I've
called a soft withdrawal, thatis, refusing to appoint a US
ambassador to NATO or perhapseven refusing to appoint the
Supreme Allied Commander.
Europe SACEUR, always the topmilitary man at NATO, has been a
(10:56):
four-star general officeradmiral from the United States
of America.
So he may just refuse to putthe leadership in place, but I
don't think he'll withdraw theUnited States completely from
NATO.
He's got an interest incontinuing to have a presence in
Europe and to be seen as aleader in Europe.
So he may try to neglect NATO abit, but I don't think he's
(11:18):
going to try to withdrawcompletely.
Dana Lewis (11:20):
Are too and I get lost in the official names of
them all.
You can correct me on this, butare the nuclear treaties which
(11:43):
for years have governed thenumber of weapons and where
they're deployed and theinformation sharing between the
two biggest nuclear powers?
Are those agreements dead rightnow or are they somehow
surviving despite this war inUkraine?
Rose Gottemoeller (12:02):
Yes, they're hanging on by life support.
The New START Treaty is thetreaty currently in force.
It limits the United States andthe Russian Federation to
deploying 1,550 nuclear warheadseach on 700 delivery vehicles.
Those are missiles and bombersand so forth, so there are
limits in place.
However, the Russian President,vladimir Putin, suspended
(12:26):
implementation of the New STARTTreaty in February of 2023, one
year after the invasion ofUkraine and he did so, you know,
saying as long as the UnitedStates and NATO are assisting
Ukraine, no more nuclear armscontrol treaties, which to me,
is that's shooting himself inthe foot, because it's, you know
(12:47):
, he needs to keep the UnitedStates under control as much as
we need to keep Russia undercontrol.
So it's a weird situation, butthat's where it stands.
Dana Lewis (12:55):
Both countries are If I can just jump in, it's
because it's just not about thenumbers, right, it is about
confirming what the other sideis saying.
It's about information sharingand the Russians, if you can
explain it to me, got just asmuch as the Americans did out of
those deals in terms ofunderstanding.
(13:17):
Where are the weapons, whereare they deployed, where are
they moving to?
Do we know that they're notreadying for something?
There's a lot of, there's a lotof in those agreements, the
ability to make the other sidefeel safer.
Rose Gottemoeller (13:34):
Absolutely.
These treaties are completelyreciprocal.
They're all about mutualpredictability, so that the
Russians can't surprise us witha nuclear attack, and vice versa
.
And heaven knows, a nuclearattack could be the beginning of
a very bad day, an existentialthreat to humanity.
So in this case we had on-siteinspections, we exchanged data
(13:57):
regularly about the deploymentof our nuclear forces and the
numbers that were deployed, andwe also on a the silo and send
it to a maintenance facility.
But they had to tell us that,and then we'd use our overhead
(14:21):
satellites to check that whatthey notified was correct.
So there's a whole lot ofchecks, verification and
monitoring measures that ensurewe know what they're up to and
vice versa, and that's whatPutin suspended.
We continue to be confidentthat they're not building up
again because we can watch withour overhead satellites what
they're doing.
But on the other hand, we don'thave that day-in, day-out
fidelity into what they're up towith their nuclear weapons
(14:45):
systems.
Dana Lewis (14:46):
What about China Rose?
Do you feel now?
I mean, they have 500, I thinkprobably when you and I first
started doing interviews, youknow, when you were still in
Moscow, you know they had 300weapons.
Now it's 500.
They're heading for 1000.
Rose Gottemoeller (15:02):
Yeah, exactly when we were talking in Moscow
15 years ago or more, theChinese we didn't even consider
them a threat.
Aside from, they had someweapons that they kept for
retaliation in case they wereattacked.
They said they had no first usepolicy and we didn't think they
were going to ready a surprisefirst strike.
(15:23):
So we were rather relaxed abouttheir nuclear weapons systems.
These days we are not, becausethey are clearly modernizing,
building up their forces.
They are headed to 1,000 by theyear 2030.
That is what the Department ofDefense in the United States
says and by 2035, the Departmentof Defense believes that they
could have 1,500 warheads.
(15:46):
So that is a big buildup overthe next 10 years and it is very
worrying to Washington and topeople who focus on nuclear
threats, because it could meanwe are facing two countries,
russia and China, each havingsimilar numbers of nuclear
weapons deployed and targetedagainst us.
Dana Lewis (16:06):
And as you say that the United States has an aging
I don't want to use the wordfailing, but you might say that
nuclear arsenal that you know.
I think you've said in otherinterviews that the Minuteman
model you know, in some of thesilos across America you're not
(16:26):
even sure whether they wouldexactly fire.
I mean, I assume most of themwould.
But so there's this incrediblenow rejuvenation program of the
US arsenal of $1.4 trillion.
Some people say it'll be $1.7trillion by the time it's done
and we know that these thingstend to escalate beyond that.
(16:46):
But is it needed and do youhave a concern about how it's
going forward?
Rose Gottemoeller (16:55):
about how it's going forward.
Yeah, dana, let me just stressthat I do think our currently
deployed weapon systems are safe, secure and effective.
If they had to launch, theywould launch.
They are weapons of deterrence.
We don't think about them asweapons we would use in fighting
a nuclear war, in fighting awar period.
They are to deter the otherside from attacking us.
But I am very confident thatthey're effective.
(17:16):
It's just that they're old.
The Minuteman III has been indeployment some of those
missiles now for 30 years ormore.
And in the case of theOhio-class submarines, the first
Ohio-class boat was launched inthe late 70s.
So you know these systems areold and they need to be
modernized, they need to bereplaced and that's the program
(17:38):
that you referred to.
It's a modernization program.
It's replacing our existingweapon systems with this.
You know, basically the samekind intercontinental ballistic
missiles, submarine-launchedballistic missiles and bombers
that are able to launch cruisemissiles and also gravity bombs,
drop gravity bombs.
So it's a replacement, one forone, and we're not building up.
(18:00):
People say oh, you'remodernizing, you're increasing.
At the moment the policy of theUnited States is to replace
those systems but not to buildup and increase.
There is worry with whatChina's doing, but for the
moment I think we can beconfident in our nuclear triad
and in the modernization of ournuclear triad.
Dana Lewis (18:21):
I know you're an advisor to the Council on
Strategic Risks in the US AndyWeber is there the former
Undersecretary of Defense andothers that I know that they
have come out and raisedconcerns about some of how this
modernization is taking place.
