January 31, 2024 • 50 mins
This week on Backstory with Dana Lewis former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov now in exile, discusses if a new Kremlin challenger has a chance in upcoming elections.
Tal Heinrich, spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, takes discusses the complexities of the Gaza crisis from the eyes of those entrenched in the struggle. Heinrich reveals the intricate challenges facing the IDF, from hostage rescue operations to the pursuit of lasting security.
And former Jerusalem Post Editor In Chief Avi Mayer and I discuss the contentious role of UNRWA, as allegations of terrorism send shockwaves through the United Nations, prompting urgent calls for reform or dissolution.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mikhail Kasyanov (00:00):
My collaborators from my political
party just some of them arealready in jail, some of them
just waiting for their finalcourt decision, also just
sitting in jail.
That's why there's dangerousand of course I didn't want just
to leave with this risk anymore, and me and my family were left
Russia right after these events.
Tal Heinrich (00:22):
Of course, we will have to dismantle the
overwhelming majority of thisterrorist infrastructure,
because we say that we want tosee Gaza demilitarized and, once
we eliminate Hamas, we don'twant to see the resurgence of
another terrorist group down theroad that will use this
infrastructure again and you andI will have this conversation
again.
So it's a big, big challenge.
Avi Mayer (00:42):
Subsequently, we've learned that more than one
teacher actually have heldhostages in their homes,
including some who are parentsof children, who locked these
hostages away without adequatefood, water or medical care.
But, of course, the big storyin recent days, as you just said
, were these dozen 12 or soUNRWA employees who have been
(01:04):
found to be directly involved inthe Hamas massacre of October 7
.
Dana Lewis (01:13):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, russia, there is anew opposition leader who's been
campaigning to run forpresident against Vladimir Putin
.
Does he have a chance?
Will the Kremlin let him run?
Well, it's likely notablequestions, but you never know.
We speak to former RussianPrime Minister, mikhail Kasyanov
, on the election, the war inUkraine and talk of seizing over
(01:37):
30 billion in Russian assetsabroad and giving them to
Ukraine for weapons andrebuilding.
But first Gaza and Israel's warto unseat Hamas and bring home
its hostages taken October 7.
Is Israel making progress inits goal to release hostages and
destroy Hamas?
In a moment we'll talk toIsraeli Prime Minister
(01:59):
Netanyahu's spokesperson, talHeinrich.
And when I was in Gaza, thebiggest charity organization was
the UN Relief Workers Agency,unrat.
Some of UNRWA staff wereinvolved in the attack on Israel
and even held Israeli hostages.
Now funding for UNRWA is beingheld by a number of countries,
(02:20):
because why would they givemoney to an organization that
appears to have worked hand inglove with a terrorist
organization?
It's a crisis for the UN, saysformer Jerusalem Post
editor-in-chief, avi Mayer.
But first that interview withTal.
Tal Heinrich is a spokespersonfor the Israeli Prime Minister's
Office of Prime MinisterNetanyahu.
(02:40):
She joins me now from New York,hi Tal.
Tal Heinrich (02:43):
My pleasure to be joining you, Dana.
Good to see you.
Dana Lewis (02:46):
Good to see you.
Look, three weeks if I can justbegin with what's happening on
the ground, three weeks afterthe IDF says Northern Gaza is
cleared, there's fighting inNorthern Gaza.
What's happening there?
It's obviously not cleared, anddoes this speak to the
resilience of Hamas?
Tal Heinrich (03:06):
You're correct, it's not clear of all terrorist
elements and terroristinfrastructure.
The IDF still has work to dothere.
But when we said that the areawas clear, we didn't mean that
it's 100% free of terroristelements, but rather that Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic jihad nolonger function as an organized
war machine in that area of theGaza Strip.
(03:29):
It's more right now aboutsporadic attacks, if you will,
as opposed to what we still havein the southern parts of Gaza,
like in Conde Unes, for example,and in the areas, the
neighborhoods in the centralpart of the Gaza Strip where
still you have these organizedbattalions.
But in terms of our progress,they are on the ground.
According to the IDF'sassessments, we have eliminated
(03:52):
more than 9,000 terrorists,arrested 2,300, and really took
out the overwhelming majority ofthe Hamas battalions as an
organized war machine.
There's still much work to bedone, more so when you think
about the terror infrastructurethat we're finding there.
Dana Lewis (04:12):
Can you talk to the Wall Street Journal story where
they're saying that maybeIsrael's managed to get only 20%
or 40% of tunnels, that thereare so many more left?
The number 300 miles of tunnelis often kicked around and I
don't know how accurate it is,but it's a hell of a challenge
(04:36):
trying to get down there, tryingto eliminate Hamas.
They're now talking aboutflooding some of those tunnels
with water the IDF Yet at thesame time you've got hostages
there and it's missionimpossible.
Tal Heinrich (04:50):
Well, obviously the plight of the hostages is
the top of minds in everydecision-making progress at the
central command and also on theground in Gaza.
When we eliminate these tunnels, obviously we have a certain
intelligence and now we're onassessment to make sure that
they're not there.
Of course, we will have todismantle the overwhelming
(05:13):
majority of this terroristinfrastructure because we say
that we want to see Gazademilitarized Once we eliminate
Hamas.
We don't want to see theresurgence of another terrorist
group down the road that willuse this infrastructure again
and you and I will have thisconversation again.
It's a big, big challenge.
My colleague, elon Levy you'rebased in London he says that the
(05:35):
underground metro of Gaza islarger than the London metro,
which is insane.
I myself went with Elon to visitone of these big tunnels, the
one that is just 400 meters awayfrom the heiress border
crossing in the northern part ofthe Gaza Strip.
Dana, I'm sorry on the personallevel.
(05:56):
I wanted to tell you that I wasstanding there inside this
massive tunnel, the one that avehicle can drive through.
You see how fortified it is.
You think of the iron, thecement, everything, all the
resources, human work and moneythat was invested in it.
You think this is insanity?
(06:17):
They're so committed to thisideology and idea of
obliterating Israel that theyinvest their effort and their
everything in this instead ofrebuilding themselves.
I was there and I was thinkingexactly as sort of what you said
well, wow, this is huge, thisis massive, and this is just one
.
It was just one.
Dana Lewis (06:38):
So the question that I saw put to former Shin
Bet chief Amy Eiland today wasis Israel winning?
And he said I can't say thatbecause we don't know what the
end game is.
So how do you spell victory atthis point?
Tal Heinrich (06:54):
We spell victory once we achieve the three goals
that we have set forth for thisoperation, for this war that we
didn't start and we didn't want.
We said that Hamas must beeliminated as the ruling
governance body in Gaza and asan organized war machine, as a
military wing.
When exactly this will happen,and what does it entail?
(07:16):
Will one terrorist still bealive or we managed to eliminate
all of them?
This is a decision that will be, of course, decided by the
military press of the IDF, byour government, and we said that
the hostages must come backhome, all of them.
That will be, of course, oneachievement.
Dana Lewis (07:35):
Let's hope those poor people get out of there,
and you can only imagine whatpeople have gone through over a
hundred days being held, abused,tortured.
Some are already dead.
So that brings us to thisdiscussion that there's a
hostage deal in the works.
