June 20, 2024 • 65 mins
The strategic alliance between Russia and North Korea has the world on edge, and in this episode of Backstory, you'll understand why. Join us as we unpack the recent high-stakes meeting between President Putin and Kim Jong Un. General Ben Hodges provides expert insights into North Korea's agreement to supply Russia with millions of artillery shells and missiles for its war against Ukraine. Together, we investigate the technological exchanges that could significantly bolster North Korea's nuclear and satellite capabilities, posing grave risks to South Korea, Japan, and global security.
Oleg Ignatov talks to why Putin has embraced North Korea, a journey of desperation in his war against the west and quest to revive a Russian empire at all costs.
Lastly, hear from Natalia Drozd, chairwoman of the Dobrochyn Center NGO, as she shares the devastating impact of the prolonged Russian invasion on Ukraine's infrastructure.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Gen Ben Hodges (00:00):
It was important that members of
Congress, including Republicans,voted to change the law that
says no American president canunilaterally withdraw from NATO.
So even the Republicansrecognize the idiocy and the
danger of that.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (00:18):
First of all, he doesn't have a
choice because Putin doesn'thave so many friends right now.
And the second thing yes, asyou said, it's about military
issues, it's about ammunition,it's about missiles, so it's
about firepower.
Natalia Drozd (00:36):
Because, you know , it's not only a war between
Russia and Ukraine, it's notonly bilateral, it's already the
globe on the map who areinvolved in this war.
Dana Lewis (00:53):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, russia's PresidentPutin in North Korea suddenly
best buds with Kim Jong-un.
What's the deal?
A desperate Russia seeking morearms gets the audience.
Artillery shells, millions ofthem, more missiles to attack
(01:14):
Ukraine.
But what is North Korea gettingin return?
Will Russia give North Koreathe technical know-how to push
its nuclear program to the nextlevel?
Tech for satellites and nuclearsubmarines too.
Technical know-how to push itsnuclear program to the next
level, tech for satellites andnuclear submarines too.
The West is worried, that's forsure.
Our guests, the ever-cleverGeneral Ben Hodges, oleg
(01:36):
Ignatyev from the InternationalCrisis Group and, from Ukraine,
natalia Drozd, on reconstructionof a war-torn country.
Ben Hodges is the formercommanding general of the US
Army in Europe and he joins menow from Germany.
Gen Ben Hodges (01:56):
Hello, general, good to see you again sir,
thank you very much for theprivilege again.
Dana Lewis (02:01):
Let's hit the news.
North Korea, Russia PresidentPutin and Kim Jong-un had just
met actually today, as we recordthis, a strategic cooperation
agreement Cause for concern.
Gen Ben Hodges (02:16):
Well, I'm concerned, of course, that North
Korea is providing apparentlymillions of rounds of artillery
ammunition to Russia andprobably some other things.
There's a lot of question aboutthe quality of what's being
provided, but nonetheless it'spretty clear that there is a lot
of ammunition being provided,so there's nothing good about
(02:39):
that.
But I'm also concerned that wecan't seem to do anything about
it.
I mean, I was just looking at amap before you and I started
speaking of the route that thisammunition goes, how they
transfer it by ship from NorthKorea to Russia and then it
moves by rail the entiredistance of Russia.
(03:03):
I can't believe there's nothingwe can do about that, that it
can't be interdicted somehowalong the way.
I'm sure the Ukrainians arelooking for ways to do that, but
surprising that we seeminglyare unable to do anything about
it.
And then, of course, thisemboldens North Korea.
They will, without a doubt, inaddition to getting money from
(03:28):
Russia for the ammunition,they'll also get some technology
about their satellites, rocketand missile capabilities.
That will increase the risk toour allies in South Korea and
Japan.
Dana Lewis (03:44):
I think the former ambassador, us ambassador to
Russia, mike McFaul, put up apretty interesting post today
saying essentially you know thisis a frightening situation
because Putin clearly is nevergoing to sign on to another arms
control strategic arms controlagreement America now is talking
(04:07):
about maybe it should expandits nuclear arsenal.
I mean, we are in a new armsrace and North Korea probably
stands to benefit from some ofthe technology that Russia has
for missile platforms, thatRussia has for missile platforms
(04:28):
, launch platforms for themissiles themselves and delivery
systems, including submarines.
Gen Ben Hodges (04:31):
Well, you're right.
And, of course, the Russianshave not complied with or lived
up to any other agreements forquite some time, so this is not
shocking.
And they don't feel anyobligation to, they don't feel
we haven't been able to impresson them or force them to live up
(04:52):
to it.
And so here we are, and I thinkit would be foolhardy to expect
that they'll do anything elseuntil we show that we are
serious about these things,which means that all the other
countries have to participate aswell.
It can't be something that onlythe US can enforce.
So I think you're exactly rightthat this is not a good
(05:15):
situation for us or forcountries that see North Korea
as a threat.
Dana Lewis (05:22):
And this is not some airy-fairy geopolitical
conversation.
If you're a Ukrainian soldiersitting on the front line in one
of those trenches near Russianforces because this translates
into real ammunition that isbeing used on the battlefield
ship from North Korea to theRussians do you think it's
(05:43):
making a big difference in theircampaign in this war of
attrition?
Gen Ben Hodges (05:48):
Well, you and I have talked about before how
war is a test of will and it's atest of logistics.
And so if it's so importantthat Putin is willing to
humiliate himself, to go flyingall the way to Pyongyang and hug
Kim Jong-un in order to getammunition, it tells you that
they're in desperate need ofthat ammunition.
(06:11):
And so much for the people thatwere wringing their hands.
About 40% of Russia's economyis now on a war footing.
That's the equivalent to 40% ofSpain's economy.
So put it in context.
So we're not talking about 40%of the German or the American
economy, but or the British.
It's 40% of Spain's economy.
That's the size of Russia.
So they need this Now.
(06:31):
This is also why it's importantthat US policy should not
restrict Ukraine from usingweapons inside of Russia.
From using weapons inside ofRussia, I mean, we know where
the ammunition is going, we knowexactly where it's being
offloaded.
The Ukrainians should be freeto use any weapon they have,
from whoever they receive it, tostrike where these trains are
(06:55):
coming in.
Dana Lewis (06:55):
Okay, supposedly that rule.
Can you help me pick throughthat?
Supposedly that rule waschanged.
The Biden administration hassaid that Ukraine can hit into
Ukraine, and in fact they havedone so, but then the use of
attackums is still restricted.
Gen Ben Hodges (07:14):
There's two important caveats to that
supposed lessening ofrestrictions, which is maddening
anyway.
I mean, if we were seriousabout helping Ukraine win, there
would not be a restriction.
So this is really, I think,unhelpful.
But the first caveat isattackams cannot be used.
So the weapon that would bemost effective at 300 kilometer
(07:36):
range, they can't use that.
The second thing they can onlyuse Americanided weapons across
the border into Russia if it'sproximate to Kharkiv or directly
related to Russian troopscoming across the border there.
So a logistics site that mightnot be anywhere near Kharkiv is
(07:58):
therefore untouchable, at leastusing American systems.
This is ridiculous.
There's no legal, moral oroperational reason not to allow
this.
This is 100% the result of theadministration unfortunately
still being excessivelyconcerned that Russia might
somehow escalate, which they'renot going to do, or that the US
(08:21):
policy really seems to be thatwe just want this thing to kind
of grind to a halt, which isincredibly short-sighted inside
(08:48):
of Russia, that in fact it'sonly about 15%, that all the
supply and logistics and airbases, the things that are key
to stopping the Russianonslaught, are in fact in that
other.
Dana Lewis (08:54):
What's my math?
Gen Ben Hodges (08:55):
85%, 85% 85%, very good, yeah, I mean as
General Breedlove describes it.
You know we we are in effect,giving Russia a sanctuary from
which they were able to killinnocent Ukrainians, civilians,
strike civilian infrastructureas well as attack Ukrainian
(09:16):
forces.
So this is.
You would think we wouldeventually learn from this.
We allowed the North Vietnameseto have sanctuary in the Viet
Cong during that long war.
We allowed the Taliban to havesanctuary in Pakistan.
(09:36):
So if you're going to beserious about winning, then you
have to eliminate sanctuary,either through kinetic or
economic or diplomatic means.
Dana Lewis (09:50):
Do you think that this is one of those slow drips
that's just bound to changeanyway, that you know?
Eventually the Bidenadministration says, okay, yeah,
you can finally use some of theAmerican weapons inside Russia,
but only this far.
Do you think that's just goingto?
You know it's going to changelike tanks, like F-16s, like
attack guns, like long range orlonger range, of course.
Gen Ben Hodges (10:13):
Number one, yes , number two there are no F-16s
yet.
I mean more than two and a halfyears into since the large scale
invasion, or almost two and ahalf years, not a single F-16 is
flying, and that's againbecause of our reluctance or our
unwillingness or our inabilityto help train enough pilots to
(10:35):
get them ready to go.
These are bad policy decisionsthat come from the fact that
there is no clear objective,from the fact that there is no
clear objective.
It's very difficult to come upwith good policy if there's no
strategic aim that gives reasonfor the policy.
Policy is the how you implementwhat's needed to be done to
(11:01):
accomplish the aim and thestrategic aim the objective is
still not clearly identified.
They can't come out and justsay we recognize it's in our
strategic interest that Ukrainedefeats Russia and therefore
we're going to do everythingnecessary for them.
Instead, you get thisridiculous we're with you for as
long as it takes, which meansnothing, and you get policies
(11:24):
that make no sense.
So the fact that Russianweapons and targets are given
sanctuary in 85% of the regionthat Ukraine should be able to
hit.
A second lieutenant would notcome up with something like that
.
Dana Lewis (11:44):
You've talked about the fact in some of your social
media posts that Ukraine'sdoing a pretty good job in
Crimea, that you're seeing a lotof things that maybe we don't
take note of or we don't add upat the end of the day, and that
is that Ukraine is slowlyremoving Russian defenses in
Crimea and you paint what seemslike a platform or a foothold
(12:06):
for further action.
What does that look like, doyou think, in Crimea from the
Ukrainians?
Gen Ben Hodges (12:12):
Well, first of all, I would say too many casual
observers assume thatliberating Crimea can only be
done with a Normandy D-Day typeinvasion.
Crimea can only be done with aNormandy D-Day type invasion.
Ok, and clearly Ukraine is notin a position to do that right
now, but nor are they requiredto have to do that right now.
(12:33):
Instead, I think liberatingCrimea, which is the most
important terrain of this wholewar because of what it allows
the Russians or the Ukrainiansto do in the Black Sea
(12:56):
economically and maritime-wise,is you take it in stages, and
this is what the Ukrainians aredoing.
You have to isolate it, whichmeans the three sort of main
ways you get in and out ofCrimea is the Kerch Bridge,
ferries that come across AzovSea or railroad.
So the Ukrainians are alreadychipping away at the available
(13:16):
ferries and Black Sea Fleet LSTslandingship tank that are used
to move stuff back and forth.
That bridge will be droppedwhen the Ukrainians are ready
for it to be dropped and therailroad will be the easiest
thing to hit whenever they'reready to.
So the isolation part that's inthe works.
(13:44):
The other stage is making ituntenable so that the Russians
can't use it.
That means using the weaponsthat have been provided, and
even Secretary Austin now talksabout how good it is that now
the Ukrainians are using ATACOMsthe 300-kilometer range ATACOMs
, to hit targets in Sevastopol,which is the Navy base, and
other places around Crimea.
And then, of course, there wasa report that came out, I think
(14:05):
three days ago, that showed allthe different air defense
weapons that have been destroyedin Crimea.