I know it's very detailed butjust if I asked you two examples
of it that might concern youwould one be the fact that they
(18:43):
are doing dial-a-yield weaponsthat somehow contemplate the use
of a nuclear weapon on thebattlefield, a smaller yield
weapon, and also the fact thatthey're incorporating nuclear
warheads into cruise missiles,which are also used in
(19:04):
conventional war and in aconflict one side or the other
may make a mistake and thinkthat an incoming cruise missile
has a nuclear warhead on it.
Rose Gottemoeller (19:16):
Right?
Well, I'll tell you honestly,Dana.
These are problems that havebeen around since the 1980s.
The United States warheads thatexist already have a variable
yield, so to say, and can beused at different yields.
There is a new warhead that isbeing developed that's
explicitly designed to, I guess,be easier to use from that
(19:38):
perspective.
But again, these are weapons ofdeterrence.
They're not for fighting a war,they're designed to stay on the
shelf and to be able to deter apossible aggressor at any level.
That's why people say, well, weneed some lower-yield weapons,
because the Russians deploylower-yield weapons.
So there's this notion that wehave to have equivalents in
(19:58):
terms of the capabilitiesavailable.
I don't personally agree withthat, but that's where we are,
that's the decision that's beenmade, so there is a certain
logic to it.
Now, in terms of the dual-usecruise missiles, they have been
in existence since the 1980s andwe have, I think, up to this
point, done a lot to try todifferentiate between, for
(20:20):
example, air launch cruisemissiles that are associated
with our strategic deliveryvehicles, like our long-range
bombers that could fly farenough to if they had to strike
Russia from the United States,to strike Russia from the United
States.
Those are ones that weassociate with nuclear warheads,
but ones that are being used in, for example, in the war in
(20:45):
Syria.
Those are clearlyconventionally armed and have
been only associated withdelivery systems that are for
conventional fighting.
Dana Lewis (20:51):
Final thoughts.
Rose Will, I still have you.
I mean, it's a very wobblydangerous time worldwide.
What's number one on your listthat worries you?
Rose Gottemoeller (21:01):
that's going on in Ukraine and the dynamics
there are very uncertain.
Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin,those around him, they keep
(21:22):
rattling the nuclear saber, andI think we have to take these
threats seriously.
I haven't seen anything likethis since the Cuban Missile
Crisis, way back in 1962, so Ido think that this is a time to
be worried about the possibilityof nuclear use once again, and
it's something that we have toavoid.
We haven't seen nuclear use inwartime since Nagasaki and
Hiroshima back in 1945, 80 yearsthis coming summer.
(21:45):
So we need to keep it that way.
Dana Lewis (21:48):
Yeah, and oddly enough, as you say that, it
occurs to me we kind of shrugour shoulders and get used to
another nuclear threat comingout of Russia and say, oh well,
they didn't deliver last time,they're probably not going to
deliver this time, but it's, Imean, you just can't imagine a
worse scenario, more seriousthreats than that.
So, rose Gottemoeller ofStanford University, now, thank
(22:10):
you so much.
Always a pleasure to talk toyou.
Rose Gottemoeller (22:14):
Thank you, dana, great to be with you.
Dana Lewis (22:20):
All right.
Alexei Goncharenko is a memberof Ukrainian parliament and he
joins us now from Odessa.
Alexei, welcome.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (22:28):
Hello.
Dana Lewis (22:29):
You've had a hell of a weekend in Ukraine, and I
know I was looking at your videoon Twitter that you posted, and
just behind you was thebuilding where one of the
missiles hit and you describedit as a horror.
You are living days of horror,one after another, but what
(22:50):
happened there, specificallyover the weekend?
DavidPérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-
.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (22:54):
Yeah, the last several days are especially
tough, and especially forOdessa, my native city.
And first it was a missileattack yesterday early morning,
after which we are in blackouts.
There is no electricity in mostof the city still already from
7 am yesterday, so it is morethan 36 hours already.
(23:16):
No water supply, no heating,electric transfer doesn't work,
schools don't work, so it's badfrom this point of view.
And today there was a missileattack in the center of the city
and the missile fell just 250meters from my home and I ran
(23:43):
there and it was very loud and Iran there.
I've been there just minutesafter it happened and it was a
horror.
I didn't want to show it onTwitter because people in blood
and wounded killed people, so itwas very bad and, yeah, so it
(24:05):
is one.
Tomorrow will be 1,000 days ofRussian full-scale invasion, so
it is 1,000 days of horror, butthese last days are, like in my
city, especially especiallytough.
Dana Lewis (24:18):
What do you think Putin is trying to do right now?
I mean, he's sitting everywhereAnything civilian buildings,
electrical infrastructure,whatever they can hit.
There were something like 900missile attacks last week
missile and drone attacks.
What are the Russians trying todo?
(24:38):
Right?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (24:39):
now, just yesterday, towards the attack,
it was more than 200 altogethermissiles and drone.
And when I yeah, it was 120missiles, I think, and something
like 90 drone, something likethis, just one, just one morning
, and when I'm hearing, juststep aside, about, oh, that we
(25:02):
will give a permission toukraine to attack in the russian
territory.
Finally, it took 1 000 days andthousands of ukrainian lives to
make the decision.
But the question is, how manymissiles will we have?
Because a week ago frenchdefense minister said we, like
he said, oh, good news we aresending to ukraine new uh
(25:24):
delivery of both scalps calledmissiles, 10 missiles, 10, again
just yesterday, one morning,120 missiles I'm not drones
which were used by Russia.
So, with all respect, and weare very thankful for these 10
missiles, for any missile, forany bullet we are receiving, but
(25:47):
it's nothing comparing to whatthe scale was going on here.
So, yeah, and this is tough,sorry, I made a step aside and a
little bit lost your question.
Dana Lewis (26:00):
But yeah, that was my question anyway, because now
we have President Bidenannouncing that finally, you
know, they're going to allowATACOMs to be used on Russian
territory by the Ukrainian army,most likely, though, in that
area where North Korean troopsare with Russian forces now that
(26:21):
want to take back Kursk.
Is it going to make anydifference?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (26:26):
The question is how many missiles
will we receive?
It will be 100 missiles.
With this permission, it canmake a difference, at least in
that part of the front line.
Also, that will threatenRussians.
They will need to change theirlogistics to go further inside
the territory and decentralize,and so on.
So it means I don't want totell you and I don't want to
(26:49):
look like a person who is notthankful for the help.
We are thankful.
I understand we're livingthrough this horror.
Uh, united states are far away,european countries not so far
away, but still not here.