But Prime Minister Netanyahu,your boss, stood there yesterday
and said we're not going torelease thousands of Palestinian
(07:57):
prisoners, despite what thenegotiations may be in Paris
between the USA and France andQatar and others.
We're not going to releasethousands of terrorists.
Who was he speaking to there?
It sounds like he was almostspeaking to the Americans,
saying don't pressure us into adeal that we can't accept.
Tal Heinrich (08:17):
Well, when the Prime Minister of Israel is
speaking right now at the heightof a war, I guess he's speaking
to everyone around the world,not only Israelis.
But I can tell you who he wasspeaking to today, and that is
families of hostages.
And he told them that theIsraeli government, he himself
personally, they're doingeverything possible to examine
(08:40):
every possible avenue to bringto the release, potentially, of
more hostages.
Now we know that what createdthe conditions back in November,
Dana, was the military pressurethat we exerted on Hamas on the
ground.
We were hitting them very, veryhard and the terrorists on the
ground.
They wanted to breathe there,and so we had this framework
which saw the release of some ofthe hostages.
(09:01):
It has to be a combination ofthe diplomatic avenue that we
don't expand on, for veryobvious reasons we don't really
discuss these terms openly,publicly, because these are
sensitive issues.
Human lives hang in the balance.
But we are really doingeverything possible to create
the conditions, to createanother framework that will see
(09:22):
the release of more hostages.
And you're right, we heard fromthe accounts of hostages who
came back in November after 50days or so in captivity and it's
unbelievable to try to imaginewhat these who are still there
for more than double the timeare suffering through, including
sexual abuse that we know forcertain Is taking place there
(09:44):
with some of the female hostages, because that's what one of the
female hostages who came backtold us.
Dana Lewis (09:50):
Will you comment on the fact that at least one of
those hostages maybe more werenot only taken by members of
UNRWA, the UN Relief WorkersAgency, but in fact at least one
of them that was released Ithink among that 50, came back
and told stories about how hewas held by an UNR teacher, how
he wasn't fed, he was held inhorrible conditions, and now you
(10:11):
have revelations that there'sat least a dozen UNR employees
were involved in the October 7thterror attack inside Israel, of
killing people, of takinghostages.
Tal Heinrich (10:24):
This is outrageous , I mean to people around the
world.
Many of them say, well, this isunbelievable.
But to Israelis this is nothingbut a surprise.
Israelis have been used to it,have been speaking about it for
years, how UNRWA is somewhat inbed with terrorism and preaches
(10:45):
to terrorism in UNRWA schools.
You know that a telegram groupof 3,000 UNRWA teachers
celebrated the massacre.
You had teachers that Israelpassed this information on to
the UN agency who participatedas part of the Hamas massacre.
They crossed into Israel.
Some of them the ones whoweren't in Israel helped Hamas
(11:06):
secure ammunition for the attackand secure logistics for the
attack.
One of them was involved inkidnapping a body of a soldier,
another of a kidnapping of ahostage.
So we know of at least twohostages right now who were held
by UNR people.
And it's not a bug in the system, it's a feature of the system.
(11:28):
And the mere existence of UNRWAis flawed.
To begin with, dana, the factthat this agency exists in an
unprecedented way, dedicated tothe so-called Palestinian
refugee problem, which in itsessence, if you boil it down,
the existence of UNRWA isbasically to put a question mark
(11:49):
over the existence of Israel,to keep Israel as some temporary
entity in the mind ofPalestinians by telling them
generation after generation youare refugees of wars that you
started, and until until when?
Until Israel will cease toexist.
So UNR is flawed on so manydifferent levels, but really
(12:10):
what we revealed was just thetip of the iceberg.
Dana Lewis (12:13):
Well, I know UNRWA is also in charge of giving out
food and water and support forUNR eroding.
Now it comes at an impossiblecritical time and I guess
there'll be a lot of discussionabout if you replace UNR, what
do you replace it with?
But very quickly, before I letyou go, you know Hamas has
gained popularity in the WestBank, as has Islamic Jihad.
(12:37):
There are great fears by theIsraeli security establishment
of attacks that can occur, justlike the one October, the 7th
from Gaza into Israel couldhappen, from the West Bank into
Israel.
Are you worried at the PrimeMinister's office that the
threat is increasing?
And how do you stop thispopularity of Hamas in the West
(12:58):
Bank now?
And where is Fata?
Where are the moderates?
Tal Heinrich (13:03):
That is a very good question, because when you
look at internal Palestinianpolling of their own population,
not only in Gaza but also inthe West Bank, you see that in
the West Bank, 85% ofPalestinians support the October
7 atrocities.
They support Hamas's doing,which really makes you, you know
(13:23):
, question and think of what thefuture could be like.
And this is why we say thatdown the road, once Hamas is
eliminated, we want to see Gazademilitarized, but also the
Palestinian society as a whole,not only in Gaza but also in the
West Bank, de-radicalized.
Because without that, withoutthat and you're in Europe, so
(13:47):
you know better without theradicalization of extreme
elements in the society, wecan't have peace.
We can't.
And you know, you've seen, youreported that Israel has made
peace with many other Arabnations because conditions on
the ground were right for itwhen the timing was right.
But processes have to takeplace and unfortunately some of
(14:10):
these processes take time.
But we hope that once weeliminate Hamas and we deal
terrorism such a major blow asit deserves, moderate voices
will fill in the vacuum and thatthe Palestinians would
understand that terrorism willalways be a dead end.
So why choosing it?
Dana Lewis (14:30):
It was a feature of the Oslo Accords, tal, and you
know many believe that, evenwhether the best peace process
in place, unless youde-radicalize Palestinians and
stop celebrating bus bombingsand suicide attacks, the
violence would never stop and itnever did.
And Hamas jumped right in thereand led that charge in terms of
(14:51):
terrorist attacks in Israel.
So what you speak about, youknow, has been just isn't
looking forward, but it's alsoleaning back and looking at what
went wrong, oslo in the 90s.
So, tal Heinrich, spokesman forthe Israeli Prime Minister's
office, tal, good to talk to you.
Tal Heinrich (15:07):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Dana Lewis (15:15):
Avi Mayer is the former editor and chief of the
Jerusalem Post and he joins menow from Jerusalem, avi, nice,
to meet you.
Avi Mayer (15:21):
Good to meet you as well.
Dana Lewis (15:23):
Look this controversy with UNRWA, Canada.
The US have paused funding toUNRWA, so of seven other
countries I think, as we countnow, uk, australia, italy,
germany, the Netherlands,switzerland, finland have taken
similar action.
Is it fair or is this a slightoverreaction right now?
Avi Mayer (15:45):
Look, unrwa has been a problem for many years.
Some would say that it datesback to its very foundation, in
the aftermath of Israel's war ofindependence in 1949, when it
was granted this mandate.
That is quite different thanthat of the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees.
Whereas the UNHCR is taskedwith the resettlement of
refugees and essentially endingthe refugee status, unrwa exists
(16:09):
to perpetuate the refugeestatus of those Palestinians who
it serves, which is why you'veseen the number of Palestinian
refugees, or people classifiedas Palestinian refugees over the
loon over the past 75 years tomillions and millions around the
world, including those who haverequired citizenship in their
current places of residence.