I think this is very clevertargeting as well.
This is exactly how we would doit we would eliminate the
enemy's air defense so that thenother systems can come in and
hit the targets.
So this is an important part ofmaking it easier for drones to
(14:28):
get in and strike, as well as,eventually, perhaps, manned
aircraft.
Dana Lewis (14:35):
Quick point why are they waiting on the Kirch
Bridge.
What's the point of waiting?
Gen Ben Hodges (14:41):
Well, it's going to be such a massive
undertaking.
I mean, this is not a matter ofa couple of Taurus.
They ever get those or three orfour attack them.
I, I mean this, that's a hugebridge.
I'm not an engineer, but I meanI've been looking at this now
for the last couple of years and, um, the Russians have done a
lot of things to protect itagainst, uh, maritime drones.
(15:01):
You know, they've sunk vesselsalong the sides, uh, to prevent
that.
They've sunk vessels along thesides to prevent that.
They've got a lot of airdefense all around that place to
prevent other drones fromcoming in.
So I think probably the mostclever guy on the planet,
general Budanov, he's got a teamworking on what would be
(15:25):
required, what sort of operationwill be required to get enough
explosive to be able to inflictreal damage to that bridge.
But it'll be part of anoperation distraction, deception
, a combination of things.
It might happen in phases, overhours or over days, I don't
(15:47):
know, but it's not something youcan do.
Well, we didn't get it thistime, we'll get it next week.
It'll be a big operation, andso I think they will want the
time to be right, when not onlyyou get the benefit of the
destruction, but it contributesto other things that are going
on elsewhere as well.
Dana Lewis (16:08):
I know I have limited time, but, general, what
about NATO?
You're in touch with so manypeople in NATO.
What is the nervousness of apossible return of President
Trump, of a return of a possiblereturn of president trump, and
(16:29):
are they more than just, youknow, kind of chattering about
it in the hallway?
Are they laying the laying afoundation now so that support
for ukraine, um and and othernato strategy as a will continue
on, so that, even if Trumpstarts squeezing funding on NATO
(16:51):
, or even talked about removingthe US from NATO, which he
talked about before, what's theplan?
Is there?
Gen Ben Hodges (16:58):
one.
Well, the biggest danger withDonald Trump as president when
it comes to NATO is that heconstantly undermines the
cohesion of the alliance.
And that's always been.
The secret sauce of NATO isthat the Russians and others
never doubted and the membersnever doubted that if it came
down to it that everybody wouldbe together, that didn't mean
(17:22):
you don't have enormousarguments with allies, that you
don't have huge differences onmany different things.
And of course, every president,as Truman, has complained that
our European allies not just theGermans, but most of our
European allies did not carrytheir fair share of the burden.
So former President Trump wasfollowing the tradition of
(17:46):
criticizing our European alliesfor not spending enough.
But nobody ever questionedwhether or not the US would be
there that we would live up toour obligations under Article 5.
And then the fact that he eventalks about pulling out damages
that cohesion and of coursethat's a signal to the Russians
(18:08):
that hmm, okay, maybe we coulddo something and the Americans
under Trump would not reallyreact.
And that's all the Russianswant to do.
They don't, unlike in the ColdWar when they had a big red
arrow that was aimed acrossEurope to conquer it, now they
just want to break the alliance.
And the way you break thealliance is to demonstrate that
(18:28):
nations actually won't live upto what they said they would.
So that's the biggest dangerand it's terrible for the United
States.
We benefit so much from NATO.
I mean, with less than 100,000troops, I mean that's how many
people can sit in WembleyStadium or the stadium at the
University of Michigan?
(18:49):
That's not a lot of people.
We have access for our Army,navy, air Force, intelligence,
special forces all over Europe.
That helps us in Africa and theMiddle East and Eurasia, not
just in Europe.
So the benefits to useconomically, a stable, secure
Europe is essential for Americanprosperity.
(19:11):
You know why would anybody wantto put that in risk just
because Germany doesn't spend 2%, or the French are not, or the
Canadians don't?
So I think at the end of the day, it was important that members
of Congress, includingRepublicans, voted to change the
(19:33):
law that says no Americanpresident can unilaterally
withdraw from NATO.
So even the Republicansrecognize the idiocy and the
danger of that.
Now, of course, course, nothingforces the president to do
anything.
I mean, so he, he could stoptalking about uh withdrawn from
nato.
But he's not forced to doanything, so he could just sort
(19:57):
of okay, fine, um, but againthat would hurt us.
Uh, we'd be hurting ourselvesmore than anyone.
Dana Lewis (20:03):
That's's why President Biden signed this
bilateral agreement.
There are other bilateralagreements with Ukraine that
have been done, but a lot ofpeople say that you know there's
a clause in there that you getout of that within I think it
was six months.
So if Trump comes in, he canabandon the bilateral agreements
as well, so he can support forNATO and he can also pull the
(20:24):
bilateral support that Americahas for Ukraine.
Gen Ben Hodges (20:27):
Well, that would be true of any president
all the time.
I mean, the executive thing isjust that it's signed by the
executive.
So forget Trump, forget Ukraine.
That would always be the case.
I think these bilateralagreements are important.
We have bilateral agreementswith Germany, poland, all the
other countries, other allies aswell, and anything that helps
(20:51):
improve Ukraine's ability todefend itself, to improve their
training and education, theirinfrastructure, their
modernization, I'm for it.
But that should not be confusedwith as another step towards
membership in NATO or thatirreversible momentum.
It's not that and it's alsodefinitely not a security
(21:12):
guarantee.
The only security guarantee isUkraine inside NATO.
Dana Lewis (21:20):
Yeah, another conversation for another time,
and we're not there yet,although they would like them to
be.
General Ben Hodges, what agreat treat always to be able to
talk to you when I get a chance.
Thank you so much, have awonderful summer, and I know
you're going to the NATOconference so I'm sure you'll be
whispering in lots of earsthere, as generals generally
(21:41):
don't whisper, but you'll.
You'll be talking to people theway you think the war should be
handled and where it should begoing.
Gen Ben Hodges (21:48):
I think it's it's too important to just I
can't just sit in the bleachersand watch.
I'm trying to help make surethat you know the United States
doesn't turn us back on our, onour allies, and that the NATO
does not turn us back on Ukraine.
Thank you, sir, thanks Dana.
Dana Lewis (22:15):
Oleg Ignatov is with the International Crisis
Group and he worked as apolitical consultant in Russia
for the United Russia Party,which I believe is the party
that President Putin supports,Oleg, is it not?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (22:27):
Yes, it was a long time ago when
Medvedev was president of Russia.
Actually, not, Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (22:33):
What do you make of President Putin's visit to
North Korea?
I mean, they did a deal lastSeptember.
We know that North Korea hasbeen shipping them some missiles
and millions of artilleryrounds.
What's the point of PresidentPutin, who doesn't exactly like
to travel, going to North Koreanow, some 24 years since the
(22:54):
last time he was there?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (22:59):
First of all, he doesn't have a
choice because Putin doesn'thave so many friends right now.
And the second thing yes, asyou said, it's about military
issues, it's about ammunition.
Yes, it's about missiles.
So it's about firepower.
Yes, I think it's not the rightway to say that Russia is
(23:24):
dependent on the North Korea interms of firepower, but I think
that the help which Russia getsfrom North Korea makes
difference and it helps Russiahave advantage in terms of
manpower over Ukraine on thefront line.
That's why it's very importantfor Putin so Russia could leave
(23:45):
without the help from NorthKorea.
Russia could still haveadvantage over Ukraine in terms
of manpower, but Russia, withoutthe help from North Korea,
russia wouldn't have had such abig advantage in terms of
firepower.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
In terms of manpower?
How does that work?
No, in terms of firepower,sorry, Firepower, because
they're not sending troops.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Gro (24:11):
Because North Korea doesn't send troops
to?
Dana Lewis (24:14):
Ukraine?
Yes, Is that possible?
Because we know that PresidentPutin is about to sign a
strategic partnership agreement.
What is that strategicpartnership agreement, which
people seem to suggest wouldmean that one country would
defend the other country'sinterests militarily.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (24:32):
It means that Russia and North
Korea will be strategic partners.
It means that they will sharemore technologies.
It means that their cooperationin terms of military
cooperation will go deeper.
Yes, it means that the NorthKorean army or North Korea will
(24:56):
get more military technologiesfrom Russia.
It means that North Korea orRussia would use more North
Koreans' capacity to producemissiles and munitions for the
Russian army.
So it just means that thecooperation between these
countries will go deeper, but itdoesn't mean that they will
(25:17):
have to defend each other incase of a military conflict.
What about nuclear?
Dana Lewis (25:20):
weapons, other in case of a military conflict?
What about nuclear weapons andthe?
I mean?
North Korea already has nuclearweapons, but the development of
platforms that can moreaccurately deliver those weapons
, especially bringing themwithin range of the United
States.
Do you think that Russia isprepared to give all?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (25:42):
It's a good question.
Yes, you heard Putin'sstatements when he said that
Russia is ready to respond todeliverers of long-range
missiles to Ukraine from theWest, and it's ready to send it.
Or it's possible that Russiacould consider the sending of
its long-range weapons todifferent countries which are
(26:03):
enemies of the West or theWestern countries?
Yes, we still don't know whatPutin meant, but you know, I
think, that in this situation, Imean in these relationships
between China, oh sorry, betweenNorth Korea and Russia, there
is one player which is hidden.
Yes, and nobody is talkingabout this player, but everybody
(26:25):
knows about this player andthis player is China.
And if Russia couldn't doanything without China's consent
there in North Korea, and Ithink if North Korea sends
missiles and sends ammunition toRussia, it means that China
agrees with that.
Yes, and if Russia wants tosend to North Korea something
(26:46):
critical I mean criticaltechnologies, critical weapons
which could hurt the West or theUnited States in particular, it
means that China would have toagree on that.
And we don't have an answer tothis question.
So that's why I would answer wedon't know, but, of course, if
(27:06):
the escalation continues and ifChina is getting more involved
in this conflict on the Russiaside, different scenarios are
possible.
Dana Lewis (27:17):
Will you share with me a scenario or two that you
think is possible, becausecooperation is one thing, but
the standoff between north andsouth korea is getting worse.
Suddenly, and especially in thelast year, north korea is
becoming much more aggressivewith south korea.
Do you think that russia ispushing North Korea towards an
(27:42):
armed conflict with the South?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (27:45):
Again .
So it doesn't mean that Russiacould push North Korea to the
conflict with the South.
It means that China could pushNorth Korea to such a conflict.
Yes, and we don't have ananswer to this question.
Yes, for now, I don't thinkit's true.
I don't think that China isinterested in changing the
(28:05):
balance in its neighborhood.
So, but of course, what ishappening, as I said, between
russia and north korea, itdoesn't happen without uh
china's consent.
Yes, and it means that Chinaagrees that North Korea helps
Russia to wage war againstUkraine or to wage a proxy war
(28:29):
against the West, as Russia issaying.
Yes, it means China agrees, butChina for now refrains from
delivering ammunition andequipment to Russia.
I mean tanks, armors and somekind of this stuff.
Yes, I don't think that Chinahas any interest to destabilize
(28:50):
the Korean peninsula right now,but you see that the situation
is getting more like it's notgoing their well, where?
Yes, and there are a lot ofexpectations, and the fact that
you're talking about this andthe fact that the media are
talking about this shows thatthere are expectations that
(29:13):
scenarios, different scenariosof destabilization are possible.
But again, I think everythingdepends on China there and
Russia understands this, and Ithink that Russia alone can do
anything there, I mean on theKorean peninsula.
And yes, north Korea is Russian, is Russia's neighbor.