And I understand it's our pain.
But the question is, theproblem is our pain today can
(27:11):
become, I'm sorry, your paintomorrow.
All this horror can go further,to other countries, to other
parts of Europe, to other cities.
That's the thing and that's whywe can't understand why the
world can't make a decisive stepto stop the devil.
Dana Lewis (27:31):
It's funny.
That argument, though, was lostin the United States, and it
was certainly lost in theelection, but it's not lost on
Eastern European countries whounderstand Russia better, and
the former Soviet Union, theBaltics, Poland.
They're in no doubt that, oncePutin is finished with Ukraine,
that he'll turn his attention togoing further.
He won't stop.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (27:52):
Absolutely , and he just wants to rebuild
this empire.
And I just want to remind thosewho are not, you know, say, in
Eastern Europe, but not onlyGermany, dear Germans, it was 35
years ago you were divided.
It's 35 years ago.
From historical point of view,it's nothing, it's a moment,
it's a second.
(28:12):
So Putin, and Putin was Russianagent there, in Eastern Germany
.
So if you are asking Putin whathe wants and if you're going to
give to him what he wants, youneed to be prepared to give him
at least half of Germany,eastern Germany, why not?
Dana Lewis (28:29):
What do you say about President Trump, who comes
in and 24 hours, will do a deal, will make an arrangement, kind
of like a mafia don.
We'll give them some land andwe'll get a ceasefire in place
and bada bing?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (28:48):
I clearly understand that with President
Trump, we're moving fromrules-based international order
to deals-based internationalorder.
That's clear.
We want Trump to be successful.
I mean, who else who, more thanus, want this war to be
finished?
Who suffers from this war morethan Ukrainians?
(29:10):
The question is that the finishshould be a real finish.
First of all, it should be apeace, not a ceasefire.
Secondly, it should be a fairpeace, because in other cases it
will mean that I don't knowwhen I'm hearing oh, are you
ready?
Many media are asking you know,are you ready to cede part of
(29:32):
your territory, to give up partof your territory to Russia?
We do not agree and we willnever agree, and nobody in the
world make us accept that ourterritories are Russian.
These are our territories.
Yes, that's true that withoutAmerican military support, at
least for the moment, we can'treclaim this territory by
(29:52):
military force.
Dana Lewis (29:53):
Elon Musk, who is advising Trump and working with
the Trump administration,suggested in a tweet that
Zelensky is a comedian forsaying in the end, we will be
the ones that decide, ukrainewill be the ones that the
Ukrainians will be the ones thatdecide this, and he said that
that was comedy.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (30:09):
In effect, yeah, I mean it's.
I don't know what is funny forElon Musk here.
Maybe, yeah, he made this kindof funny comedian joke.
It's not about Zelensky andwhere.
I just want to people like ElonMusk I understand probably he's
(30:29):
not looking at us now, but Ijust want to explain to other
people who are watching us now.
When such things are said aboutZelensky as the president of
ukraine, it's, it's a joke aboutukraine.
It's a joke about us for dyingevery day.
It's a bad joke, nothing funny.
You can help or you cannot, cannot help, it's up to you.
(30:53):
But to to, to to, to smile onit too good, to laugh on it, I
think it's too much.
I'm not a fan of PresidentZelensky.
I don't like President Zelensky.
I should be friends with him.
But it's my president, it's ourpresident and we in the side of
(31:14):
Ukraine we can smile on him,laugh on him, we can be angry
with him, but Elon Musk can't,and nobody else, because it's
about our state, it's about ourcountry.
And I will never laugh atDonald Trump because he is
elected by American people, notbecause I like him or I don't
(31:36):
like him, it's because he'selected by American people, and
that will be kind of unrespectfrom me towards American people
which they do not deserve.
So that's the same aboutUkrainians.
And I think Elon Musk.
He is a great entrepreneur, butto be a great entrepreneur and
(31:57):
to be a great person and to be asmart man, a smart politician,
it's a big difference.
Dana Lewis (32:06):
You said it should be a peace, not a ceasefire.
A lot of people would sayyou're not going to get to peace
with Russia right now.
They're not going to easilywithdraw to peace with Russia
right now.
They're not going to easilywithdraw.
Take a ceasefire, bring ininternational forces so that
they can keep that kind of likebetween North and South Korea,
(32:27):
some kind of no man's land,maybe a promise not to join NATO
for a decade or two.
You don't see that flying.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (32:36):
I don't like such the end.
The fact that I don't like suchend, the fact that I don't like
it, doesn't mean that I'mtelling you that it is
impossible.
But the question is when I toldyou about peace and ceasefire,
what I meant first of all issecurity guarantees, because if
we in any way, we will endhostilities in any way I'm not
(32:59):
now discussing in what way, evenbut if there will be no
security guarantees to Ukraine,one thing we are sure about,
that Putin will attack again.
Maybe it will be.
For example, maybe it will beafter President Trump, because
we definitely know that in fouryears the United States will
elect a new president.
(33:19):
Trump can't run anymore, so hispersonal assurances will not
work in four years.
Oh, it will be earlier.
Oh, I don't know.
Yeah, it can happen somethingwith Russia.
Maybe there will be arevolution there, maybe they
will fall apart, maybe they willgo to another war.
I don't know, but in any othercase this empire will attack
(33:40):
again.
So I want to know what securityguarantees ukraine will receive
.
And that's not because I amlike somebody owes up and like,
oh they, that other countriesare in depth towards us.
No, but in 1994, united statesand united kingdom gave us
security guarantees of Budapestmemorandum when we voluntarily
(34:00):
gave up our nukes for the firsttime in human history.
If we would have our nukestoday, we would just destroy
today Moscow completely torubbles, after what they did in
Mayodessa, and never, everanybody in the world would do
this to us.
Nobody would ever attack us ifwe would have it, but United
States and United Kingdom.
I'm not speaking about Russia,but United States and United
(34:23):
Kingdom took our nukes from usand instead gave us a piece of
paper which we now can take onlyto toilet, which is called
Budapest Memorandum, and thatwill never happen with us again.
We don't believe anymore insuch things, so we want security
guarantees in any case,whatever is discussed.
(34:44):
So that's the most importantpart.
Dana Lewis (34:47):
Could you final question to you?
Could you talk about politicalprocess?
If Trump somehow convincesPutin and Zelensky to do a deal,
whether it be a ceasefire,whether it be a peace deal,
zelensky could just not sign apiece of paper on his own, can
(35:08):
he?