Over the past 20 years or so,various different organizations
(16:32):
have raised concerns about allsorts of ties between UNRWA and
terrorist groups, as well asUNRWA's own operations, which
are viewed as being tainted byincitement to violence, the deal
generalization of Israel'sright to exist, anti-semitic
tropes and so on and so forth.
For many years, there have beenall sorts of charges about
(16:53):
UNRWA's ties to Hamas, that itcan only operate in Gaza because
it's in cahoots with Hamas inmany respects, that many of its
employees are, in fact, hamasmembers and, in fact, that has
come to a head during thecurrent conflict.
Just a few weeks ago, when Iwas still at the Jerusalem Post,
we published a report that wasfirst circulated by an Israeli
(17:15):
journalist named Al Mugh Boker,that one of the hostages in
Gaza… If I can jump in, becauseyou've packed a lot in there.
Dana Lewis (17:22):
But that's really that post that you put up is
what led me to ask you for theinterview, because you wrote
that an Israeli who had beenheld hostage in Gaza he was the
captive of a teacher employed byUNRWA, and that UNRWA later on
turned around and slammed yourreport at the Jerusalem Post,
(17:44):
essentially saying it wasungrounded, unfounded.
How dare you?
What did they say to you?
Avi Mayer (17:50):
They said exactly that, that they had not been
presented with evidence thatthese are unsubstantiated
allegations, and they requestedvery strongly that we remove the
report from our website.
You got it wrong.
Dana Lewis (18:01):
You got it wrong because you only said there was
one.
Avi Mayer (18:04):
Right, exactly.
Dana Lewis (18:07):
In fact there's now at least a dozen UNRWA
employees that have been namedand that has been provided to
the US, to the White House, aswell as a number of countries.
So you didn't get it wrong.
But you spoke about one caseand I know that I shouldn't
inject any humor in what is avery serious situation.
But the fact is that you know,in fact they got off pretty
(18:31):
lightly in your story comparedto what's come out now.
Avi Mayer (18:35):
Yeah, I mean look.
Subsequently we've learned thatmore than one teacher actually
have held hostages in theirhomes, including some who are
parents of children, who lockedthese hostages away without
adequate food, water or medicalcare.
But, of course, the big story inrecent days, as you just said,
were these dozen 12 or so UNRWAemployees who have been found to
(18:58):
be directly involved in theHamas massacre of October 7th.
About half of them arethemselves teachers, which is
astounding when you think aboutit.
Others have other roles withinthe organization, but they
played an active role inkidnapping, massacring,
transferring weapons to Hamas onthe day of the massacre, and
(19:20):
one report that just came out ofshort while ago by the Wall
Street Journal said that,according to an intelligence
estimate, about one in 10 UNRWAemployees in Gaza are somehow
linked to terroristorganizations.
That's about 1200 people.
So in the aftermath of thefirst revelation about the 12,
we were hearing many criticssaying you know how could you
judge an entire organizationbased on the actions of only 12
(19:43):
people?
Here we see we're talking about1200 people, which is about one
out of every 10 owned police.
That is an organization that isentirely compromised and
requires substantive reform.
Dana Lewis (19:54):
I want to explore that a little bit with you.
I mean, the US NationalSecurity spokesman, john Kirby,
said today it's serious, but youshouldn't impugn the characters
of 10,000 employees across theregion that UNRWA is operating
in.
Avi Mayer (20:10):
Look, that is certainly Admiral Kirby's
prerogative.
I think the situation is muchdeeper than that, and we've
known it for many, many years.
This is an organization that istainted from the very core of
its mandate.
Its previous director has saidexplicitly that has a political
mandate and that you know wecan't do anything about it.
We just operate within theconfines of that mandate.
(20:30):
The mandate itself is wrong.
If it is just perpetuating theproblem, which is what it's
doing, then perhaps the mandateneeds to change or the
organization needs to bedismantled and the refugees
handed over to the UN HighCommissioner for refugees and
their status made equal to therefugees of any country around
the world.
I think that is probably whatwe need to explore.
Perhaps not at this moment,when UNRWA is doing important
(20:51):
work in some respect in Gaza,caring for the humanitarian
needs of the Palestinianpopulation there, but at some
point in the future a reckoningmust come and the organization
needs to either reform or betotally dismantled and be
absorbed into another country.
Dana Lewis (21:03):
What's the alternative?
I mean, I've been to Gazahundreds of times as a
correspondent over the years.
I'm sure you've probably beenthere.
I mean, the UNRWA hands out youknow, I've seen them handing
out, you know, water andpowdered milk and rice, and I
mean they're a frontline agency.
They are in an environmentwhich is run by Hamas.
(21:24):
I'm going to get into theorganization, no matter how good
your screening is.
But I don't want to give themthe benefit of the doubt either
and I want to ask you do youthink that they completely not
only failed in that respect, butturned a blind eye to what was
happening in their organization,how deep Hamas was infiltrating
(21:48):
the organization, using theorganization maybe as a front
and to protect the Hamasmilitary wing?
Avi Mayer (21:58):
Look.
According to former UNRWAofficials, there are no
pre-employment screeningprocedures in place.
They, essentially, will hirepretty much anyone, and so, yes,
we know as a matter of fact, upuntil this point and this was
admitted by former directors ofthe organization that there were
Hamas members.
Now we know that it's at leastone in every 10 members of their
(22:19):
team who are somehow affiliatedwith either Hamas, Islamic
Jihad or other terroristorganizations.
That is profound.
That is an organization thathas a very deep set problem, and
so you asked what thealternative is.
I think the alternative is veryclear.
What is the solution to thePalestinian refugee problem?
The UN High Commissioner ofRefugees, which deals with every
other refugee case around theworld.
The Palestinians are the onlygroup that has their own.
(22:42):
What would that do?
What would that do?
I'm sorry, what's that?
What would that do if you movethat?
Well, the UN High Commissionerof Refugees is an organization
that has a budget in thebillions, that deals with
millions upon millions ofrefugees around the world, and
it simply is not tainted in thesame way that UNRA is.
It is an organization that isunfortunately tainted to the
core.
It has been compromised formany, many years and it simply
(23:04):
needs to either reform and do soseriously, with an independent
investigation looking into whatall those problems are and how
they can be addressed ordismantled and absorbed into UN
High Commissioner of Refugees.
I don't see an alternative.
Dana Lewis (23:16):
Where do you think we're headed right now?
I mean, in Jerusalem there wasa conference last night that had
a lot of right-wing members ofNetanyahu's cabinet in there,
including Ben Gvir, who's youknow former Kach member, and you
know they were dancing aroundthe idea that they relocate
Palestinians out of Gaza.
(23:36):
I mean, is that not beyondextreme?
Do Israelis support that?
Do you think, or do you think,that that is gaining momentum
within Israel?
Avi Mayer (23:48):
I think the overwhelming majority of
Israelis are horrified by thenotion of any return to Gaza on
a permanent basis.
The notion of resettling Jewsin Gaza, I think, is one that is
entirely far into the vastmajority of Israelis.