But Russia understands thislike rules of the game with
(29:36):
China.
Yes, and if China decides thatthe stabilization in its
interest, russia would supportChina.
But I don't think we are in thecurrent situation.
Dana Lewis (29:48):
I might be wrong, but in Putin's initial terms of
office which are never-ending, Imean originally they were
limited to five years or fouryears.
Even he was careful with Iranand he was careful with North
Korea.
Russia even, you know,supported sanctions against
(30:12):
North Korea in terms of UNweapons inspections and they
didn't want nuclear armedneighbors on their border, on
their border.
So now, because thisconfrontation with the West is
becoming so angry and Russia sothreatening, what's changed, do
(30:34):
you think, in the Kremlin'sbrain?
Do you think?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Grou (30:40):
Russia didn't support proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
That's a fact.
And Russia supported thesanctions against Iran, and
Russia was against Iran havingnuclear weapons, as Russia
wasn't happy that North Koreacould have nuclear weapons.
That's the fact.
There are different rumorsabout this, but for now I would
(31:03):
say that there are no signs thatRussian position has changed,
because proliferation of nuclearweapons is not in Russia's
interests, because it means thatthere will be more players on
the international stage whichcould possess nuclear weapons
and which could pose a threat,including to Russia.
(31:25):
So we don't have any signs thatRussia's position has changed
here.
But if any country like anyRussia alien, yes could have
nuclear weapons and of courseRussia wouldn't help an elite to
have such weapons, it doesn'tmean that Russia would do
(31:47):
against this country.
So I would say the policy islike this Russia wouldn't help,
but if this country manages, orany country manages, to obtain
such weapons, it doesn't meanthat this country would have any
problems with Russia.
(32:07):
It means that Russia would haveto live with this and would
have to cooperate with thiscountry based on these realities
.
Dana Lewis (32:15):
Last question, mr Ignatov, if you don't mind,
because you consulted the unitedrussia party.
Um, and as you, as you said, itwas a very long time ago, uh,
probably when they weremoderating, moderating
influences in russia.
Uh, there was a liberal side tothat party.
There was western leaningmembers in in united russia that
(32:37):
saw europe as a friend andsomebody to do business with.
Are all those moderatinginfluences now gone, and do you
see the Russian intelligenceservices now, their takeover of
the power circles around Putin,as all-encompassing, and what
(32:59):
does it mean?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (33:03):
I would say that there are no.
The Russian power is now how tosay it?
A combination of securityofficers and technocrats, and
actually it's a union betweenthese security officers, maybe
some oligarchs and technocrats.
And there were a lot oftechnocrats in the United
(33:24):
Russian Party.
They didn't have a lot of.
They were not liberals, Iwouldn't say that they had
liberal ideology.
At least this ideology was notthe main how to say it?
Force in their life, the mainmoving force in their life and
their intentions.
(33:46):
I would say that they're moretechnocrats, yes, or pretended
to be technocrats, and there'sstill a lot of technocrats there
.
They don't have a lot ofideology.
They are not against theconfrontation with, they are not
in favor of the confrontationwith the West, in favor of the
confrontation with the West.
So a lot of people stillconsume Western products,
(34:11):
western culture, and they lookat the West in terms, for
example, of the future of theirchildren.
But, as I said, they are insituation when they have to
accept the reality, because theyare fully dependent on these
people who are in charge ofsecurity and they're afraid of
these people and they have, likelegitimate concerns about the
power of these people, thatinfluence, or they their
(34:32):
possible influence, uh, on theirnot everyday life?
Yes, and and unfortunatelythere are no visionaries in
Russian power, I meanWestern-like visionaries but
there are technocrats with whomthe West could negotiate, maybe
(34:55):
not now, but in the future.
Yes, and I think the future ofRussia, I mean the future of
Russian power, the future ofRussian state, will be dependent
on these relationships betweensecurity people and technocrats
who will be in charge, if welook at the situation from like
(35:20):
midterm perspective.
In any case, if in Russia, ifyou want to take power or if you
want to rule this country, inany case you will have to rely
on people who are in charge ofsecurity, I mean on the security
services, on military or ontechnocrats, if we are talking
(35:41):
about the security or ontechnocrats, if we are talking
about the security, and I thinkthis union or this coalition
between technocrats and securitywill continue to exist and the
West will have to accept thissituation.
Yes, it will have to manage thefuture relationships with
Russia based on understanding ofthese relationships inside the
(36:04):
Russian power.
Dana Lewis (36:07):
And if there are anybody, as you say, that are
pro-European or look to the Westfor some kind of future, they
either stay silent or faceprisoner of war.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (36:21):
They all could change their mind,
even if now they are saying thatthey are patriots or orthodox
Christians or hardliners.
They could change their mind.
It will depend on theirsituation.
It's not possible to predictright now.
Yes, look, I worked with theUnited or at the United Russian
(36:42):
Party when we had a reset withthe United States.
Yes, when Obama and Medvedevtried to promote a different
policy yes, tried to establish adifferent policy between these
countries, we had a completelydifferent situation and people.
They were thinking incompletely different terms.
(37:04):
Yes, we were talking aboutmodernization in Russia and
Medvedev wrote a famous articleabout the modernization of
Russia.
Does it mean that Medvedev wasa fake person?
Because we know what he'stalking about right now.
Maybe we could say like thisbut maybe we could say that he's
just adapting to his situation.
(37:26):
Yes, and if this situationchanges, medvedev could also
have a different position.
Yes, it's not.
The system is very different.
Yes, it's not a democracy andthey have to play, they have to
be, to adapt to their problems,to adjust their own position to
the environment.
(37:47):
And that's Russia.
Yes, it's very different.
Yes, it's authoritarian, it'sclosed, but you still have to
deal with Russia because it'svery big and it's very
influential still.
Dana Lewis (38:00):
I mean Medvedev especially appears to just not
go along with the situation butpromote the situation, and you
know he's pretty rabid in tweetsand postings on Telegram.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (38:15):
I have my own fears about why he's
behaving like this, but I don'twant to be public on this For
the next interview, oleg Ignatov, with the International Crisis
Group.
Dana Lewis (38:28):
Thank you, thank you so much.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (38:30):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (38:35):
Natalia Drozd is the chairwoman of an NGO called
Dobrocin Center, which isinvolved in recovery efforts in
Ukraine, and that is a very big,very big conversation people
are having around the worldright now.
Natalia welcome.
Natalia Drozd (38:49):
Yeah, good afternoon.
Very happy to be here and tohave a voice at this platform.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (38:55):
Oh, you're very kind.
Two years have passed since thebeginning of a full-scale
Russian invasion.
We're more than that now.
We're three years into this.
You don't have to watch thenews every day to understand.
Houses, hospitals, schools,cultural institutions, energy,
(39:16):
infrastructure which is a keything the environment have all
suffered enormous damage, andI've seen some figures that put
it at you know, four, 400billion.
Some say it's closer to atrillion.
What, what do you put it at?
Natalia Drozd (39:36):
What do you mean?
What kind of dimension?
Moral, ethical, physical?
Dana Lewis (39:41):
In terms of dollar.
Natalia Drozd (39:44):
Yeah, it's our everyday life, Because if we
feel every day frustrated or ifwe feel every day like victims
oh my God, another school isdestroyed or another hospital
there is no way that we will winor we will survive.
Yes, we are very angry, we arevery frustrated reading every
(40:07):
news.
You know, we are living withthe telephone.
We have special applications,websites.
You monitor every 10, 15minutes because, for example, my
family in Chernihiv region, mydaughter in Kiev, so my friends
and colleagues all over Ukraine.
So all of a sudden, even if youhave a very high official
(40:28):
meeting, if you hear air raidsiren and you look that missiles
hit the city somewhere inUkraine, you just call your
friends, you just stop any eventwhatever.
Where in Ukraine, you just callyour friends, you just stop any
event whatever.
But at the same time, wetransfer our anger, our
frustration into action.
We do not allow ourselves tofeel so pity, so sorry that we
(40:50):
are in this war.
It's like you know, it's ourchoice.
This war it's all about people.
It's about their choice how wedo react to this everyday news.
And every morning you make achoice to stay in your own
country, to stay in your owncity, in spite of all this
horrific news people dying,wounded, some western help, for
(41:16):
example, detained for a while.
You have to wait one more month.
So you have to pick up morevolunteers' car to bring to
Ukraine.
So you know, we have now verydiverse life in Ukraine and you
have to switch among variousactivities simultaneously your
job, your volunteering, yourfamily, international level, not
(41:38):
to forget and to stay andaccept this as a long marathon,
to have our resources and to beresilient again, to wake up
every morning and have force tocontinue.
It's very difficult, but it'sour choice indeed.
Dana Lewis (41:56):
A grim marathon, a longer marathon than anybody
would have predicted at thebeginning of this.
But some people are saying $10billion in damage to Ukraine
infrastructure every month.
What do you put it at?
What's your figure?
Natalia Drozd (42:12):
Now we are tired of counting the figures and
billions dollars, trillions.
Counting the figures andbillions dollars, trillions.
Because after two years offull-scale invasion it seems for
many citizens same samesenseless.
Yes, maybe the finance willcome, one mechanism through EU
facility, the other mechanismNow we are back again for
(42:34):
survival and our resilience.
Why we should make all theseplans?
For example, in my own city ofChernihiv we have 34 schools.
During the first months ofinvasion, 29 were destroyed.
Can you imagine?
Nobody cares.
Everyone cares about people.
Yes, much more schools againcould be destroyed.
(42:55):
For example, the universitywhere my husband works.
It already, during two years,was destroyed twice.
His cabinet totally destroyed,no notebook, nothing.
Happily, people are allsurvived.
So we are now talking about moredefense, survival and
resilience.
What point and what is sense totalk about billions?
(43:17):
It will be trillions.
The next month and, and maybein a month, on a year, there is
no ukrainians left because therewill be full occupation.
Many people will go to west.
So lots of ukrainians,especially civil society,
organization, local communities,national uh, national
(43:37):
authorities, they all ask forair defense and for ammunition
and for weapons.
Because it's third year, itseems seamless now to talk about
figures.
It could be trillions, whatwould make the difference?
10, 50, if no Ukrainians left,there is no defense.
Twice rebuilding, okay, people,it's not caring about, you know
(43:59):
, winter, yes, what we now iscaring is how we will go through
winter, energy surviving, howwe can make this
decentralization of energygeneration now as much as
possible.
So it looks like that duringtwo these years of full-scale
invasion, we're in a startingpoint Survival and resilience.
(44:21):
We're now again a civil societystarting talking about not
recovery, about resilience andsurvival, because it's no way to
plan, because, yes, all thisassistance, what we hear, as
long as it takes.
How long?
10 years, 20 years, tillUkrainian ends, what does it
mean?
Till it takes how long?
10 years, 20 years, tillUkrainian ends, what does it
mean?
Till it takes, how long ittakes.
(44:42):
So we need more concrete datesbecause you know, it's not only
a war between Russia and Ukraine, it's not only bilateral, it's
already the globe on the map whoare involved in this war.
Because if, for example, westand USA, they perceive
themselves not as a part of thiswar, it's just bilateral, the
(45:07):
Russia, they perceive that thisis the war of West and they, in
their propaganda, telling thatthey are fighting West people in
Ukraine, that Ukraine has nosubjectivity at all.
It's only Western money,western ammunition and
everything is fighting inUkraine.
So all Russian people believethat they fight in the West, in
(45:31):
Ukraine.
So now we see this more dilemmain perception of our war, how
it will go, because talkingabout figures, it's not more so
actual for us now we are readyto live without electricity, as
we did, for example, in my house, in my city.