So what would have to happeninside Ukraine?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (35:13):
No, zelensky can't do it on his own.
Definitely, zelensky should goto Ukrainian people, to
Ukrainian civil society, and saythat's the situation, that's
where we are, that's what we cando and that's what we can't.
And in this situation, we needto make some decisions.
Maybe these will be painfuldecisions, but let us talk and
let us make this, but it will bea decision of Ukrainian society
(35:37):
.
Yes, and I don't know.
It depends from so many things.
I the most important what willbe inside this package?
So-called yeah, we can say, Ijust don't know.
And also, yes, this is the whatshould happen.
Because you should beabsolutely aware of one thing in
february, march 2022, it wasnot zelensky himself as a person
(36:01):
, it was not uh, with allrespect, javelins or anybody.
It was ukrainian people whowere lying under russian tanks,
who stopped russia, and thatonly ukrainian people and
ukrainian society can decidewhat to do next.
Uh, we are waiting for theproposition of Donald Trump.
We believe that thisproposition will be fair towards
(36:26):
us, because we deserve it.
Dana Lewis (36:29):
Alexei Goncharenko, member of the Ukrainian
parliament.
Thank you so much for takingyour time.
Thank you and stay safe, I mean.
I know it's very difficult,dark days.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (36:39):
Yeah, it is.
Thank you very much.
Dana Lewis (36:40):
And that's our backstory.
This week we are at a criticalmoment in the Ukraine-Russia war
.
The incoming president-elect,donald Trump, will try to freeze
the conflict.
He sees it as a deal he canbroker with his pal, president
Putin.
But will Ukrainians sign on?
Will Europe abandon Ukraineafter a thousand days of
fighting?
Not likely, but it looks like aceasefire may be in the offing.
(37:04):
As always, the devil will be inthe details Territory security
guarantees and a promise thatRussia will reign in its war
machine.
Does anyone really believe theKremlin will?
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
Share the podcast and we'll domore.
No-transcript.
attack on Russian territory.
Does that bring us to the brinkof some kind of possible
nuclear exchange with Russia, oris that just alarmist?
Rose Gottemoeller (00:15):
Well, I think it takes a lot of caution
thinking through how thesesystems will be used, the
ATACOMs.
If I were in the White Houseand were advising the president,
I would advise very stronglythat the Ukrainians be not
permitted to launch any attacksagainst nuclear targets.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (00:35):
With this permission it can make a
difference, at least in thatpart Hi everyone and welcome to
another edition of Backstory.
Dana Lewis (00:50):
I'm Dana Lewis.
Nuclear threats, a new armsrace, russia, america, china
arms control is broken down, warin Ukraine and the Middle East
Are we at the brink of theunthinkable?
This week, former arms controlnegotiator Rose Gottemoeller
tells us exactly what thedangers are and President Biden
(01:13):
approves long-range attackumsfor Ukraine's use inside Russia,
just two months before the endof his term and as North Korean
soldiers join Russia's shocktroops in Putin's illegal war.
Joining me from Odessa, ukraine, on the day the city was bombed
and 10 were killed, ukrainianlawmaker Olexei Goncharenko All
(01:40):
right, I don't think anybodyknows more about arms control
and nuclear threats than RoseGottemoeller.
She was the deputy secretarygeneral of NATO and before that
she was the chief armsnegotiator for the US on the
nuclear arms agreement known asSTART with Russia.
And Rose is now a seniorlecturer at Stanford University
in the US and joins me fromthere.
(02:01):
What do I have to do to getinto your classroom?
Rose Gottemoeller (02:05):
Well, you have to sign up and pay Stanford
tuition, which is I'll do it Tobe able to listen to you as
somebody who was in the room.
Dana Lewis (02:15):
What a privilege.
Rose Gottemoeller (02:18):
Thank you, dana.
I actually worked on the treatythat we call the New START
Treaty.
The START Treaty entered intoforce in 1994.
I also worked on that one as avery young staffer at the
Department of State, but NewSTART is the one that we
completed in 2010.
It entered into force in 2011.
Dana Lewis (02:37):
President Biden has given a green light for Ukraine
to use long-rangeAmerican-manufactured and
supplied ATAKOMs on Russianterritory.
Does that bring us to the brinkof some kind of possible
nuclear exchange with Russia, oris that just alarmist?
Rose Gottemoeller (03:08):
or is that just alarmist?
Well, I think it takes a lot ofcaution thinking through how
these systems will be used, theATACMs.
From reading the press, Icannot tell what kinds of
limitations the White House mayhave placed on the Ukrainians
with regard to targets.
For example, if I were in theWhite House and were advising
the president, I would advisevery strongly that the
Ukrainians be not permitted tolaunch any attacks against
(03:32):
nuclear targets like bases wherenuclear weapons are stored or
nuclear deployment sites likesilos for intercontinental
ballistic missiles.
I would specifically excludenuclear-related targets from the
list.
But for targets that arerelevant to what the Ukrainians
are suffering right now, whichis severe attacks against their
(03:55):
energy infrastructure, yeah sure, but it all depends on what
instructions or guidance wasgiven to the Ukrainians.
Dana Lewis (04:04):
And I think they're being careful not to release
all of that, and it may be thatthey're just using ATAKOMs in
the Kursk area, just over theborder.
I mean, it's only 180 mile, 190mile range on the ATAKOMs.
You know the idea that thesemissiles are going to be flying
into Moscow or something, it'sjust silly, right.
So it's really against, youknow, supposedly against arms
(04:27):
depots, command and controlcenters, any of the launch sites
that they may be hittingUkraine from.
If they can reach them withthose, attack them.
Rose Gottemoeller (04:37):
Yes, and I also have read in the press that
it appears that the NorthKoreans, who have come to aid
the Russians, are now preparingto launch attacks in order to
regain the Kursk regionterritory that the Ukrainians
have seized from the Russians.
They did that last August andhave been holding it ever since,
and apparently the NorthKoreans are going to be thrown
(05:00):
into the battle to try to getthat territory back, into the
battle to try to get thatterritory back.
So perhaps the Atacoms willhave a special role in defending
that territory?
Dana Lewis (05:10):
I think you just answered my question.
Why now?
Rose Gottemoeller (05:14):
Well, a number of reasons.
No doubt, one is that thepresident is in his final months
in office and I think it'sincumbent on him now to decide
what additional major decisionshe wants to get made in that
time and carried forward.
And so that, I think, isdoubtless one reason.
But there has been a longconsideration of the situation
(05:36):
that Ukraine is suffering thiswinter, and once again the
Russians are launching massattacks against energy
infrastructure.