What you saw at that reallyunfortunate conference in
Jerusalem last night, which, asyou said, was indeed attended by
(24:08):
members of this government, wasa display of extremism that is
highly unrepresentative ofIsraeli society.
What Israelis want is to livein peace and security.
That can only be achieved whenthe hostages are brought home
and Hamas' capacity To evercarry out a massacre like
October the 7th is dismantled.
That is the goal here.
The goal is not to repopulateGaza, and I hope that we're able
(24:29):
to achieve those goals verysoon.
Dana Lewis (24:31):
How does it end?
Is it military reoccupation ofGaza?
I mean, if you don't bringsettlers back, is it continued
military occupation of Gaza,which may go on for years?
And behind the scenes, what areyou hearing?
Do you think that there ismomentum for an international
effort now to bring about somekind of Palestinian self-rule in
(24:54):
Gaza that will replace theextremist group Hamas and get
them out of them?
Avi Mayer (25:01):
There are various proposals being floated at this
time.
From what I'm hearing, it islikely there will be some kind
of Israeli presence in Gaza, atleast till the end of the
current year, until the end of2024.
We'll not look the way it doesnow.
There will probably be farfewer troops actually on the
ground, but Israel will maintainthe capacity to come in and
deal with terrorist activity asit resurfaces, as it almost
(25:22):
certainly will.
As for longer-term arrangements, we've heard various
conversations about amultinational force, perhaps
populated by Arab states in theGulf, coming in and taking
responsibility for security ofthat territory.
But yes, certainly we wouldwant to see some kind of
Palestinian self-rule reemergein that territory, one that is
not tainted by terrorism likeHamas, or by associated with
(25:45):
terrorism, as the Palestinianauthority in the West Bank
currently is.
What that looks like remains tobe seen.
There are various differentproposals floating about.
We certainly hope that that'ssomething that can be
effectuated as soon as possible.
Dana Lewis (25:56):
What a big remain to be seen, chapter that still
has to be written.
Anyway, avi Mayer, the formereditor and chief of Jerusalem
Post, great to talk to you.
Thank you so much.
Avi Mayer (26:07):
Thank you for having me.
Dana Lewis (26:14):
Mikhail Kasyanov is a former prime minister of
Russia and now he lives in exilein Europe.
Mikhail, welcome, I use thatterm and you can correct me in
exile precariously, because youleft Russia willingly when the
war happened in Ukraine, but nowyou probably cannot go back.
Mikhail Kasyanov (26:36):
Absolutely, I cannot go back.
That's why I just left Russiawhen they started to adopt just
legislation under which they canput in jail just people for
criticism.
And we have a number ofexamples and my collaborators
from my political party justsome of them already in jail,
some of them just waiting fortheir final court decision also
(26:57):
just sitting in jail.
That's why there's danger andof course, I didn't want just to
leave with this risk anymoreand me and my family left Russia
right after these events.
Dana Lewis (27:12):
It has to be emotional.
I mean, you're a patriot.
You worked next to thepresident, you worked in the
Kremlin, you worked for thecountry.
You rose to one of the highestranks in terms of the political
(27:32):
landscape in Russia.
You then fought, as anopposition person, suddenly to
be saying that you're a foreignagent and cannot go back to your
country.
These are dark days.
Mikhail Kasyanov (27:46):
That's absolutely strange and it took
them a year to decide whether toname me as a foreign agent or
not.
Because there's the informationthat even in September last
year I mean 2022, where alreadyjust my name was put for
consideration and that took thema year to make a decision and
(28:07):
maybe they were waiting for thepermission of Putin so that
whether it's possible to nameformer prime minister who worked
with Putin first, his firstterm, just as a foreign agent.
That is absolutely strange andthat's for an agent.
(28:29):
That is some kind of bazaar,because these people in power,
Putin's team, if we can call itthe team they believe that
critics of Putin's regime couldbe the crazy people of foreign
agent.
And that's what they've chosenfor me, just for an agent.
And that's what already justmore than 200 people and more
(28:49):
than 300 of differentorganizations named.
As for an agent, just forcriticism of Putin, for
criticism of the war yes, theyare correct, I condemn the war,
I criticize Putin, I walk partof Russian anti-war community.
That's what they also are justincriminating me that it is
(29:11):
dangerous organization becausewe're against the war.
All these facts and, as aresult, just a strange, strange
name.
But it is the fact, the law.
They produce this for an agent,that is, we are not for an
agent.
We're agent of our country, ofour motherland.
As I said, we are, of course,patriots of our country and we'd
(29:31):
like much better.
We're good for the country, butit's good for the country.
In Putin's mind, that'scompletely different.
His people believe that theirenrichment and their ruling and
the keep the power that is thegood for the country, but not as
us and other many millions ofRussians who believe that we
(29:54):
should live in a prosperous, Iwould say civilized country,
part of Europe.
Dana Lewis (30:01):
Do you know Boris Nejeshtyn, who is now running,
attempting to run against Putinfor president, and what would
you say about him?
Mikhail Kasyanov (30:11):
Oh, what I can say, just the most important
thing, is what I have to stress,that he continued to keep on
the opposition and openlydiscussing this and describing
this not in a very, I would say,direct way, but very clear,
very clear, with the moredelicate manner of describing
this as a crucial mistake orsomething like that.
(30:31):
And I think, and I almost sure,that he will not be registered
for the second part of Iranbecause of this position,
because just people would likealternative.
They don't know who Nadezhda isabout, but they would like to
vote for the person, whateverperson is, who against the war,
(30:54):
who wants to stop this war assoon as possible.
Nadezhda right now representsthis opinion.
That's why there is a growingpopularity of him, and I'm sure
that they will not I meanKremlin, putin will not take
this risk to register him forthe final run, because just
people could definitely could goto the voting stations and put
(31:20):
the ballot, but of course, theresult will be predictable.
Putin would win, but the riskthat people, and a lot of people
, including many officers,military officers and from the
police, they would understandthey voted against that but
result could appear just asPutin wanted.
That would create a public riskand a risk of, I would say,
(31:46):
demonstrations, protests on thestreets.
I don't think Putin would takethis risk.
That's why Nadezhda will not beregistered.
Dana Lewis (31:52):
Do you think it was a mistake by the Kremlin to let
him get so far now, becauseit's become quite public?
Or do you think that theywanted to create the atmosphere
of a democracy, even though weknow that these elections are
not democratic?
Mikhail Kasyanov (32:09):
They wanted to create an atmosphere of
democracy, but they don't caremuch about that.
But in fact there was nothing,as I would say, potential
methods to cut him from on thisstage, just simply to put a jail
, just for criticism.
But they didn't do this andthey wanted some kind of
(32:33):
landscape to appear that manypeople and they would like.
The outcome just visiting justpolling stations would be high.
That's why they're thinkingthis way.
They didn't know that Nadezhdawill continue to have such
anti-opposition and people wouldcontinue to support and
(32:53):
demonstrating their will to putsignature for his registration.
And I think that it's alreadyjust.
They run too far.
Dana Lewis (33:02):
You think it's getting away on them, that it's
getting out of control for them?
Mikhail Kasyanov (33:06):
Not getting out of control, but much more
difficult for them and much morerisky for them, as they
expected.