There is no electricity, warmwater, because our city was
(45:52):
underseed.
Can you imagine it's likestreet fighting.
So, okay, we are ready to liveagain, but we have need.
Okay, I will talk for you for along time.
Dana Lewis (46:04):
Please ask no, no, no, I don't think anybody would
um not appreciate what, what,what you're going through and in
terms of the fatigue of thisyou more than two years into it,
the emotional loss of peoplethat have been killed and the
way of life that has beenhijacked by the invasion Putin's
(46:27):
invasion of Ukraine and peopleI can certainly hear in your
voice that you've just hadenough.
You want it to end.
Does that change the way thatUkrainians support their
president or their government?
Do they want this to go adifferent way?
Are they willing just to keepsending young men and changing
(46:51):
the ages of recruitment and justfeeding this assembly line of
people to the front line, or dopeople want a different solution
now?
Natalia Drozd (47:04):
I started that in Ukraine we do not use Putin's
war.
We use Russian's war becauseRussians do support Putin and
this by reality, theyinterrelate.
It's not only Putin.
Russians strongly support him.
So we call it not Putin's war,because if we change Putin for
someone else, it won't work.
(47:24):
It's Russians that want thiswar.
So about the attitude ofpopulation yes, the majority of
population still want tocontinue and they are ready to
decrease the age for soldiers tobe mobilized.
They are ready to discuss women, to be at the front line, and
(47:47):
we are still consideringPresident Zelensky and all
elected deputies national, localto have their legitimacy, to
continue their work.
We are steady on this.
To have their legitimacy, tocontinue their work.
We are steady on this.
It's very difficult, painful,but you know.
Otherwise, we know what will be.
We saw this.
There is no Ukraine.
(48:08):
You will be killed.
You have no option.
You have the option.
So in which way?
You will be killed In dignityor you're under occupation or
you know it's a choice of mostUkrainians.
So the majority, they do notwant to join Russia, do not want
to have this false peace, as wecall this false peace deal.
(48:31):
For example, if we give someterritories and, for example,
we'll stop a war.
We do understand it will be fora while.
It could be one year, fiveyears, ten years.
Russia just needs time tocollect all his resources again
to recreate, because it's notjust the war, it's not about
(48:53):
quantity resources, it's thetask of empire to expand, it's
not about the border.
If you give four regions, thenfour regions next, then the
appetite will be Balticcountries and Poland as well,
because the Soviet Union wouldlike to be a subject like Russia
now, as the Soviet Union wouldlike to be a very powerful game
(49:17):
player on the globe.
And now China has more powerthan Russia and Russia is trying
to restore its power during theSoviet Union, just influence on
the half of Europe.
So Ukraine.
It's very painful, you know wehave very painful discussions,
even in parliament, in betweenneighbors, but at the end what
(49:39):
do we have?
Nothing.
We have to stay because nobodywants to be in occupation.
It's awful, it's awful Becausewe have our colleagues in
territorial communities thatwere.
So their stories.
They are so horrifying that weare in CH under shelling.
We feel much better than theyare in occupation, because you
(50:02):
can imagine this fear, thistorture that they did.
It's unbearable.
So it's better to continue andbe ready to substitute men as
women.
For example, we have now manytraining programs for women, for
example, for big trucks, foreconomy, because we already have
lack of men in many professionsin economy.
(50:25):
So we're already trying tosubstitute these places, but we
are ready to continue to fight.
Dana Lewis (50:33):
Okay, so you just talked about the fact that a lot
of human capital has to justkeep flowing into the war effort
and the defense of Ukraine, butyou also, in some of the things
you've written, have talkedabout human.
You need human capital forreconstruction, does that?
Because reconstruction doesn'tinvolve just the international
(50:55):
community coming with a bunch ofmoney and sending construction
firms.
You actually need human capitalin every center, in every town,
in every village, on everyroadway to rebuild.
Do you think it's way too earlyto talk about recovery efforts
in Ukraine?
No, then what's being talkedabout right now?
Natalia Drozd (51:18):
We are in the recovery process already.
In rebuilding and recovery weare defining two different
directions.
It's like early recovery thatyou rebuild straight away the
critical infrastructurehospitals, water supplies,
whatever energy supplies andjust rebuilding now with the
(51:40):
help of other territorialcommunities, international
partners.
But they are doing now.
And if we talk about recovery,it's more about strategic vision
.
For example, all communitiesnear the border with Russia and
Belarus will they be the sameeven if the war stops?
No, the border will be closedIf, for example, they have
(52:03):
transit potential.
Now it's a dead end forlogistics for a common enemy.
So now it's a role of civilsociety to rethink the future of
such a community, to think whatkind of economy could be there
and to prepare people there,because if we have people still
even now 10 kilometers fromShelling from the border, so we
(52:26):
do so, it will be our loss if wedo not rethink now their
strategic vision and includethem into this process.
So now this is mostly the roleof civil society because, as
local authority, are totallybusy with all this early
reconstruction, criticalinfrastructure, schools,
(52:46):
education services, medicalservices.
That is very urgent.
And so now we have excellentcollaboration between local
authorities and civil societybecause we like partners and we
do this job for them.
So we strategically and weinvolve all kinds of
stakeholders on local level,especially youth, to talk about
(53:11):
this.
Not only that it should be somekind of a plan from Berlin or
London or whatever.
No, we promote Ukrainianownership of recovery,
especially on local level, thatonly people that live in these
communities should decide how itwill be.
So we are doing recovery now,simultaneously these fightings.
So it distracts us.
(53:33):
You know you are planningrecovery and missiles hit, so
you again have to clean thespace and again continue
planning recovery, for example.
So you again have to clean thespace and again continue
planning recovery.
For example, some economicincentives should be for this
business in border region,because you know logistics long
way, for example for supply.
So yeah, lots of work are doingnow, even now in recovery,
(53:54):
because you know we are a lot.
We are talking much.
If we win the war and we losethe country, especially
democratic values.
What's the sense if we becamethe same as Russia?
So we keep an eye on alldemocratic procedures, values,
citizen participation, that theykeep as much as possible Now,
(54:16):
even now during the war.
So tools for local democracythat should be embedded into
local regulatory acts.
Now we have a lot of laws onthe undersigning in the
parliament.
It's like on accountability, onthe transparency, on integrity.
So we're trying to make allthese democratic reforms that
(54:36):
will allow us accession to EU,because it's not only signing
documents and legislation, it'sall changing of behavior, of
everything let me ask you aboutthat.
Dana Lewis (54:46):
Let me ask you about that because there have
been resignations from even theUkraine government now that have
talked about red tape, um, theinability to get things done,
corruption, and money'sdisappeared.
How do you manage that?
And that's very important forthe international community too,
because if they think that thatmoney is going to go sideways
(55:08):
into people's pockets, it'sgoing to dry up pretty quick.
Natalia Drozd (55:13):
Indeed, and this case is very often used by
Russian propaganda as look howmany corruption cases do they
have?
They are totally failed state.
But we see this as democraticprocedure.
We have all institutions inplace and they are doing their
job.
What country during thefighting war can reveal
(55:36):
corruption cases, make thempublic and investigate them?
It's our strength that we cansee and we can prevent.
So Ukrainian society sees thisas one of the successes.
During the war, we findcorruption, we detect corruption
.
It's not like Russia and we candeal with this no-transcript
(56:23):
and our judiciary system as well.
But it's not very easy, even ina country without war.
But with the war it'scomplicated.
But with the help of civilsociety and push from civil
society and internationalpartners, I think that we will
succeed in this way, becauseUkrainian society is really red
tape and according to the lastinvestigations, sociological
(56:49):
research, corruption was named,not war.
Corruption was named bycitizens as the first challenge
to be tackled and to be donesomething for the Ukraine.
So we see this as our strength,because we reveal, we continue,
we try to have a competitivebidding.
(57:09):
Yes.
Dana Lewis (57:11):
Competitive contract bidding yes.
If you were to come back toreconstruction specifically,
what would be your top fiveareas that are the greatest need
right now in Ukraine?
Natalia Drozd (57:34):
First energy, then reconstruction.
I don't know if it's directly,but we consider it's like
demining.
Also reconstruction, becauseyou couldn't do nothing if your
land and forest are mined, andsea as well.
So energy demining, thensupport of small and medium
(57:55):
business.
Direct support of small andmedium business, direct support
of small and medium, not bigcompanies like industries, metal
, but small because it's ourbackbone of our democracy and
resilience small communities andsmall and medium business.
So support directly should godirectly to them.
Then I don't know, it's humancapital.
Then I don't know it's humancapital.
(58:17):
I even couldn't count five.
Maybe agriculture, but you knowwe are living in such harsh
conditions and we also get usedto cope with everything.
Then, in comparison, yes, okay,agriculture is surviving, it's
exporting wheat, so maybe not sogood, it's not so bad.
But of course also agricultureand we have a very good industry
(58:43):
like textile industry.
I don't know, but first of all,first of all, by default, it's
human capital, it's people and Isuppose, roll in their schools
and hospitals and housing,because apartment buildings have
been destroyed and theatershave been destroyed.
Dana Lewis (59:03):
So it's just all of the infrastructure that's been
damaged.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (59:06):
But as we speak.
Dana Lewis (59:07):
I assume a lot of that takes place very quickly,
like windows are replaced inbuildings.
If a building is still standing, they try to repair it and they
do it pretty rapidly in somecases.
In other cases, I assume, theyabandon it.
Natalia Drozd (59:24):
Yes, and by their own resources and not by
international.
If we talk about these newhouses instead of destroyed
millions of flats and houses, itwill be impossible to provide
after war to everyone.
It takes years and years andpeople have to live now.
So it's better to have economynow and it's better to have
(59:48):
people to earn money and theyrepair on their own.
For example, from my colleaguenobody asks for small damages in
their flats or houses.
If you can do it for repair foryourself, you know it's if your
house is totally destroyed,okay.
So even in that case, nobodyclaim for money for, for example
(01:00:09):
, if he can repair.
So we see this like we needeconomy.
We do not want to be likevictims and then send us
humanitarian assistance.
We need some technologies or Iforget about technologies and
innovation for reconstructionbecause our communities that
were under occupation.
They saw how important not onlyto grow up food, but processing
(01:00:33):
is processing.
Now they would like to makeproduct with added value.
So we have this shift in ourconsciousness.
So we have we would like alsofor reconstruction technologies
and innovation for new process,for example, for to be more
sustained and more resilient onthe local level.
It's also very important forthe reconstruction not only
(01:00:55):
bridges and buildings, but meansfor people and for the
communities to sustain theireconomy and to be resilient, not
to be a burden for the EuropeanUnion and to live on loans and
subsidies.
Dana Lewis (01:01:12):
I don't think anybody would say the Ukrainians
haven't been resilient, that'sfor sure.
So, natalia Drozd, I know I'vetaken a lot of your time so, uh,
hopefully I can talk to youagain and good luck to you and
thank you so much for what is,you know, talking about huge
damage and huge infrastructureproblems in a monstrous war with
(01:01:33):
so much more unfortunatelyahead.
Natalia Drozd (01:01:35):
But thank you, thank you that you raised this
topic and keep on agenda on theinternational level, because
it's incredibly important for usto be heard, because we are
resilient, but we are human aswell, so thank you.
Dana Lewis (01:01:50):
Best to you, thank you.
Thank you, natalia.
And that's our backstory.
This week, ukraine is said tobe doing better than in the
spring.
It stalled the Russian advancein the north.
It needs to beef up itsrecruitment of new soldiers.
A lot of them are just tired onthe front.
F-16s will reach thebattlefield or airspace within
weeks and, of course, all eyeson Washington and the US
(01:02:13):
elections ahead and twocandidates with very different
ideas on how to handle Russia'sinvasion of a sovereign nation.