An attack against the city ofSumy only last night killed a
number of people, including twochildren, and left a lot of
people seriously injured.
So, in addition to the attackson energy infrastructure, the
Russians keep going aftercivilian targets.
(05:58):
In this case they hit a coupleof schools as well as other
civilian facilities in Sumy.
Dana Lewis (06:04):
So it's really quite well, it's awful, what
they're doing Something like 900missile and drone attacks last
week, 200 of them alone onSaturday.
I don't think.
Unless you're there on theground, you really can't kind of
digest the scale at whichRussia is coming after Ukraine
right now.
Digest the scale at whichRussia is coming after Ukraine
(06:28):
right now and do you think thatthey're winding up the throttle
right now because theyanticipate that they want to be
in the best position as a newTrump administration talks about
possible ceasefire talks?
Rose Gottemoeller (06:40):
Yes, I do think that that's coming into
the calculations as well in allcapitals Kiev, moscow and
Washington, as well as theEuropean capitals, as they think
through what the dynamics aregoing to be as President Trump
arrives in office on January 20.
And so, for that reason,there's a very interesting
transitional dynamic going onnow that I think everyone's
(07:08):
trying to get into the bestpossible position for upcoming
negotiations as President Trumpincoming.
President Trump has promisedthat he will end this war,
famously, within 24 hours.
I'm not sure he can do that,but he seems to be wanting to
get into a negotiation very,very quickly.
Dana Lewis (07:25):
You know Putin and the Kremlin.
They watch the news just likethe rest of us.
They think that maybe PresidentTrump will be more sympathetic
to the Kremlin on the issue ofUkraine.
Do you think that that may be amiscalculation If Trump pushes
a ceasefire and doesn't get whathe wants?
In fact, this could go theother way.
(07:46):
It could escalate more.
Rose Gottemoeller (07:49):
Absolutely.
Mr Trump really prides himselfon being a master dealmaker, and
if he doesn't see the deal hewants shaping up, he's easily
able to walk away from the table, as he did with Kim Jong-un,
the North Korean leader, duringhis first term in office, the
North Korean leader during hisfirst term in office.
And so I think that all alongwe've heard from Putin this very
(08:14):
kind of zero-sum approach.
I'm going to deal out acrushing defeat to Ukraine, to
NATO and to the United States ofAmerica.
Very zero-sum approach,winner-take-all and I think that
what he's going to have toconsider with Donald Trump is
that that's not the kind of dealthat Trump will go for.
So Putin's going to have todecide where he can give a
little as well, and we'll seehow that works out.
But I really do think that thisis not going to be a winner
(08:36):
take all kind of negotiation butgoing to have to have some
win-win solutions for allparticipants.
Dana Lewis (08:42):
Do you worry about the state of NATO?
I mean, you were there.
You know what the alliance hasbeen able to accomplish in terms
of security for Europe inpost-World War II.
Do you think that the Trumpadministration and Trump
specifically, rather than justtrying to make a deal
(09:03):
understands what NATO hasbrought to the stability of
Europe and you worry aboutwhether he's prepared to abandon
that?
Rose Gottemoeller (09:11):
The NATO that Mr Trump will find now is much
different from the one that hevisited a number of times and,
in a very tough manner, demandedthat the NATO allies pay more.
This was during his firstadministration, when I was the
deputy secretary general and Iobserved the president come to
NATO several times.
He was really rough on theallies and said pay up or I'm
(09:34):
not going to fulfill the Article5 commitments.
That's in the NATO foundingtreaty, the Washington Treaty.
It's Article 5 is if one NATOally is attacked, then other
NATO allies must come to itsassistance if asked for help.
So he said I'm not going tohelp you If you don't pay up.
Forget about it.
Or at times he threatened evenwithdrawing from NATO.
(09:55):
But he's going to find a muchdifferent NATO now.
The allies have gotten it clearin their minds that they need
to pay more for their owndefense at least 2% of their
gross domestic product, which isa different attitude than they
had five years ago and that wasborn of Putin's aggression in
Ukraine.
I think Mr Trump started themomentum toward more defense
(10:16):
spending, but it was Putin'sinvasion of Ukraine that was the
real wake-up call and certainlyNATO has, I think, performed
very well in terms of assistingUkraine.
Dana Lewis (10:28):
Rose, could NATO survive without the United
States in it?
Rose Gottemoeller (10:33):
I believe it could.
For one thing, I don't believethat Trump would completely
withdraw from NATO.
It's possible that he'llattempt something like I've
called a soft withdrawal, thatis, refusing to appoint a US
ambassador to NATO or perhapseven refusing to appoint the
Supreme Allied Commander.
Europe SACEUR, always the topmilitary man at NATO, has been a
(10:56):
four-star general officeradmiral from the United States
of America.
So he may just refuse to putthe leadership in place, but I
don't think he'll withdraw theUnited States completely from
NATO.
He's got an interest incontinuing to have a presence in
Europe and to be seen as aleader in Europe.
So he may try to neglect NATO abit, but I don't think he's
(11:18):
going to try to withdrawcompletely.
Dana Lewis (11:20):
Are too and I get lost in the official names of
them all.
You can correct me on this, butare the nuclear treaties which
(11:43):
for years have governed thenumber of weapons and where
they're deployed and theinformation sharing between the
two biggest nuclear powers?
Are those agreements dead rightnow or are they somehow
surviving despite this war inUkraine?
Rose Gottemoeller (12:02):
Yes, they're hanging on by life support.
The New START Treaty is thetreaty currently in force.
It limits the United States andthe Russian Federation to
deploying 1,550 nuclear warheadseach on 700 delivery vehicles.
Those are missiles and bombersand so forth, so there are
limits in place.
However, the Russian President,vladimir Putin, suspended
(12:26):
implementation of the New STARTTreaty in February of 2023, one
year after the invasion ofUkraine and he did so, you know,
saying as long as the UnitedStates and NATO are assisting
Ukraine, no more nuclear armscontrol treaties, which to me,
is that's shooting himself inthe foot, because it's, you know
(12:47):
, he needs to keep the UnitedStates under control as much as
we need to keep Russia undercontrol.
So it's a weird situation, butthat's where it stands.
Dana Lewis (12:55):
Both countries are If I can just jump in, it's
because it's just not about thenumbers, right, it is about
confirming what the other sideis saying.
It's about information sharingand the Russians, if you can
explain it to me, got just asmuch as the Americans did out of
those deals in terms ofunderstanding.