Dana Lewis (33:12):
What happened to you when you tried to run for
president?
Because you were very organizedand you traveled the country.
You had a real grassrootsorganization, parnass, and you
had local election offices.
Tell me from your experiencewhat did they do to you to stop
you?
Mikhail Kasyanov (33:32):
Yeah, correct, and that time that was a
completely different time.
It was almost democracy existedand at that time we all
believed that there was a chanceto change, not to allow Putin
to go this route.
What we come now, nobody couldexpect that we could come.
But at that time, of course, asyou correctly mentioned, that
(34:00):
political group, political party, just was organized and we were
prepared for this, collectingthe signatures and the trouble
of the country.
But they didn't expect theKremlin, they didn't expect that
popularity my popularity wouldstart to raise so rapidly.
Within one month of colleague'ssignature my rating was 6% and
in one month it was 18%.
(34:22):
And they understood that atthat time not Putin but Medvedev
was running from Putin's teamand at that time just was
absolutely dangerous and it wasa great risk and I believe just
we potentially could have windthose elections, one of the
selections as a general supportbasis, on the basis, on the
(34:45):
basis of the general support.
It didn't happen.
They caught me on that stage.
What as they going to do this?
Dana Lewis (34:51):
They tried to say what?
The signatures weren't valid.
The people who supported youwere not real people.
Fictitious signatures, I meanthey did everything.
Mikhail Kasyanov (35:02):
They were two million signatures and they say
170 they don't like and out ofthis 175, 35, they believed was
not put by real people.
But it was just technicalreason.
But of course everybody knowswhat actual political grounds
(35:22):
were for that.
Dana Lewis (35:25):
We're sitting in one of the Baltic countries
which sit in great fear ofwhat's happening in Ukraine
right now, that they believethat Europe and America are
going way too slow on weaponssupplies, that we're reaching a
dangerous precipice where Russiawill continue not in eastern
(35:51):
Ukraine but they will threatenother sort of NATO frontline
countries.
What is the mood where you areand what do you believe?
If you were to take a snapshot,historically, of where you
think we are and where we'regoing, what would you say?
Mikhail Kasyanov (36:09):
You are correct that, in terms of Baltic
states, people here, andpoliticians in particular, are
just very much concerned aboutthat because they understand how
Putin hates these countries andthe people of these countries.
That's why, of course, theyhave all reasons to think this
way that if Ukraine will bedefeated, it means just next
(36:33):
step would be Baltic states.
They don't want to beunprepared.
That's why they're very nervousand asking other NATO members
to support them.
I think just the NATO membersare just doing this.
But in talking about Ukraine, Ibelieve that all these I would
say mass which we take I don'tthink just we correct what.
(36:58):
But what's going on in the USright now just in terms of not
agreeing on adoption of thesupport or package, the support
for Ukraine.
But I know I talked topoliticians of both countries
there just half a year ago andall of them just raised
bipartisan consensus on thesupport of Ukraine.
(37:20):
But internal problems, internaldisagreements, just blocking
the support Unfortunately it hasalready has an effect on the
situation in the front inUkraine.
Ukraine and all, of course, theinformation and I would say the
landscape provides that somekind of fatigue come and
(37:41):
European countries just will notbe so actively in support, but
I talk recently to Europeanpoliticians that there is also
absolutely great consensus andthe readiness to continue
support Ukraine.
That's what we need right now,as soon as possible.
Decision, positive decision inthe US.
I'd like to believe it will besoon, Although I disappointed
(38:01):
that that didn't happen inDecember.
I thought and earned as soon asthe Congress will reintegrate
just the process.
Now it didn't happen, but I'dlike to believe they will make
the decision soon.
European Union on the 1st ofFebruary going to make this
decision too, and I'd like tobelieve that Ukraine would feel
just very solid grounds andcontinue to defend themselves.
(38:24):
They are sovereign in here.
Dana Lewis (38:26):
Because what will Putin do?
Do you think he's content tokeep Eastern Ukraine, maybe some
expansion along the Black Seacoast, or do you think that his
goals are much broader than that?
Mikhail Kasyanov (38:45):
There was, of course, much broader.
The goals were much, muchbroader, but right now I think
just Putin already switched thewar for war and attrition.
He managed during one year toswitch Russian economy on
military stands and, in fact,just those production facilities
(39:06):
which were left for decadesafter Soviet Union collapsed
over Soviet Union.
Now just they reintegrated allthose production and they
produce a lot of ammunition, ormaybe not all such high-tech
quality, but that is a lot ofthings and it's 10 times the
(39:28):
quantity, 10 times bigger thanUkraine can use just right now.
That's why just they believethat competition of potentials,
economic potentials and humanpotentials, Putin, he believes
that he would win.
That's what.
Also he believes that fatiguealready come and just expecting
(39:51):
that Donald Trump will winelections and then just
reconsider the attitude tosupporting Ukraine.
I think all these factorscombinational factors and he
will wait.
I don't think that he's goingto have another offensive
operation in spring, as somepeople say, because just he
already have also facinginternal problems and there will
(40:12):
be more growing problems ineconomy and financial system in
Russia.
But of course he believes thathe will win the war of attrition
, competition of potentials.
He believes that West will fedup of supporting and allocating
so much money and sooner orlater they will press Ukraine to
(40:35):
sit down and to accept Putin'sterms of capitulation.
Dana Lewis (40:41):
What do your European context?
I know you talk to politiciansa lot and you talk to people in
the EU.
What do they say about apossible reelection of Donald
Trump as president and thedangers to not only Ukraine but
a wider NATO and European Union,and what are they doing to
(41:05):
prepare for that?
Do you think that they arepreparing for a Trump presidency
as best they can, whether thatbe domestic weapons production,
or will they continue to supportUkraine and go it alone?
Just Europe and Ukraine if theUS is not back?
Mikhail Kasyanov (41:21):
That's interesting question, but it is
of course, better to ask thoseEuropean politicians, but my
impression is that of coursethey are very much concerned
about that.
I think what happened in thepast, especially relations with
the European Union and all thesanctions and quotas etc.
And barriers in trade and alsoproblems within NATO, that's
(41:42):
what of course, people alreadyknow, just how to tackle these
problems here.
But of course, talking aboutUkraine, that's the most
important issue.
The European Union withoutUnited States would not be
capable to support for the suchextent so that Ukraine could win
this battle.
But nevertheless, I believe inthe European politicians, also
(42:05):
believe that even Trump, butassuming that Trump is a
president, but in any case hecouldn't have a consensus and to
get just everything settled inCongress, but, as I said, be
part of some consensus orsupport.
Ukraine exists and strong, butthe only technicalities.
(42:27):
But I think that will be theadjustment.
Somehow we will see a lot ofnegative talks and a lot of
populistic talks, but that willcreate delays, that will create
a problem for Ukraine.
But in general terms, I thinkthat would be maybe not at such
scale and at such direct waysupport as current
(42:51):
administration provides for, butI think that will be.
In any case, transatlanticunity continue to exist in terms
of supporting Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (43:02):
Last question to you.
There have been a lot of peoplecampaigning, especially people
like Bill Browder and others,campaigning for Russian assets
that were frozen both in the USand in Europe to simply be
seized now and turned over toUkraine, especially given the
(43:23):
fact that there are the delaysand funding coming from the EU
and coming from the US.