Putin likes to accuse Americaof colonial expansion, but he's
the one who ordered his army toattack Ukraine to reclaim some
dream of a Russian empire.
And, as we all know, putinwon't stop there unless he is
(01:02:36):
stopped by the Ukrainian army.
No-transcript.
It was important that members of
Congress, including Republicans,voted to change the law that
says no American president canunilaterally withdraw from NATO.
So even the Republicansrecognize the idiocy and the
danger of that.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (00:18):
First of all, he doesn't have a
choice because Putin doesn'thave so many friends right now.
And the second thing yes, asyou said, it's about military
issues, it's about ammunition,it's about missiles, so it's
about firepower.
Natalia Drozd (00:36):
Because, you know , it's not only a war between
Russia and Ukraine, it's notonly bilateral, it's already the
globe on the map who areinvolved in this war.
Dana Lewis (00:53):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, russia's PresidentPutin in North Korea suddenly
best buds with Kim Jong-un.
What's the deal?
A desperate Russia seeking morearms gets the audience.
Artillery shells, millions ofthem, more missiles to attack
(01:14):
Ukraine.
But what is North Korea gettingin return?
Will Russia give North Koreathe technical know-how to push
its nuclear program to the nextlevel?
Tech for satellites and nuclearsubmarines too.
Technical know-how to push itsnuclear program to the next
level, tech for satellites andnuclear submarines too.
The West is worried, that's forsure.
Our guests, the ever-cleverGeneral Ben Hodges, oleg
(01:36):
Ignatyev from the InternationalCrisis Group and, from Ukraine,
natalia Drozd, on reconstructionof a war-torn country.
Ben Hodges is the formercommanding general of the US
Army in Europe and he joins menow from Germany.
Gen Ben Hodges (01:56):
Hello, general, good to see you again sir,
thank you very much for theprivilege again.
Dana Lewis (02:01):
Let's hit the news.
North Korea, Russia PresidentPutin and Kim Jong-un had just
met actually today, as we recordthis, a strategic cooperation
agreement Cause for concern.
Gen Ben Hodges (02:16):
Well, I'm concerned, of course, that North
Korea is providing apparentlymillions of rounds of artillery
ammunition to Russia andprobably some other things.
There's a lot of question aboutthe quality of what's being
provided, but nonetheless it'spretty clear that there is a lot
of ammunition being provided,so there's nothing good about
(02:39):
that.
But I'm also concerned that wecan't seem to do anything about
it.
I mean, I was just looking at amap before you and I started
speaking of the route that thisammunition goes, how they
transfer it by ship from NorthKorea to Russia and then it
moves by rail the entiredistance of Russia.
(03:03):
I can't believe there's nothingwe can do about that, that it
can't be interdicted somehowalong the way.
I'm sure the Ukrainians arelooking for ways to do that, but
surprising that we seeminglyare unable to do anything about
it.
And then, of course, thisemboldens North Korea.
They will, without a doubt, inaddition to getting money from
(03:28):
Russia for the ammunition,they'll also get some technology
about their satellites, rocketand missile capabilities.
That will increase the risk toour allies in South Korea and
Japan.
Dana Lewis (03:44):
I think the former ambassador, us ambassador to
Russia, mike McFaul, put up apretty interesting post today
saying essentially you know thisis a frightening situation
because Putin clearly is nevergoing to sign on to another arms
control strategic arms controlagreement America now is talking
(04:07):
about maybe it should expandits nuclear arsenal.
I mean, we are in a new armsrace and North Korea probably
stands to benefit from some ofthe technology that Russia has
for missile platforms, thatRussia has for missile platforms
(04:28):
, launch platforms for themissiles themselves and delivery
systems, including submarines.
Gen Ben Hodges (04:31):
Well, you're right.
And, of course, the Russianshave not complied with or lived
up to any other agreements forquite some time, so this is not
shocking.
And they don't feel anyobligation to, they don't feel
we haven't been able to impresson them or force them to live up
(04:52):
to it.
And so here we are, and I thinkit would be foolhardy to expect
that they'll do anything elseuntil we show that we are
serious about these things,which means that all the other
countries have to participate aswell.
It can't be something that onlythe US can enforce.
So I think you're exactly rightthat this is not a good
(05:15):
situation for us or forcountries that see North Korea
as a threat.
Dana Lewis (05:22):
And this is not some airy-fairy geopolitical
conversation.
If you're a Ukrainian soldiersitting on the front line in one
of those trenches near Russianforces because this translates
into real ammunition that isbeing used on the battlefield
ship from North Korea to theRussians do you think it's
(05:43):
making a big difference in theircampaign in this war of
attrition?
Gen Ben Hodges (05:48):
Well, you and I have talked about before how
war is a test of will and it's atest of logistics.
And so if it's so importantthat Putin is willing to
humiliate himself, to go flyingall the way to Pyongyang and hug
Kim Jong-un in order to getammunition, it tells you that
they're in desperate need ofthat ammunition.
(06:11):
And so much for the people thatwere wringing their hands.
About 40% of Russia's economyis now on a war footing.
That's the equivalent to 40% ofSpain's economy.
So put it in context.
So we're not talking about 40%of the German or the American
economy, but or the British.
It's 40% of Spain's economy.
That's the size of Russia.
So they need this Now.
(06:31):
This is also why it's importantthat US policy should not
restrict Ukraine from usingweapons inside of Russia.
From using weapons inside ofRussia, I mean, we know where
the ammunition is going, we knowexactly where it's being
offloaded.
The Ukrainians should be freeto use any weapon they have,
from whoever they receive it, tostrike where these trains are
(06:55):
coming in.
Dana Lewis (06:55):
Okay, supposedly that rule.
Can you help me pick throughthat?
Supposedly that rule waschanged.
The Biden administration hassaid that Ukraine can hit into
Ukraine, and in fact they havedone so, but then the use of
attackums is still restricted.
Gen Ben Hodges (07:14):
There's two important caveats to that
supposed lessening ofrestrictions, which is maddening
anyway.
I mean, if we were seriousabout helping Ukraine win, there
would not be a restriction.
So this is really, I think,unhelpful.
But the first caveat isattackams cannot be used.
So the weapon that would bemost effective at 300 kilometer
(07:36):
range, they can't use that.
The second thing they can onlyuse Americanided weapons across
the border into Russia if it'sproximate to Kharkiv or directly
related to Russian troopscoming across the border there.
So a logistics site that mightnot be anywhere near Kharkiv is
(07:58):
therefore untouchable, at leastusing American systems.
This is ridiculous.
There's no legal, moral oroperational reason not to allow
this.
This is 100% the result of theadministration unfortunately
still being excessivelyconcerned that Russia might
somehow escalate, which they'renot going to do, or that the US
(08:21):
policy really seems to be thatwe just want this thing to kind
of grind to a halt, which isincredibly short-sighted inside
(08:48):
of Russia, that in fact it'sonly about 15%, that all the
supply and logistics and airbases, the things that are key
to stopping the Russianonslaught, are in fact in that
other.
Dana Lewis (08:54):
What's my math?
Gen Ben Hodges (08:55):
85%, 85% 85%, very good, yeah, I mean as
General Breedlove describes it.
You know we we are in effect,giving Russia a sanctuary from
which they were able to killinnocent Ukrainians, civilians,
strike civilian infrastructureas well as attack Ukrainian
(09:16):
forces.
So this is.
You would think we wouldeventually learn from this.
We allowed the North Vietnameseto have sanctuary in the Viet
Cong during that long war.
We allowed the Taliban to havesanctuary in Pakistan.
(09:36):
So if you're going to beserious about winning, then you
have to eliminate sanctuary,either through kinetic or
economic or diplomatic means.
Dana Lewis (09:50):
Do you think that this is one of those slow drips
that's just bound to changeanyway, that you know?
Eventually the Bidenadministration says, okay, yeah,
you can finally use some of theAmerican weapons inside Russia,
but only this far.
Do you think that's just goingto?
You know it's going to changelike tanks, like F-16s, like
attack guns, like long range orlonger range, of course.
Gen Ben Hodges (10:13):
Number one, yes , number two there are no F-16s
yet.
I mean more than two and a halfyears into since the large scale
invasion, or almost two and ahalf years, not a single F-16 is
flying, and that's againbecause of our reluctance or our
unwillingness or our inabilityto help train enough pilots to
(10:35):
get them ready to go.
These are bad policy decisionsthat come from the fact that
there is no clear objective,from the fact that there is no
clear objective.
It's very difficult to come upwith good policy if there's no
strategic aim that gives reasonfor the policy.
Policy is the how you implementwhat's needed to be done to
(11:01):
accomplish the aim and thestrategic aim the objective is
still not clearly identified.
They can't come out and justsay we recognize it's in our
strategic interest that Ukrainedefeats Russia and therefore
we're going to do everythingnecessary for them.
Instead, you get thisridiculous we're with you for as
long as it takes, which meansnothing, and you get policies
(11:24):
that make no sense.
So the fact that Russianweapons and targets are given
sanctuary in 85% of the regionthat Ukraine should be able to
hit.
A second lieutenant would notcome up with something like that
.
Dana Lewis (11:44):
You've talked about the fact in some of your social
media posts that Ukraine'sdoing a pretty good job in
Crimea, that you're seeing a lotof things that maybe we don't
take note of or we don't add upat the end of the day, and that
is that Ukraine is slowlyremoving Russian defenses in
Crimea and you paint what seemslike a platform or a foothold
(12:06):
for further action.
What does that look like, doyou think, in Crimea from the
Ukrainians?
Gen Ben Hodges (12:12):
Well, first of all, I would say too many casual
observers assume thatliberating Crimea can only be
done with a Normandy D-Day typeinvasion.
Crimea can only be done with aNormandy D-Day type invasion.
Ok, and clearly Ukraine is notin a position to do that right
now, but nor are they requiredto have to do that right now.
(12:33):
Instead, I think liberatingCrimea, which is the most
important terrain of this wholewar because of what it allows
the Russians or the Ukrainiansto do in the Black Sea
(12:56):
economically and maritime-wise,is you take it in stages, and
this is what the Ukrainians aredoing.
You have to isolate it, whichmeans the three sort of main
ways you get in and out ofCrimea is the Kerch Bridge,
ferries that come across AzovSea or railroad.
So the Ukrainians are alreadychipping away at the available
(13:16):
ferries and Black Sea Fleet LSTslandingship tank that are used
to move stuff back and forth.
That bridge will be droppedwhen the Ukrainians are ready
for it to be dropped and therailroad will be the easiest
thing to hit whenever they'reready to.
So the isolation part that's inthe works.
(13:44):
The other stage is making ituntenable so that the Russians
can't use it.
That means using the weaponsthat have been provided, and
even Secretary Austin now talksabout how good it is that now
the Ukrainians are using ATACOMsthe 300-kilometer range ATACOMs
, to hit targets in Sevastopol,which is the Navy base, and
other places around Crimea.
And then, of course, there wasa report that came out, I think
(14:05):
three days ago, that showed allthe different air defense
weapons that have been destroyedin Crimea.
I think this is very clevertargeting as well.
This is exactly how we would doit we would eliminate the
enemy's air defense so that thenother systems can come in and
hit the targets.
So this is an important part ofmaking it easier for drones to
(14:28):
get in and strike, as well as,eventually, perhaps, manned
aircraft.
Dana Lewis (14:35):
Quick point why are they waiting on the Kirch
Bridge.
What's the point of waiting?
Gen Ben Hodges (14:41):
Well, it's going to be such a massive
undertaking.
I mean, this is not a matter ofa couple of Taurus.