(13:17):
Where are the weapons, whereare they deployed, where are
they moving to?
Do we know that they're notreadying for something?
There's a lot of, there's a lotof in those agreements, the
ability to make the other sidefeel safer.
Rose Gottemoeller (13:34):
Absolutely.
These treaties are completelyreciprocal.
They're all about mutualpredictability, so that the
Russians can't surprise us witha nuclear attack, and vice versa
.
And heaven knows, a nuclearattack could be the beginning of
a very bad day, an existentialthreat to humanity.
So in this case we had on-siteinspections, we exchanged data
(13:57):
regularly about the deploymentof our nuclear forces and the
numbers that were deployed, andwe also on a the silo and send
it to a maintenance facility.
But they had to tell us that,and then we'd use our overhead
(14:21):
satellites to check that whatthey notified was correct.
So there's a whole lot ofchecks, verification and
monitoring measures that ensurewe know what they're up to and
vice versa, and that's whatPutin suspended.
We continue to be confidentthat they're not building up
again because we can watch withour overhead satellites what
they're doing.
But on the other hand, we don'thave that day-in, day-out
fidelity into what they're up towith their nuclear weapons
(14:45):
systems.
Dana Lewis (14:46):
What about China Rose?
Do you feel now?
I mean, they have 500, I thinkprobably when you and I first
started doing interviews, youknow, when you were still in
Moscow, you know they had 300weapons.
Now it's 500.
They're heading for 1000.
Rose Gottemoeller (15:02):
Yeah, exactly when we were talking in Moscow
15 years ago or more, theChinese we didn't even consider
them a threat.
Aside from, they had someweapons that they kept for
retaliation in case they wereattacked.
They said they had no first usepolicy and we didn't think they
were going to ready a surprisefirst strike.
(15:23):
So we were rather relaxed abouttheir nuclear weapons systems.
These days we are not, becausethey are clearly modernizing,
building up their forces.
They are headed to 1,000 by theyear 2030.
That is what the Department ofDefense in the United States
says and by 2035, the Departmentof Defense believes that they
could have 1,500 warheads.
(15:46):
So that is a big buildup overthe next 10 years and it is very
worrying to Washington and topeople who focus on nuclear
threats, because it could meanwe are facing two countries,
russia and China, each havingsimilar numbers of nuclear
weapons deployed and targetedagainst us.
Dana Lewis (16:06):
And as you say that the United States has an aging
I don't want to use the wordfailing, but you might say that
nuclear arsenal that you know.
I think you've said in otherinterviews that the Minuteman
model you know, in some of thesilos across America you're not
(16:26):
even sure whether they wouldexactly fire.
I mean, I assume most of themwould.
But so there's this incrediblenow rejuvenation program of the
US arsenal of $1.4 trillion.
Some people say it'll be $1.7trillion by the time it's done
and we know that these thingstend to escalate beyond that.
(16:46):
But is it needed and do youhave a concern about how it's
going forward?
Rose Gottemoeller (16:55):
about how it's going forward.
Yeah, dana, let me just stressthat I do think our currently
deployed weapon systems are safe, secure and effective.
If they had to launch, theywould launch.
They are weapons of deterrence.
We don't think about them asweapons we would use in fighting
a nuclear war, in fighting awar period.
They are to deter the otherside from attacking us.
But I am very confident thatthey're effective.
(17:16):
It's just that they're old.
The Minuteman III has been indeployment some of those
missiles now for 30 years ormore.
And in the case of theOhio-class submarines, the first
Ohio-class boat was launched inthe late 70s.
So you know these systems areold and they need to be
modernized, they need to bereplaced and that's the program
(17:38):
that you referred to.
It's a modernization program.
It's replacing our existingweapon systems with this.
You know, basically the samekind intercontinental ballistic
missiles, submarine-launchedballistic missiles and bombers
that are able to launch cruisemissiles and also gravity bombs,
drop gravity bombs.
So it's a replacement, one forone, and we're not building up.
(18:00):
People say oh, you'remodernizing, you're increasing.
At the moment the policy of theUnited States is to replace
those systems but not to buildup and increase.
There is worry with whatChina's doing, but for the
moment I think we can beconfident in our nuclear triad
and in the modernization of ournuclear triad.
Dana Lewis (18:21):
I know you're an advisor to the Council on
Strategic Risks in the US AndyWeber is there the former
Undersecretary of Defense andothers that I know that they
have come out and raisedconcerns about some of how this
modernization is taking place.
I know it's very detailed butjust if I asked you two examples
of it that might concern youwould one be the fact that they
(18:43):
are doing dial-a-yield weaponsthat somehow contemplate the use
of a nuclear weapon on thebattlefield, a smaller yield
weapon, and also the fact thatthey're incorporating nuclear
warheads into cruise missiles,which are also used in
(19:04):
conventional war and in aconflict one side or the other
may make a mistake and thinkthat an incoming cruise missile
has a nuclear warhead on it.
Rose Gottemoeller (19:16):
Right?
Well, I'll tell you honestly,Dana.
These are problems that havebeen around since the 1980s.
The United States warheads thatexist already have a variable
yield, so to say, and can beused at different yields.
There is a new warhead that isbeing developed that's
explicitly designed to, I guess,be easier to use from that
(19:38):
perspective.
But again, these are weapons ofdeterrence.
They're not for fighting a war,they're designed to stay on the
shelf and to be able to deter apossible aggressor at any level.
That's why people say, well, weneed some lower-yield weapons,
because the Russians deploylower-yield weapons.
So there's this notion that wehave to have equivalents in
(19:58):
terms of the capabilitiesavailable.
I don't personally agree withthat, but that's where we are,
that's the decision that's beenmade, so there is a certain
logic to it.
Now, in terms of the dual-usecruise missiles, they have been
in existence since the 1980s andwe have, I think, up to this
point, done a lot to try todifferentiate between, for
(20:20):
example, air launch cruisemissiles that are associated
with our strategic deliveryvehicles, like our long-range
bombers that could fly farenough to if they had to strike
Russia from the United States,to strike Russia from the United
States.
Those are ones that weassociate with nuclear warheads,
but ones that are being used in, for example, in the war in
(20:45):
Syria.
Those are clearlyconventionally armed and have
been only associated withdelivery systems that are for
conventional fighting.
Dana Lewis (20:51):
Final thoughts.
Rose Will, I still have you.
I mean, it's a very wobblydangerous time worldwide.
What's number one on your listthat worries you?