Do you think there's a dangerin doing that, or that would be
a wise decision to turn overfrozen Russian assets in
European and American banks tothe Ukrainians?
Mikhail Kasyanov (43:38):
There are two types of those assets.
One of them private assets.
I mean just different, callthem oligarchs or whatever,
billionaires or whatever stuff.
Here it is completely different.
Things that should not beseized in any case in terms of
just because they don't condemnthe war.
That should be differentconsideration.
(43:59):
Because there's privateproperty, there's untouchable
thing for existing of the worldorder existing right now.
That should be consideration,individual basis on what is our
generation, et cetera, et cetera.
They I think they're doing this.
But other part of assets, thecentral bank, international
reserve, central bank, 300billion US dollar, that is a
(44:20):
different thing.
That's what discussion is goingon about, that the main problem
, what I expect now and see, ofcourse, everyone is concerned
about just whether these such astep, if those assets are seized
, whether they create a problemof destroying the whole
(44:41):
financial system existing rightnow.
I am a bank, all thesesituations, just different
organizations with supportingcountries, et cetera.
Dana Lewis (44:48):
Because since today , and also the whole monetary
system of seeking haven in theUS dollar.
Mikhail Kasyanov (44:57):
suddenly, so that's what I also mean about
that too.
Yeah, that is the, since thistime it never happened.
Never happened.
You should have known it coulddestroy the whole and mental
attitude for this monetarysystem.
But what it could be used, andI believe just they're trying to
(45:20):
walk out the model just to haveit as a pledge for the
potential loans to Ukraine, sothat for reconstruction of the
economy and et cetera, et cetera.
But then on the later stage,when the Ukraine wins and put in
defeat, and that will be adifferent discussion.
But right now I think therewill not be not possible to have
(45:44):
such a tough step and to seizethese assets and to create a
precedent which will be widelydiscussed in the whole world and
would create a negative effectfor international monetary
system.
Dana Lewis (45:58):
You're not a fan of doing it.
Mikhail Kasyanov (46:02):
I'm, it's not the right question, I'm just.
I see the problems.
I see the problems I don't wantthe world order will be.
Will be, I would say, destroy.
Putin already tried to destroyjust international security
system.
He already just on this.
But if we already just to addto them destroyment of financial
(46:24):
system, that what will have inthe end?
And this world buildingeverything in the beginning and
from the stretch, that will bevery difficult.
There will be mass in the wholeworld.
We already see just someproblems in the Middle East and
Ukraine, russia and just otherin Africa, et cetera, et cetera.
But where we can end up, thatis difficult, difficult way.
Dana Lewis (46:50):
Prime Minister Mikhail Kassianov.
Always good to talk to you, sir.
Thank you so much.
Mikhail Kasyanov (46:54):
Thank you, Dana.
Dana Lewis (46:55):
And that's our backstory this week.
Share the podcast if you likeit, and we'll bring you more.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon.
You, you?
My collaborators from my political
party just some of them arealready in jail, some of them
just waiting for their finalcourt decision, also just
sitting in jail.
That's why there's dangerousand of course I didn't want just
to leave with this risk anymore, and me and my family were left
Russia right after these events.
Tal Heinrich (00:22):
Of course, we will have to dismantle the
overwhelming majority of thisterrorist infrastructure,
because we say that we want tosee Gaza demilitarized and, once
we eliminate Hamas, we don'twant to see the resurgence of
another terrorist group down theroad that will use this
infrastructure again and you andI will have this conversation
again.
So it's a big, big challenge.
Avi Mayer (00:42):
Subsequently, we've learned that more than one
teacher actually have heldhostages in their homes,
including some who are parentsof children, who locked these
hostages away without adequatefood, water or medical care.
But, of course, the big storyin recent days, as you just said
, were these dozen 12 or soUNRWA employees who have been
(01:04):
found to be directly involved inthe Hamas massacre of October 7
.
Dana Lewis (01:13):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
This week, russia, there is anew opposition leader who's been
campaigning to run forpresident against Vladimir Putin
.
Does he have a chance?
Will the Kremlin let him run?
Well, it's likely notablequestions, but you never know.
We speak to former RussianPrime Minister, mikhail Kasyanov
, on the election, the war inUkraine and talk of seizing over
(01:37):
30 billion in Russian assetsabroad and giving them to
Ukraine for weapons andrebuilding.
But first Gaza and Israel's warto unseat Hamas and bring home
its hostages taken October 7.
Is Israel making progress inits goal to release hostages and
destroy Hamas?
In a moment we'll talk toIsraeli Prime Minister
(01:59):
Netanyahu's spokesperson, talHeinrich.
And when I was in Gaza, thebiggest charity organization was
the UN Relief Workers Agency,unrat.
Some of UNRWA staff wereinvolved in the attack on Israel
and even held Israeli hostages.
Now funding for UNRWA is beingheld by a number of countries,
(02:20):
because why would they givemoney to an organization that
appears to have worked hand inglove with a terrorist
organization?
It's a crisis for the UN, saysformer Jerusalem Post
editor-in-chief, avi Mayer.
But first that interview withTal.
Tal Heinrich is a spokespersonfor the Israeli Prime Minister's
Office of Prime MinisterNetanyahu.
(02:40):
She joins me now from New York,hi Tal.
Tal Heinrich (02:43):
My pleasure to be joining you, Dana.
Good to see you.
Dana Lewis (02:46):
Good to see you.
Look, three weeks if I can justbegin with what's happening on
the ground, three weeks afterthe IDF says Northern Gaza is
cleared, there's fighting inNorthern Gaza.
What's happening there?
It's obviously not cleared, anddoes this speak to the
resilience of Hamas?
Tal Heinrich (03:06):
You're correct, it's not clear of all terrorist
elements and terroristinfrastructure.
The IDF still has work to dothere.
But when we said that the areawas clear, we didn't mean that
it's 100% free of terroristelements, but rather that Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic jihad nolonger function as an organized
war machine in that area of theGaza Strip.
(03:29):
It's more right now aboutsporadic attacks, if you will,
as opposed to what we still havein the southern parts of Gaza,
like in Conde Unes, for example,and in the areas, the
neighborhoods in the centralpart of the Gaza Strip where
still you have these organizedbattalions.
But in terms of our progress,they are on the ground.
According to the IDF'sassessments, we have eliminated
(03:52):
more than 9,000 terrorists,arrested 2,300, and really took
out the overwhelming majority ofthe Hamas battalions as an
organized war machine.
There's still much work to bedone, more so when you think
about the terror infrastructurethat we're finding there.
Dana Lewis (04:12):
Can you talk to the Wall Street Journal story where
they're saying that maybeIsrael's managed to get only 20%
or 40% of tunnels, that thereare so many more left?
The number 300 miles of tunnelis often kicked around and I
don't know how accurate it is,but it's a hell of a challenge
(04:36):
trying to get down there, tryingto eliminate Hamas.
They're now talking aboutflooding some of those tunnels
with water the IDF Yet at thesame time you've got hostages
there and it's missionimpossible.