They ever get those or three orfour attack them.
I, I mean this, that's a hugebridge.
I'm not an engineer, but I meanI've been looking at this now
for the last couple of years and, um, the Russians have done a
lot of things to protect itagainst, uh, maritime drones.
(15:01):
You know, they've sunk vesselsalong the sides, uh, to prevent
that.
They've sunk vessels along thesides to prevent that.
They've got a lot of airdefense all around that place to
prevent other drones fromcoming in.
So I think probably the mostclever guy on the planet,
general Budanov, he's got a teamworking on what would be
(15:25):
required, what sort of operationwill be required to get enough
explosive to be able to inflictreal damage to that bridge.
But it'll be part of anoperation distraction, deception
, a combination of things.
It might happen in phases, overhours or over days, I don't
(15:47):
know, but it's not something youcan do.
Well, we didn't get it thistime, we'll get it next week.
It'll be a big operation, andso I think they will want the
time to be right, when not onlyyou get the benefit of the
destruction, but it contributesto other things that are going
on elsewhere as well.
Dana Lewis (16:08):
I know I have limited time, but, general, what
about NATO?
You're in touch with so manypeople in NATO.
What is the nervousness of apossible return of President
Trump, of a return of a possiblereturn of president trump, and
(16:29):
are they more than just, youknow, kind of chattering about
it in the hallway?
Are they laying the laying afoundation now so that support
for ukraine, um and and othernato strategy as a will continue
on, so that, even if Trumpstarts squeezing funding on NATO
(16:51):
, or even talked about removingthe US from NATO, which he
talked about before, what's theplan?
Is there?
Gen Ben Hodges (16:58):
one.
Well, the biggest danger withDonald Trump as president when
it comes to NATO is that heconstantly undermines the
cohesion of the alliance.
And that's always been.
The secret sauce of NATO isthat the Russians and others
never doubted and the membersnever doubted that if it came
down to it that everybody wouldbe together, that didn't mean
(17:22):
you don't have enormousarguments with allies, that you
don't have huge differences onmany different things.
And of course, every president,as Truman, has complained that
our European allies not just theGermans, but most of our
European allies did not carrytheir fair share of the burden.
So former President Trump wasfollowing the tradition of
(17:46):
criticizing our European alliesfor not spending enough.
But nobody ever questionedwhether or not the US would be
there that we would live up toour obligations under Article 5.
And then the fact that he eventalks about pulling out damages
that cohesion and of coursethat's a signal to the Russians
(18:08):
that hmm, okay, maybe we coulddo something and the Americans
under Trump would not reallyreact.
And that's all the Russianswant to do.
They don't, unlike in the ColdWar when they had a big red
arrow that was aimed acrossEurope to conquer it, now they
just want to break the alliance.
And the way you break thealliance is to demonstrate that
(18:28):
nations actually won't live upto what they said they would.
So that's the biggest dangerand it's terrible for the United
States.
We benefit so much from NATO.
I mean, with less than 100,000troops, I mean that's how many
people can sit in WembleyStadium or the stadium at the
University of Michigan?
(18:49):
That's not a lot of people.
We have access for our Army,navy, air Force, intelligence,
special forces all over Europe.
That helps us in Africa and theMiddle East and Eurasia, not
just in Europe.
So the benefits to useconomically, a stable, secure
Europe is essential for Americanprosperity.
(19:11):
You know why would anybody wantto put that in risk just
because Germany doesn't spend 2%, or the French are not, or the
Canadians don't?
So I think at the end of the day, it was important that members
of Congress, includingRepublicans, voted to change the
(19:33):
law that says no Americanpresident can unilaterally
withdraw from NATO.
So even the Republicansrecognize the idiocy and the
danger of that.
Now, of course, course, nothingforces the president to do
anything.
I mean, so he, he could stoptalking about uh withdrawn from
nato.
But he's not forced to doanything, so he could just sort
(19:57):
of okay, fine, um, but againthat would hurt us.
Uh, we'd be hurting ourselvesmore than anyone.
Dana Lewis (20:03):
That's's why President Biden signed this
bilateral agreement.
There are other bilateralagreements with Ukraine that
have been done, but a lot ofpeople say that you know there's
a clause in there that you getout of that within I think it
was six months.
So if Trump comes in, he canabandon the bilateral agreements
as well, so he can support forNATO and he can also pull the
(20:24):
bilateral support that Americahas for Ukraine.
Gen Ben Hodges (20:27):
Well, that would be true of any president
all the time.
I mean, the executive thing isjust that it's signed by the
executive.
So forget Trump, forget Ukraine.
That would always be the case.
I think these bilateralagreements are important.
We have bilateral agreementswith Germany, poland, all the
other countries, other allies aswell, and anything that helps
(20:51):
improve Ukraine's ability todefend itself, to improve their
training and education, theirinfrastructure, their
modernization, I'm for it.
But that should not be confusedwith as another step towards
membership in NATO or thatirreversible momentum.
It's not that and it's alsodefinitely not a security
(21:12):
guarantee.
The only security guarantee isUkraine inside NATO.
Dana Lewis (21:20):
Yeah, another conversation for another time,
and we're not there yet,although they would like them to
be.
General Ben Hodges, what agreat treat always to be able to
talk to you when I get a chance.
Thank you so much, have awonderful summer, and I know
you're going to the NATOconference so I'm sure you'll be
whispering in lots of earsthere, as generals generally
(21:41):
don't whisper, but you'll.
You'll be talking to people theway you think the war should be
handled and where it should begoing.
Gen Ben Hodges (21:48):
I think it's it's too important to just I
can't just sit in the bleachersand watch.
I'm trying to help make surethat you know the United States
doesn't turn us back on our, onour allies, and that the NATO
does not turn us back on Ukraine.
Thank you, sir, thanks Dana.
Dana Lewis (22:15):
Oleg Ignatov is with the International Crisis
Group and he worked as apolitical consultant in Russia
for the United Russia Party,which I believe is the party
that President Putin supports,Oleg, is it not?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (22:27):
Yes, it was a long time ago when
Medvedev was president of Russia.
Actually, not, Mr Putin.
Dana Lewis (22:33):
What do you make of President Putin's visit to
North Korea?
I mean, they did a deal lastSeptember.
We know that North Korea hasbeen shipping them some missiles
and millions of artilleryrounds.
What's the point of PresidentPutin, who doesn't exactly like
to travel, going to North Koreanow, some 24 years since the
(22:54):
last time he was there?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (22:59):
First of all, he doesn't have a
choice because Putin doesn'thave so many friends right now.
And the second thing yes, asyou said, it's about military
issues, it's about ammunition.
Yes, it's about missiles.
So it's about firepower.
Yes, I think it's not the rightway to say that Russia is
(23:24):
dependent on the North Korea interms of firepower, but I think
that the help which Russia getsfrom North Korea makes
difference and it helps Russiahave advantage in terms of
manpower over Ukraine on thefront line.
That's why it's very importantfor Putin so Russia could leave
(23:45):
without the help from NorthKorea.
Russia could still haveadvantage over Ukraine in terms
of manpower, but Russia, withoutthe help from North Korea,
russia wouldn't have had such abig advantage in terms of
firepower.
Dana Lewis (24:04):
In terms of manpower?
How does that work?
No, in terms of firepower,sorry, Firepower, because
they're not sending troops.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Gro (24:11):
Because North Korea doesn't send troops
to?
Dana Lewis (24:14):
Ukraine?
Yes, Is that possible?
Because we know that PresidentPutin is about to sign a
strategic partnership agreement.
What is that strategicpartnership agreement, which
people seem to suggest wouldmean that one country would
defend the other country'sinterests militarily.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (24:32):
It means that Russia and North
Korea will be strategic partners.
It means that they will sharemore technologies.
It means that their cooperationin terms of military
cooperation will go deeper.
Yes, it means that the NorthKorean army or North Korea will
(24:56):
get more military technologiesfrom Russia.
It means that North Korea orRussia would use more North
Koreans' capacity to producemissiles and munitions for the
Russian army.
So it just means that thecooperation between these
countries will go deeper, but itdoesn't mean that they will
(25:17):
have to defend each other incase of a military conflict.
What about nuclear?
Dana Lewis (25:20):
weapons, other in case of a military conflict?
What about nuclear weapons andthe?
I mean?
North Korea already has nuclearweapons, but the development of
platforms that can moreaccurately deliver those weapons
, especially bringing themwithin range of the United
States.
Do you think that Russia isprepared to give all?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (25:42):
It's a good question.
Yes, you heard Putin'sstatements when he said that
Russia is ready to respond todeliverers of long-range
missiles to Ukraine from theWest, and it's ready to send it.
Or it's possible that Russiacould consider the sending of
its long-range weapons todifferent countries which are
(26:03):
enemies of the West or theWestern countries?
Yes, we still don't know whatPutin meant, but you know, I
think, that in this situation, Imean in these relationships
between China, oh sorry, betweenNorth Korea and Russia, there
is one player which is hidden.
Yes, and nobody is talkingabout this player, but everybody
(26:25):
knows about this player andthis player is China.
And if Russia couldn't doanything without China's consent
there in North Korea, and Ithink if North Korea sends
missiles and sends ammunition toRussia, it means that China
agrees with that.
Yes, and if Russia wants tosend to North Korea something
(26:46):
critical I mean criticaltechnologies, critical weapons
which could hurt the West or theUnited States in particular, it
means that China would have toagree on that.
And we don't have an answer tothis question.
So that's why I would answer wedon't know, but, of course, if
(27:06):
the escalation continues and ifChina is getting more involved
in this conflict on the Russiaside, different scenarios are
possible.
Dana Lewis (27:17):
Will you share with me a scenario or two that you
think is possible, becausecooperation is one thing, but
the standoff between north andsouth korea is getting worse.
Suddenly, and especially in thelast year, north korea is
becoming much more aggressivewith south korea.
Do you think that russia ispushing North Korea towards an
(27:42):
armed conflict with the South?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (27:45):
Again .
So it doesn't mean that Russiacould push North Korea to the
conflict with the South.
It means that China could pushNorth Korea to such a conflict.
Yes, and we don't have ananswer to this question.
Yes, for now, I don't thinkit's true.
I don't think that China isinterested in changing the
(28:05):
balance in its neighborhood.
So, but of course, what ishappening, as I said, between
russia and north korea, itdoesn't happen without uh
china's consent.
Yes, and it means that Chinaagrees that North Korea helps
Russia to wage war againstUkraine or to wage a proxy war
(28:29):
against the West, as Russia issaying.
Yes, it means China agrees, butChina for now refrains from
delivering ammunition andequipment to Russia.
I mean tanks, armors and somekind of this stuff.
Yes, I don't think that Chinahas any interest to destabilize
(28:50):
the Korean peninsula right now,but you see that the situation
is getting more like it's notgoing their well, where?
Yes, and there are a lot ofexpectations, and the fact that
you're talking about this andthe fact that the media are
talking about this shows thatthere are expectations that
(29:13):
scenarios, different scenariosof destabilization are possible.
But again, I think everythingdepends on China there and
Russia understands this, and Ithink that Russia alone can do
anything there, I mean on theKorean peninsula.
And yes, north Korea is Russian, is Russia's neighbor.
But Russia understands thislike rules of the game with
(29:36):
China.
Yes, and if China decides thatthe stabilization in its
interest, russia would supportChina.
But I don't think we are in thecurrent situation.
Dana Lewis (29:48):
I might be wrong, but in Putin's initial terms of
office which are never-ending, Imean originally they were
limited to five years or fouryears.
Even he was careful with Iranand he was careful with North
Korea.