Rose Gottemoeller (21:01):
that's going on in Ukraine and the dynamics
there are very uncertain.
Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin,those around him, they keep
(21:22):
rattling the nuclear saber, andI think we have to take these
threats seriously.
I haven't seen anything likethis since the Cuban Missile
Crisis, way back in 1962, so Ido think that this is a time to
be worried about the possibilityof nuclear use once again, and
it's something that we have toavoid.
We haven't seen nuclear use inwartime since Nagasaki and
Hiroshima back in 1945, 80 yearsthis coming summer.
(21:45):
So we need to keep it that way.
Dana Lewis (21:48):
Yeah, and oddly enough, as you say that, it
occurs to me we kind of shrugour shoulders and get used to
another nuclear threat comingout of Russia and say, oh well,
they didn't deliver last time,they're probably not going to
deliver this time, but it's, Imean, you just can't imagine a
worse scenario, more seriousthreats than that.
So, rose Gottemoeller ofStanford University, now, thank
(22:10):
you so much.
Always a pleasure to talk toyou.
Rose Gottemoeller (22:14):
Thank you, dana, great to be with you.
Dana Lewis (22:20):
All right.
Alexei Goncharenko is a memberof Ukrainian parliament and he
joins us now from Odessa.
Alexei, welcome.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (22:28):
Hello.
Dana Lewis (22:29):
You've had a hell of a weekend in Ukraine, and I
know I was looking at your videoon Twitter that you posted, and
just behind you was thebuilding where one of the
missiles hit and you describedit as a horror.
You are living days of horror,one after another, but what
(22:50):
happened there, specificallyover the weekend?
DavidPérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-Pérez-
.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (22:54):
Yeah, the last several days are especially
tough, and especially forOdessa, my native city.
And first it was a missileattack yesterday early morning,
after which we are in blackouts.
There is no electricity in mostof the city still already from
7 am yesterday, so it is morethan 36 hours already.
(23:16):
No water supply, no heating,electric transfer doesn't work,
schools don't work, so it's badfrom this point of view.
And today there was a missileattack in the center of the city
and the missile fell just 250meters from my home and I ran
(23:43):
there and it was very loud and Iran there.
I've been there just minutesafter it happened and it was a
horror.
I didn't want to show it onTwitter because people in blood
and wounded killed people, so itwas very bad and, yeah, so it
(24:05):
is one.
Tomorrow will be 1,000 days ofRussian full-scale invasion, so
it is 1,000 days of horror, butthese last days are, like in my
city, especially especiallytough.
Dana Lewis (24:18):
What do you think Putin is trying to do right now?
I mean, he's sitting everywhereAnything civilian buildings,
electrical infrastructure,whatever they can hit.
There were something like 900missile attacks last week
missile and drone attacks.
What are the Russians trying todo?
(24:38):
Right?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (24:39):
now, just yesterday, towards the attack,
it was more than 200 altogethermissiles and drone.
And when I yeah, it was 120missiles, I think, and something
like 90 drone, something likethis, just one, just one morning
, and when I'm hearing, juststep aside, about, oh, that we
(25:02):
will give a permission toukraine to attack in the russian
territory.
Finally, it took 1 000 days andthousands of ukrainian lives to
make the decision.
But the question is, how manymissiles will we have?
Because a week ago frenchdefense minister said we, like
he said, oh, good news we aresending to ukraine new uh
(25:24):
delivery of both scalps calledmissiles, 10 missiles, 10, again
just yesterday, one morning,120 missiles I'm not drones
which were used by Russia.
So, with all respect, and weare very thankful for these 10
missiles, for any missile, forany bullet we are receiving, but
(25:47):
it's nothing comparing to whatthe scale was going on here.
So, yeah, and this is tough,sorry, I made a step aside and a
little bit lost your question.
Dana Lewis (26:00):
But yeah, that was my question anyway, because now
we have President Bidenannouncing that finally, you
know, they're going to allowATACOMs to be used on Russian
territory by the Ukrainian army,most likely, though, in that
area where North Korean troopsare with Russian forces now that
(26:21):
want to take back Kursk.
Is it going to make anydifference?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (26:26):
The question is how many missiles
will we receive?
It will be 100 missiles.
With this permission, it canmake a difference, at least in
that part of the front line.
Also, that will threatenRussians.
They will need to change theirlogistics to go further inside
the territory and decentralize,and so on.
So it means I don't want totell you and I don't want to
(26:49):
look like a person who is notthankful for the help.
We are thankful.
I understand we're livingthrough this horror.
Uh, united states are far away,european countries not so far
away, but still not here.
And I understand it's our pain.
But the question is, theproblem is our pain today can
(27:11):
become, I'm sorry, your paintomorrow.
All this horror can go further,to other countries, to other
parts of Europe, to other cities.
That's the thing and that's whywe can't understand why the
world can't make a decisive stepto stop the devil.
Dana Lewis (27:31):
It's funny.
That argument, though, was lostin the United States, and it
was certainly lost in theelection, but it's not lost on
Eastern European countries whounderstand Russia better, and
the former Soviet Union, theBaltics, Poland.
They're in no doubt that, oncePutin is finished with Ukraine,
that he'll turn his attention togoing further.
He won't stop.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (27:52):
Absolutely , and he just wants to rebuild
this empire.
And I just want to remind thosewho are not, you know, say, in
Eastern Europe, but not onlyGermany, dear Germans, it was 35
years ago you were divided.
It's 35 years ago.
From historical point of view,it's nothing, it's a moment,
it's a second.
(28:12):
So Putin, and Putin was Russianagent there, in Eastern Germany
.
So if you are asking Putin whathe wants and if you're going to
give to him what he wants, youneed to be prepared to give him
at least half of Germany,eastern Germany, why not?
Dana Lewis (28:29):
What do you say about President Trump, who comes
in and 24 hours, will do a deal, will make an arrangement, kind
of like a mafia don.
We'll give them some land andwe'll get a ceasefire in place
and bada bing?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (28:48):
I clearly understand that with President
Trump, we're moving fromrules-based international order
to deals-based internationalorder.
That's clear.
We want Trump to be successful.
I mean, who else who, more thanus, want this war to be
finished?
Who suffers from this war morethan Ukrainians?
(29:10):
The question is that the finishshould be a real finish.
First of all, it should be apeace, not a ceasefire.
Secondly, it should be a fairpeace, because in other cases it
will mean that I don't knowwhen I'm hearing oh, are you
ready?
Many media are asking you know,are you ready to cede part of
(29:32):
your territory, to give up partof your territory to Russia?