Tal Heinrich (04:50):
Well, obviously the plight of the hostages is
the top of minds in everydecision-making progress at the
central command and also on theground in Gaza.
When we eliminate these tunnels, obviously we have a certain
intelligence and now we're onassessment to make sure that
they're not there.
Of course, we will have todismantle the overwhelming
(05:13):
majority of this terroristinfrastructure because we say
that we want to see Gazademilitarized Once we eliminate
Hamas.
We don't want to see theresurgence of another terrorist
group down the road that willuse this infrastructure again
and you and I will have thisconversation again.
It's a big, big challenge.
My colleague, elon Levy you'rebased in London he says that the
(05:35):
underground metro of Gaza islarger than the London metro,
which is insane.
I myself went with Elon to visitone of these big tunnels, the
one that is just 400 meters awayfrom the heiress border
crossing in the northern part ofthe Gaza Strip.
Dana, I'm sorry on the personallevel.
(05:56):
I wanted to tell you that I wasstanding there inside this
massive tunnel, the one that avehicle can drive through.
You see how fortified it is.
You think of the iron, thecement, everything, all the
resources, human work and moneythat was invested in it.
You think this is insanity?
(06:17):
They're so committed to thisideology and idea of
obliterating Israel that theyinvest their effort and their
everything in this instead ofrebuilding themselves.
I was there and I was thinkingexactly as sort of what you said
well, wow, this is huge, thisis massive, and this is just one
.
It was just one.
Dana Lewis (06:38):
So the question that I saw put to former Shin
Bet chief Amy Eiland today wasis Israel winning?
And he said I can't say thatbecause we don't know what the
end game is.
So how do you spell victory atthis point?
Tal Heinrich (06:54):
We spell victory once we achieve the three goals
that we have set forth for thisoperation, for this war that we
didn't start and we didn't want.
We said that Hamas must beeliminated as the ruling
governance body in Gaza and asan organized war machine, as a
military wing.
When exactly this will happen,and what does it entail?
(07:16):
Will one terrorist still bealive or we managed to eliminate
all of them?
This is a decision that will be, of course, decided by the
military press of the IDF, byour government, and we said that
the hostages must come backhome, all of them.
That will be, of course, oneachievement.
Dana Lewis (07:35):
Let's hope those poor people get out of there,
and you can only imagine whatpeople have gone through over a
hundred days being held, abused,tortured.
Some are already dead.
So that brings us to thisdiscussion that there's a
hostage deal in the works.
But Prime Minister Netanyahu,your boss, stood there yesterday
and said we're not going torelease thousands of Palestinian
(07:57):
prisoners, despite what thenegotiations may be in Paris
between the USA and France andQatar and others.
We're not going to releasethousands of terrorists.
Who was he speaking to there?
It sounds like he was almostspeaking to the Americans,
saying don't pressure us into adeal that we can't accept.
Tal Heinrich (08:17):
Well, when the Prime Minister of Israel is
speaking right now at the heightof a war, I guess he's speaking
to everyone around the world,not only Israelis.
But I can tell you who he wasspeaking to today, and that is
families of hostages.
And he told them that theIsraeli government, he himself
personally, they're doingeverything possible to examine
(08:40):
every possible avenue to bringto the release, potentially, of
more hostages.
Now we know that what createdthe conditions back in November,
Dana, was the military pressurethat we exerted on Hamas on the
ground.
We were hitting them very, veryhard and the terrorists on the
ground.
They wanted to breathe there,and so we had this framework
which saw the release of some ofthe hostages.
(09:01):
It has to be a combination ofthe diplomatic avenue that we
don't expand on, for veryobvious reasons we don't really
discuss these terms openly,publicly, because these are
sensitive issues.
Human lives hang in the balance.
But we are really doingeverything possible to create
the conditions, to createanother framework that will see
(09:22):
the release of more hostages.
And you're right, we heard fromthe accounts of hostages who
came back in November after 50days or so in captivity and it's
unbelievable to try to imaginewhat these who are still there
for more than double the timeare suffering through, including
sexual abuse that we know forcertain Is taking place there
(09:44):
with some of the female hostages, because that's what one of the
female hostages who came backtold us.
Dana Lewis (09:50):
Will you comment on the fact that at least one of
those hostages maybe more werenot only taken by members of
UNRWA, the UN Relief WorkersAgency, but in fact at least one
of them that was released Ithink among that 50, came back
and told stories about how hewas held by an UNR teacher, how
he wasn't fed, he was held inhorrible conditions, and now you
(10:11):
have revelations that there'sat least a dozen UNR employees
were involved in the October 7thterror attack inside Israel, of
killing people, of takinghostages.
Tal Heinrich (10:24):
This is outrageous , I mean to people around the
world.
Many of them say, well, this isunbelievable.
But to Israelis this is nothingbut a surprise.
Israelis have been used to it,have been speaking about it for
years, how UNRWA is somewhat inbed with terrorism and preaches
(10:45):
to terrorism in UNRWA schools.
You know that a telegram groupof 3,000 UNRWA teachers
celebrated the massacre.
You had teachers that Israelpassed this information on to
the UN agency who participatedas part of the Hamas massacre.
They crossed into Israel.
Some of them the ones whoweren't in Israel helped Hamas
(11:06):
secure ammunition for the attackand secure logistics for the
attack.
One of them was involved inkidnapping a body of a soldier,
another of a kidnapping of ahostage.
So we know of at least twohostages right now who were held
by UNR people.
And it's not a bug in the system, it's a feature of the system.
(11:28):
And the mere existence of UNRWAis flawed.
To begin with, dana, the factthat this agency exists in an
unprecedented way, dedicated tothe so-called Palestinian
refugee problem, which in itsessence, if you boil it down,
the existence of UNRWA isbasically to put a question mark
(11:49):
over the existence of Israel,to keep Israel as some temporary
entity in the mind ofPalestinians by telling them
generation after generation youare refugees of wars that you
started, and until until when?
Until Israel will cease toexist.
So UNR is flawed on so manydifferent levels, but really
(12:10):
what we revealed was just thetip of the iceberg.
Dana Lewis (12:13):
Well, I know UNRWA is also in charge of giving out
food and water and support forUNR eroding.
Now it comes at an impossiblecritical time and I guess
there'll be a lot of discussionabout if you replace UNR, what
do you replace it with?
But very quickly, before I letyou go, you know Hamas has
gained popularity in the WestBank, as has Islamic Jihad.
(12:37):
There are great fears by theIsraeli security establishment
of attacks that can occur, justlike the one October, the 7th
from Gaza into Israel couldhappen, from the West Bank into
Israel.
Are you worried at the PrimeMinister's office that the
threat is increasing?
And how do you stop thispopularity of Hamas in the West
(12:58):
Bank now?
And where is Fata?
Where are the moderates?
Tal Heinrich (13:03):
That is a very good question, because when you
look at internal Palestinianpolling of their own population,
not only in Gaza but also inthe West Bank, you see that in
the West Bank, 85% ofPalestinians support the October
7 atrocities.
They support Hamas's doing,which really makes you, you know
(13:23):
, question and think of what thefuture could be like.