Russia even, you know,supported sanctions against
(30:12):
North Korea in terms of UNweapons inspections and they
didn't want nuclear armedneighbors on their border, on
their border.
So now, because thisconfrontation with the West is
becoming so angry and Russia sothreatening, what's changed, do
(30:34):
you think, in the Kremlin'sbrain?
Do you think?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Grou (30:40):
Russia didn't support proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
That's a fact.
And Russia supported thesanctions against Iran, and
Russia was against Iran havingnuclear weapons, as Russia
wasn't happy that North Koreacould have nuclear weapons.
That's the fact.
There are different rumorsabout this, but for now I would
(31:03):
say that there are no signs thatRussian position has changed,
because proliferation of nuclearweapons is not in Russia's
interests, because it means thatthere will be more players on
the international stage whichcould possess nuclear weapons
and which could pose a threat,including to Russia.
(31:25):
So we don't have any signs thatRussia's position has changed
here.
But if any country like anyRussia alien, yes could have
nuclear weapons and of courseRussia wouldn't help an elite to
have such weapons, it doesn'tmean that Russia would do
(31:47):
against this country.
So I would say the policy islike this Russia wouldn't help,
but if this country manages, orany country manages, to obtain
such weapons, it doesn't meanthat this country would have any
problems with Russia.
(32:07):
It means that Russia would haveto live with this and would
have to cooperate with thiscountry based on these realities
.
Dana Lewis (32:15):
Last question, mr Ignatov, if you don't mind,
because you consulted the unitedrussia party.
Um, and as you, as you said, itwas a very long time ago, uh,
probably when they weremoderating, moderating
influences in russia.
Uh, there was a liberal side tothat party.
There was western leaningmembers in in united russia that
(32:37):
saw europe as a friend andsomebody to do business with.
Are all those moderatinginfluences now gone, and do you
see the Russian intelligenceservices now, their takeover of
the power circles around Putin,as all-encompassing, and what
(32:59):
does it mean?
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (33:03):
I would say that there are no.
The Russian power is now how tosay it?
A combination of securityofficers and technocrats, and
actually it's a union betweenthese security officers, maybe
some oligarchs and technocrats.
And there were a lot oftechnocrats in the United
(33:24):
Russian Party.
They didn't have a lot of.
They were not liberals, Iwouldn't say that they had
liberal ideology.
At least this ideology was notthe main how to say it?
Force in their life, the mainmoving force in their life and
their intentions.
(33:46):
I would say that they're moretechnocrats, yes, or pretended
to be technocrats, and there'sstill a lot of technocrats there
.
They don't have a lot ofideology.
They are not against theconfrontation with, they are not
in favor of the confrontationwith the West, in favor of the
confrontation with the West.
So a lot of people stillconsume Western products,
(34:11):
western culture, and they lookat the West in terms, for
example, of the future of theirchildren.
But, as I said, they are insituation when they have to
accept the reality, because theyare fully dependent on these
people who are in charge ofsecurity and they're afraid of
these people and they have, likelegitimate concerns about the
power of these people, thatinfluence, or they their
(34:32):
possible influence, uh, on theirnot everyday life?
Yes, and and unfortunatelythere are no visionaries in
Russian power, I meanWestern-like visionaries but
there are technocrats with whomthe West could negotiate, maybe
(34:55):
not now, but in the future.
Yes, and I think the future ofRussia, I mean the future of
Russian power, the future ofRussian state, will be dependent
on these relationships betweensecurity people and technocrats
who will be in charge, if welook at the situation from like
(35:20):
midterm perspective.
In any case, if in Russia, ifyou want to take power or if you
want to rule this country, inany case you will have to rely
on people who are in charge ofsecurity, I mean on the security
services, on military or ontechnocrats, if we are talking
(35:41):
about the security or ontechnocrats, if we are talking
about the security, and I thinkthis union or this coalition
between technocrats and securitywill continue to exist and the
West will have to accept thissituation.
Yes, it will have to manage thefuture relationships with
Russia based on understanding ofthese relationships inside the
(36:04):
Russian power.
Dana Lewis (36:07):
And if there are anybody, as you say, that are
pro-European or look to the Westfor some kind of future, they
either stay silent or faceprisoner of war.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (36:21):
They all could change their mind,
even if now they are saying thatthey are patriots or orthodox
Christians or hardliners.
They could change their mind.
It will depend on theirsituation.
It's not possible to predictright now.
Yes, look, I worked with theUnited or at the United Russian
(36:42):
Party when we had a reset withthe United States.
Yes, when Obama and Medvedevtried to promote a different
policy yes, tried to establish adifferent policy between these
countries, we had a completelydifferent situation and people.
They were thinking incompletely different terms.
(37:04):
Yes, we were talking aboutmodernization in Russia and
Medvedev wrote a famous articleabout the modernization of
Russia.
Does it mean that Medvedev wasa fake person?
Because we know what he'stalking about right now.
Maybe we could say like thisbut maybe we could say that he's
just adapting to his situation.
(37:26):
Yes, and if this situationchanges, medvedev could also
have a different position.
Yes, it's not.
The system is very different.
Yes, it's not a democracy andthey have to play, they have to
be, to adapt to their problems,to adjust their own position to
the environment.
(37:47):
And that's Russia.
Yes, it's very different.
Yes, it's authoritarian, it'sclosed, but you still have to
deal with Russia because it'svery big and it's very
influential still.
Dana Lewis (38:00):
I mean Medvedev especially appears to just not
go along with the situation butpromote the situation, and you
know he's pretty rabid in tweetsand postings on Telegram.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (38:15):
I have my own fears about why he's
behaving like this, but I don'twant to be public on this For
the next interview, oleg Ignatov, with the International Crisis
Group.
Dana Lewis (38:28):
Thank you, thank you so much.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (38:30):
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (38:35):
Natalia Drozd is the chairwoman of an NGO called
Dobrocin Center, which isinvolved in recovery efforts in
Ukraine, and that is a very big,very big conversation people
are having around the worldright now.
Natalia welcome.
Natalia Drozd (38:49):
Yeah, good afternoon.
Very happy to be here and tohave a voice at this platform.
Thank you.
Dana Lewis (38:55):
Oh, you're very kind.
Two years have passed since thebeginning of a full-scale
Russian invasion.
We're more than that now.
We're three years into this.
You don't have to watch thenews every day to understand.
Houses, hospitals, schools,cultural institutions, energy,
(39:16):
infrastructure which is a keything the environment have all
suffered enormous damage, andI've seen some figures that put
it at you know, four, 400billion.
Some say it's closer to atrillion.
What, what do you put it at?
Natalia Drozd (39:36):
What do you mean?
What kind of dimension?
Moral, ethical, physical?
Dana Lewis (39:41):
In terms of dollar.
Natalia Drozd (39:44):
Yeah, it's our everyday life, Because if we
feel every day frustrated or ifwe feel every day like victims
oh my God, another school isdestroyed or another hospital
there is no way that we will winor we will survive.
Yes, we are very angry, we arevery frustrated reading every
(40:07):
news.
You know, we are living withthe telephone.
We have special applications,websites.
You monitor every 10, 15minutes because, for example, my
family in Chernihiv region, mydaughter in Kiev, so my friends
and colleagues all over Ukraine.
So all of a sudden, even if youhave a very high official
(40:28):
meeting, if you hear air raidsiren and you look that missiles
hit the city somewhere inUkraine, you just call your
friends, you just stop any eventwhatever.
Where in Ukraine, you just callyour friends, you just stop any
event whatever.
But at the same time, wetransfer our anger, our
frustration into action.
We do not allow ourselves tofeel so pity, so sorry that we
(40:50):
are in this war.
It's like you know, it's ourchoice.
This war it's all about people.
It's about their choice how wedo react to this everyday news.
And every morning you make achoice to stay in your own
country, to stay in your owncity, in spite of all this
horrific news people dying,wounded, some western help, for
(41:16):
example, detained for a while.
You have to wait one more month.
So you have to pick up morevolunteers' car to bring to
Ukraine.
So you know, we have now verydiverse life in Ukraine and you
have to switch among variousactivities simultaneously your
job, your volunteering, yourfamily, international level, not
(41:38):
to forget and to stay andaccept this as a long marathon,
to have our resources and to beresilient again, to wake up
every morning and have force tocontinue.
It's very difficult, but it'sour choice indeed.
Dana Lewis (41:56):
A grim marathon, a longer marathon than anybody
would have predicted at thebeginning of this.
But some people are saying $10billion in damage to Ukraine
infrastructure every month.
What do you put it at?
What's your figure?
Natalia Drozd (42:12):
Now we are tired of counting the figures and
billions dollars, trillions.
Counting the figures andbillions dollars, trillions.
Because after two years offull-scale invasion it seems for
many citizens same samesenseless.
Yes, maybe the finance willcome, one mechanism through EU
facility, the other mechanismNow we are back again for
(42:34):
survival and our resilience.
Why we should make all theseplans?
For example, in my own city ofChernihiv we have 34 schools.
During the first months ofinvasion, 29 were destroyed.
Can you imagine?
Nobody cares.
Everyone cares about people.
Yes, much more schools againcould be destroyed.
(42:55):
For example, the universitywhere my husband works.
It already, during two years,was destroyed twice.
His cabinet totally destroyed,no notebook, nothing.
Happily, people are allsurvived.
So we are now talking about moredefense, survival and
resilience.
What point and what is sense totalk about billions?
(43:17):
It will be trillions.
The next month and, and maybein a month, on a year, there is
no ukrainians left because therewill be full occupation.
Many people will go to west.
So lots of ukrainians,especially civil society,
organization, local communities,national uh, national
(43:37):
authorities, they all ask forair defense and for ammunition
and for weapons.
Because it's third year, itseems seamless now to talk about
figures.
It could be trillions, whatwould make the difference?
10, 50, if no Ukrainians left,there is no defense.
Twice rebuilding, okay, people,it's not caring about, you know
(43:59):
, winter, yes, what we now iscaring is how we will go through
winter, energy surviving, howwe can make this
decentralization of energygeneration now as much as
possible.
So it looks like that duringtwo these years of full-scale
invasion, we're in a startingpoint Survival and resilience.
(44:21):
We're now again a civil societystarting talking about not
recovery, about resilience andsurvival, because it's no way to
plan, because, yes, all thisassistance, what we hear, as
long as it takes.
How long?
10 years, 20 years, tillUkrainian ends, what does it
mean?
Till it takes how long?
10 years, 20 years, tillUkrainian ends, what does it
mean?
Till it takes, how long ittakes.
(44:42):
So we need more concrete datesbecause you know, it's not only
a war between Russia and Ukraine, it's not only bilateral, it's
already the globe on the map whoare involved in this war.
Because if, for example, westand USA, they perceive
themselves not as a part of thiswar, it's just bilateral, the
(45:07):
Russia, they perceive that thisis the war of West and they, in
their propaganda, telling thatthey are fighting West people in
Ukraine, that Ukraine has nosubjectivity at all.
It's only Western money,western ammunition and
everything is fighting inUkraine.
So all Russian people believethat they fight in the West, in
(45:31):
Ukraine.
So now we see this more dilemmain perception of our war, how
it will go, because talkingabout figures, it's not more so
actual for us now we are readyto live without electricity, as
we did, for example, in my house, in my city.
There is no electricity, warmwater, because our city was
(45:52):
underseed.
Can you imagine it's likestreet fighting.
So, okay, we are ready to liveagain, but we have need.
Okay, I will talk for you for along time.
Dana Lewis (46:04):
Please ask no, no, no, I don't think anybody would
um not appreciate what, what,what you're going through and in
terms of the fatigue of thisyou more than two years into it,
the emotional loss of peoplethat have been killed and the
way of life that has beenhijacked by the invasion Putin's
(46:27):
invasion of Ukraine and peopleI can certainly hear in your
voice that you've just hadenough.