We do not agree and we willnever agree, and nobody in the
world make us accept that ourterritories are Russian.
These are our territories.
Yes, that's true that withoutAmerican military support, at
least for the moment, we can'treclaim this territory by
(29:52):
military force.
Dana Lewis (29:53):
Elon Musk, who is advising Trump and working with
the Trump administration,suggested in a tweet that
Zelensky is a comedian forsaying in the end, we will be
the ones that decide, ukrainewill be the ones that the
Ukrainians will be the ones thatdecide this, and he said that
that was comedy.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (30:09):
In effect, yeah, I mean it's.
I don't know what is funny forElon Musk here.
Maybe, yeah, he made this kindof funny comedian joke.
It's not about Zelensky andwhere.
I just want to people like ElonMusk I understand probably he's
(30:29):
not looking at us now, but Ijust want to explain to other
people who are watching us now.
When such things are said aboutZelensky as the president of
ukraine, it's, it's a joke aboutukraine.
It's a joke about us for dyingevery day.
It's a bad joke, nothing funny.
You can help or you cannot, cannot help, it's up to you.
(30:53):
But to to, to to, to smile onit too good, to laugh on it, I
think it's too much.
I'm not a fan of PresidentZelensky.
I don't like President Zelensky.
I should be friends with him.
But it's my president, it's ourpresident and we in the side of
(31:14):
Ukraine we can smile on him,laugh on him, we can be angry
with him, but Elon Musk can't,and nobody else, because it's
about our state, it's about ourcountry.
And I will never laugh atDonald Trump because he is
elected by American people, notbecause I like him or I don't
(31:36):
like him, it's because he'selected by American people, and
that will be kind of unrespectfrom me towards American people
which they do not deserve.
So that's the same aboutUkrainians.
And I think Elon Musk.
He is a great entrepreneur, butto be a great entrepreneur and
(31:57):
to be a great person and to be asmart man, a smart politician,
it's a big difference.
Dana Lewis (32:06):
You said it should be a peace, not a ceasefire.
A lot of people would sayyou're not going to get to peace
with Russia right now.
They're not going to easilywithdraw to peace with Russia
right now.
They're not going to easilywithdraw.
Take a ceasefire, bring ininternational forces so that
they can keep that kind of likebetween North and South Korea,
(32:27):
some kind of no man's land,maybe a promise not to join NATO
for a decade or two.
You don't see that flying.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (32:36):
I don't like such the end.
The fact that I don't like suchend, the fact that I don't like
it, doesn't mean that I'mtelling you that it is
impossible.
But the question is when I toldyou about peace and ceasefire,
what I meant first of all issecurity guarantees, because if
we in any way, we will endhostilities in any way I'm not
(32:59):
now discussing in what way, evenbut if there will be no
security guarantees to Ukraine,one thing we are sure about,
that Putin will attack again.
Maybe it will be.
For example, maybe it will beafter President Trump, because
we definitely know that in fouryears the United States will
elect a new president.
(33:19):
Trump can't run anymore, so hispersonal assurances will not
work in four years.
Oh, it will be earlier.
Oh, I don't know.
Yeah, it can happen somethingwith Russia.
Maybe there will be arevolution there, maybe they
will fall apart, maybe they willgo to another war.
I don't know, but in any othercase this empire will attack
(33:40):
again.
So I want to know what securityguarantees ukraine will receive
.
And that's not because I amlike somebody owes up and like,
oh they, that other countriesare in depth towards us.
No, but in 1994, united statesand united kingdom gave us
security guarantees of Budapestmemorandum when we voluntarily
(34:00):
gave up our nukes for the firsttime in human history.
If we would have our nukestoday, we would just destroy
today Moscow completely torubbles, after what they did in
Mayodessa, and never, everanybody in the world would do
this to us.
Nobody would ever attack us ifwe would have it, but United
States and United Kingdom.
I'm not speaking about Russia,but United States and United
(34:23):
Kingdom took our nukes from usand instead gave us a piece of
paper which we now can take onlyto toilet, which is called
Budapest Memorandum, and thatwill never happen with us again.
We don't believe anymore insuch things, so we want security
guarantees in any case,whatever is discussed.
(34:44):
So that's the most importantpart.
Dana Lewis (34:47):
Could you final question to you?
Could you talk about politicalprocess?
If Trump somehow convincesPutin and Zelensky to do a deal,
whether it be a ceasefire,whether it be a peace deal,
zelensky could just not sign apiece of paper on his own, can
(35:08):
he?
So what would have to happeninside Ukraine?
Oleksiy Goncharenko (35:13):
No, zelensky can't do it on his own.
Definitely, zelensky should goto Ukrainian people, to
Ukrainian civil society, and saythat's the situation, that's
where we are, that's what we cando and that's what we can't.
And in this situation, we needto make some decisions.
Maybe these will be painfuldecisions, but let us talk and
let us make this, but it will bea decision of Ukrainian society
(35:37):
.
Yes, and I don't know.
It depends from so many things.
I the most important what willbe inside this package?
So-called yeah, we can say, Ijust don't know.
And also, yes, this is the whatshould happen.
Because you should beabsolutely aware of one thing in
february, march 2022, it wasnot zelensky himself as a person
(36:01):
, it was not uh, with allrespect, javelins or anybody.
It was ukrainian people whowere lying under russian tanks,
who stopped russia, and thatonly ukrainian people and
ukrainian society can decidewhat to do next.
Uh, we are waiting for theproposition of Donald Trump.
We believe that thisproposition will be fair towards
(36:26):
us, because we deserve it.
Dana Lewis (36:29):
Alexei Goncharenko, member of the Ukrainian
parliament.
Thank you so much for takingyour time.
Thank you and stay safe, I mean.
I know it's very difficult,dark days.
Oleksiy Goncharenko (36:39):
Yeah, it is.
Thank you very much.
Dana Lewis (36:40):
And that's our backstory.
This week we are at a criticalmoment in the Ukraine-Russia war
.
The incoming president-elect,donald Trump, will try to freeze
the conflict.
He sees it as a deal he canbroker with his pal, president
Putin.
But will Ukrainians sign on?
Will Europe abandon Ukraineafter a thousand days of
fighting?
Not likely, but it looks like aceasefire may be in the offing.
(37:04):
As always, the devil will be inthe details Territory security
guarantees and a promise thatRussia will reign in its war
machine.
Does anyone really believe theKremlin will?
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
Share the podcast and we'll domore.
No-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!