You want it to end.
Does that change the way thatUkrainians support their
president or their government?
Do they want this to go adifferent way?
Are they willing just to keepsending young men and changing
(46:51):
the ages of recruitment and justfeeding this assembly line of
people to the front line, or dopeople want a different solution
now?
Natalia Drozd (47:04):
I started that in Ukraine we do not use Putin's
war.
We use Russian's war becauseRussians do support Putin and
this by reality, theyinterrelate.
It's not only Putin.
Russians strongly support him.
So we call it not Putin's war,because if we change Putin for
someone else, it won't work.
(47:24):
It's Russians that want thiswar.
So about the attitude ofpopulation yes, the majority of
population still want tocontinue and they are ready to
decrease the age for soldiers tobe mobilized.
They are ready to discuss women, to be at the front line, and
(47:47):
we are still consideringPresident Zelensky and all
elected deputies national, localto have their legitimacy, to
continue their work.
We are steady on this.
To have their legitimacy, tocontinue their work.
We are steady on this.
It's very difficult, painful,but you know.
Otherwise, we know what will be.
We saw this.
There is no Ukraine.
(48:08):
You will be killed.
You have no option.
You have the option.
So in which way?
You will be killed In dignityor you're under occupation or
you know it's a choice of mostUkrainians.
So the majority, they do notwant to join Russia, do not want
to have this false peace, as wecall this false peace deal.
(48:31):
For example, if we give someterritories and, for example,
we'll stop a war.
We do understand it will be fora while.
It could be one year, fiveyears, ten years.
Russia just needs time tocollect all his resources again
to recreate, because it's notjust the war, it's not about
(48:53):
quantity resources, it's thetask of empire to expand, it's
not about the border.
If you give four regions, thenfour regions next, then the
appetite will be Balticcountries and Poland as well,
because the Soviet Union wouldlike to be a subject like Russia
now, as the Soviet Union wouldlike to be a very powerful game
(49:17):
player on the globe.
And now China has more powerthan Russia and Russia is trying
to restore its power during theSoviet Union, just influence on
the half of Europe.
So Ukraine.
It's very painful, you know wehave very painful discussions,
even in parliament, in betweenneighbors, but at the end what
(49:39):
do we have?
Nothing.
We have to stay because nobodywants to be in occupation.
It's awful, it's awful Becausewe have our colleagues in
territorial communities thatwere.
So their stories.
They are so horrifying that weare in CH under shelling.
We feel much better than theyare in occupation, because you
(50:02):
can imagine this fear, thistorture that they did.
It's unbearable.
So it's better to continue andbe ready to substitute men as
women.
For example, we have now manytraining programs for women, for
example, for big trucks, foreconomy, because we already have
lack of men in many professionsin economy.
(50:25):
So we're already trying tosubstitute these places, but we
are ready to continue to fight.
Dana Lewis (50:33):
Okay, so you just talked about the fact that a lot
of human capital has to justkeep flowing into the war effort
and the defense of Ukraine, butyou also, in some of the things
you've written, have talkedabout human.
You need human capital forreconstruction, does that?
Because reconstruction doesn'tinvolve just the international
(50:55):
community coming with a bunch ofmoney and sending construction
firms.
You actually need human capitalin every center, in every town,
in every village, on everyroadway to rebuild.
Do you think it's way too earlyto talk about recovery efforts
in Ukraine?
No, then what's being talkedabout right now?
Natalia Drozd (51:18):
We are in the recovery process already.
In rebuilding and recovery weare defining two different
directions.
It's like early recovery thatyou rebuild straight away the
critical infrastructurehospitals, water supplies,
whatever energy supplies andjust rebuilding now with the
(51:40):
help of other territorialcommunities, international
partners.
But they are doing now.
And if we talk about recovery,it's more about strategic vision
.
For example, all communitiesnear the border with Russia and
Belarus will they be the sameeven if the war stops?
No, the border will be closedIf, for example, they have
(52:03):
transit potential.
Now it's a dead end forlogistics for a common enemy.
So now it's a role of civilsociety to rethink the future of
such a community, to think whatkind of economy could be there
and to prepare people there,because if we have people still
even now 10 kilometers fromShelling from the border, so we
(52:26):
do so, it will be our loss if wedo not rethink now their
strategic vision and includethem into this process.
So now this is mostly the roleof civil society because, as
local authority, are totallybusy with all this early
reconstruction, criticalinfrastructure, schools,
(52:46):
education services, medicalservices.
That is very urgent.
And so now we have excellentcollaboration between local
authorities and civil societybecause we like partners and we
do this job for them.
So we strategically and weinvolve all kinds of
stakeholders on local level,especially youth, to talk about
(53:11):
this.
Not only that it should be somekind of a plan from Berlin or
London or whatever.
No, we promote Ukrainianownership of recovery,
especially on local level, thatonly people that live in these
communities should decide how itwill be.
So we are doing recovery now,simultaneously these fightings.
So it distracts us.
(53:33):
You know you are planningrecovery and missiles hit, so
you again have to clean thespace and again continue
planning recovery, for example.
So you again have to clean thespace and again continue
planning recovery.
For example, some economicincentives should be for this
business in border region,because you know logistics long
way, for example for supply.
So yeah, lots of work are doingnow, even now in recovery,
(53:54):
because you know we are a lot.
We are talking much.
If we win the war and we losethe country, especially
democratic values.
What's the sense if we becamethe same as Russia?
So we keep an eye on alldemocratic procedures, values,
citizen participation, that theykeep as much as possible Now,
(54:16):
even now during the war.
So tools for local democracythat should be embedded into
local regulatory acts.
Now we have a lot of laws onthe undersigning in the
parliament.
It's like on accountability, onthe transparency, on integrity.
So we're trying to make allthese democratic reforms that
(54:36):
will allow us accession to EU,because it's not only signing
documents and legislation, it'sall changing of behavior, of
everything let me ask you aboutthat.
Dana Lewis (54:46):
Let me ask you about that because there have
been resignations from even theUkraine government now that have
talked about red tape, um, theinability to get things done,
corruption, and money'sdisappeared.
How do you manage that?
And that's very important forthe international community too,
because if they think that thatmoney is going to go sideways
(55:08):
into people's pockets, it'sgoing to dry up pretty quick.
Natalia Drozd (55:13):
Indeed, and this case is very often used by
Russian propaganda as look howmany corruption cases do they
have?
They are totally failed state.
But we see this as democraticprocedure.
We have all institutions inplace and they are doing their
job.
What country during thefighting war can reveal
(55:36):
corruption cases, make thempublic and investigate them?
It's our strength that we cansee and we can prevent.
So Ukrainian society sees thisas one of the successes.
During the war, we findcorruption, we detect corruption
.
It's not like Russia and we candeal with this no-transcript
(56:23):
and our judiciary system as well.
But it's not very easy, even ina country without war.
But with the war it'scomplicated.
But with the help of civilsociety and push from civil
society and internationalpartners, I think that we will
succeed in this way, becauseUkrainian society is really red
tape and according to the lastinvestigations, sociological
(56:49):
research, corruption was named,not war.
Corruption was named bycitizens as the first challenge
to be tackled and to be donesomething for the Ukraine.
So we see this as our strength,because we reveal, we continue,
we try to have a competitivebidding.
(57:09):
Yes.
Dana Lewis (57:11):
Competitive contract bidding yes.
If you were to come back toreconstruction specifically,
what would be your top fiveareas that are the greatest need
right now in Ukraine?
Natalia Drozd (57:34):
First energy, then reconstruction.
I don't know if it's directly,but we consider it's like
demining.
Also reconstruction, becauseyou couldn't do nothing if your
land and forest are mined, andsea as well.
So energy demining, thensupport of small and medium
(57:55):
business.
Direct support of small andmedium business, direct support
of small and medium, not bigcompanies like industries, metal
, but small because it's ourbackbone of our democracy and
resilience small communities andsmall and medium business.
So support directly should godirectly to them.
Then I don't know, it's humancapital.
Then I don't know it's humancapital.
(58:17):
I even couldn't count five.
Maybe agriculture, but you knowwe are living in such harsh
conditions and we also get usedto cope with everything.
Then, in comparison, yes, okay,agriculture is surviving, it's
exporting wheat, so maybe not sogood, it's not so bad.
But of course also agricultureand we have a very good industry
(58:43):
like textile industry.
I don't know, but first of all,first of all, by default, it's
human capital, it's people and Isuppose, roll in their schools
and hospitals and housing,because apartment buildings have
been destroyed and theatershave been destroyed.
Dana Lewis (59:03):
So it's just all of the infrastructure that's been
damaged.
Oleg Ignatov/Crisis Group (59:06):
But as we speak.
Dana Lewis (59:07):
I assume a lot of that takes place very quickly,
like windows are replaced inbuildings.
If a building is still standing, they try to repair it and they
do it pretty rapidly in somecases.
In other cases, I assume, theyabandon it.
Natalia Drozd (59:24):
Yes, and by their own resources and not by
international.
If we talk about these newhouses instead of destroyed
millions of flats and houses, itwill be impossible to provide
after war to everyone.
It takes years and years andpeople have to live now.
So it's better to have economynow and it's better to have
(59:48):
people to earn money and theyrepair on their own.
For example, from my colleaguenobody asks for small damages in
their flats or houses.
If you can do it for repair foryourself, you know it's if your
house is totally destroyed,okay.
So even in that case, nobodyclaim for money for, for example
(01:00:09):
, if he can repair.
So we see this like we needeconomy.
We do not want to be likevictims and then send us
humanitarian assistance.
We need some technologies or Iforget about technologies and
innovation for reconstructionbecause our communities that
were under occupation.
They saw how important not onlyto grow up food, but processing
(01:00:33):
is processing.
Now they would like to makeproduct with added value.
So we have this shift in ourconsciousness.
So we have we would like alsofor reconstruction technologies
and innovation for new process,for example, for to be more
sustained and more resilient onthe local level.
It's also very important forthe reconstruction not only
(01:00:55):
bridges and buildings, but meansfor people and for the
communities to sustain theireconomy and to be resilient, not
to be a burden for the EuropeanUnion and to live on loans and
subsidies.
Dana Lewis (01:01:12):
I don't think anybody would say the Ukrainians
haven't been resilient, that'sfor sure.
So, natalia Drozd, I know I'vetaken a lot of your time so, uh,
hopefully I can talk to youagain and good luck to you and
thank you so much for what is,you know, talking about huge
damage and huge infrastructureproblems in a monstrous war with
(01:01:33):
so much more unfortunatelyahead.
Natalia Drozd (01:01:35):
But thank you, thank you that you raised this
topic and keep on agenda on theinternational level, because
it's incredibly important for usto be heard, because we are
resilient, but we are human aswell, so thank you.
Dana Lewis (01:01:50):
Best to you, thank you.
Thank you, natalia.
And that's our backstory.
This week, ukraine is said tobe doing better than in the
spring.
It stalled the Russian advancein the north.
It needs to beef up itsrecruitment of new soldiers.
A lot of them are just tired onthe front.
F-16s will reach thebattlefield or airspace within
weeks and, of course, all eyeson Washington and the US
(01:02:13):
elections ahead and twocandidates with very different
ideas on how to handle Russia'sinvasion of a sovereign nation.
Putin likes to accuse Americaof colonial expansion, but he's
the one who ordered his army toattack Ukraine to reclaim some
dream of a Russian empire.
And, as we all know, putinwon't stop there unless he is
(01:02:36):
stopped by the Ukrainian army.
No-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com