And this is why we say thatdown the road, once Hamas is
eliminated, we want to see Gazademilitarized, but also the
Palestinian society as a whole,not only in Gaza but also in the
West Bank, de-radicalized.
Because without that, withoutthat and you're in Europe, so
(13:47):
you know better without theradicalization of extreme
elements in the society, wecan't have peace.
We can't.
And you know, you've seen, youreported that Israel has made
peace with many other Arabnations because conditions on
the ground were right for itwhen the timing was right.
But processes have to takeplace and unfortunately some of
(14:10):
these processes take time.
But we hope that once weeliminate Hamas and we deal
terrorism such a major blow asit deserves, moderate voices
will fill in the vacuum and thatthe Palestinians would
understand that terrorism willalways be a dead end.
So why choosing it?
Dana Lewis (14:30):
It was a feature of the Oslo Accords, tal, and you
know many believe that, evenwhether the best peace process
in place, unless youde-radicalize Palestinians and
stop celebrating bus bombingsand suicide attacks, the
violence would never stop and itnever did.
And Hamas jumped right in thereand led that charge in terms of
(14:51):
terrorist attacks in Israel.
So what you speak about, youknow, has been just isn't
looking forward, but it's alsoleaning back and looking at what
went wrong, oslo in the 90s.
So, tal Heinrich, spokesman forthe Israeli Prime Minister's
office, tal, good to talk to you.
Tal Heinrich (15:07):
Thank you so much, Dana.
Dana Lewis (15:15):
Avi Mayer is the former editor and chief of the
Jerusalem Post and he joins menow from Jerusalem, avi, nice,
to meet you.
Avi Mayer (15:21):
Good to meet you as well.
Dana Lewis (15:23):
Look this controversy with UNRWA, Canada.
The US have paused funding toUNRWA, so of seven other
countries I think, as we countnow, uk, australia, italy,
germany, the Netherlands,switzerland, finland have taken
similar action.
Is it fair or is this a slightoverreaction right now?
Avi Mayer (15:45):
Look, unrwa has been a problem for many years.
Some would say that it datesback to its very foundation, in
the aftermath of Israel's war ofindependence in 1949, when it
was granted this mandate.
That is quite different thanthat of the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees.
Whereas the UNHCR is taskedwith the resettlement of
refugees and essentially endingthe refugee status, unrwa exists
(16:09):
to perpetuate the refugeestatus of those Palestinians who
it serves, which is why you'veseen the number of Palestinian
refugees, or people classifiedas Palestinian refugees over the
loon over the past 75 years tomillions and millions around the
world, including those who haverequired citizenship in their
current places of residence.
Over the past 20 years or so,various different organizations
(16:32):
have raised concerns about allsorts of ties between UNRWA and
terrorist groups, as well asUNRWA's own operations, which
are viewed as being tainted byincitement to violence, the deal
generalization of Israel'sright to exist, anti-semitic
tropes and so on and so forth.
For many years, there have beenall sorts of charges about
(16:53):
UNRWA's ties to Hamas, that itcan only operate in Gaza because
it's in cahoots with Hamas inmany respects, that many of its
employees are, in fact, hamasmembers and, in fact, that has
come to a head during thecurrent conflict.
Just a few weeks ago, when Iwas still at the Jerusalem Post,
we published a report that wasfirst circulated by an Israeli
(17:15):
journalist named Al Mugh Boker,that one of the hostages in
Gaza… If I can jump in, becauseyou've packed a lot in there.
Dana Lewis (17:22):
But that's really that post that you put up is
what led me to ask you for theinterview, because you wrote
that an Israeli who had beenheld hostage in Gaza he was the
captive of a teacher employed byUNRWA, and that UNRWA later on
turned around and slammed yourreport at the Jerusalem Post,
(17:44):
essentially saying it wasungrounded, unfounded.
How dare you?
What did they say to you?
Avi Mayer (17:50):
They said exactly that, that they had not been
presented with evidence thatthese are unsubstantiated
allegations, and they requestedvery strongly that we remove the
report from our website.
You got it wrong.
Dana Lewis (18:01):
You got it wrong because you only said there was
one.
Avi Mayer (18:04):
Right, exactly.
Dana Lewis (18:07):
In fact there's now at least a dozen UNRWA
employees that have been namedand that has been provided to
the US, to the White House, aswell as a number of countries.
So you didn't get it wrong.
But you spoke about one caseand I know that I shouldn't
inject any humor in what is avery serious situation.
But the fact is that you know,in fact they got off pretty
(18:31):
lightly in your story comparedto what's come out now.
Avi Mayer (18:35):
Yeah, I mean look.
Subsequently we've learned thatmore than one teacher actually
have held hostages in theirhomes, including some who are
parents of children, who lockedthese hostages away without
adequate food, water or medicalcare.
But, of course, the big story inrecent days, as you just said,
were these dozen 12 or so UNRWAemployees who have been found to
(18:58):
be directly involved in theHamas massacre of October 7th.
About half of them arethemselves teachers, which is
astounding when you think aboutit.
Others have other roles withinthe organization, but they
played an active role inkidnapping, massacring,
transferring weapons to Hamas onthe day of the massacre, and
(19:20):
one report that just came out ofshort while ago by the Wall
Street Journal said that,according to an intelligence
estimate, about one in 10 UNRWAemployees in Gaza are somehow
linked to terroristorganizations.
That's about 1200 people.
So in the aftermath of thefirst revelation about the 12,
we were hearing many criticssaying you know how could you
judge an entire organizationbased on the actions of only 12
(19:43):
people?
Here we see we're talking about1200 people, which is about one
out of every 10 owned police.
That is an organization that isentirely compromised and
requires substantive reform.
Dana Lewis (19:54):
I want to explore that a little bit with you.
I mean, the US NationalSecurity spokesman, john Kirby,
said today it's serious, but youshouldn't impugn the characters
of 10,000 employees across theregion that UNRWA is operating
in.
Avi Mayer (20:10):
Look, that is certainly Admiral Kirby's
prerogative.
I think the situation is muchdeeper than that, and we've
known it for many, many years.
This is an organization that istainted from the very core of
its mandate.
Its previous director has saidexplicitly that has a political
mandate and that you know wecan't do anything about it.
We just operate within theconfines of that mandate.
(20:30):
The mandate itself is wrong.
If it is just perpetuating theproblem, which is what it's
doing, then perhaps the mandateneeds to change or the
organization needs to bedismantled and the refugees
handed over to the UN HighCommissioner for refugees and
their status made equal to therefugees of any country around
the world.
I think that is probably whatwe need to explore.
Perhaps not at this moment,when UNRWA is doing important
(20:51):
work in some respect in Gaza,caring for the humanitarian
needs of the Palestinianpopulation there, but at some
point in the future a reckoningmust come and the organization
needs to either reform or betotally dismantled and be
absorbed into another country.
Dana Lewis (21:03):
What's the alternative?
I mean, I've been to Gazahundreds of times as a
correspondent over the years.
I'm sure you've probably beenthere.
I mean, the UNRWA hands out youknow, I've seen them handing
out, you know, water andpowdered milk and rice, and I
mean they're a frontline agency.
They are in an environmentwhich is run by Hamas.
(21:24):
I'm going to get into theorganization, no matter how good
your screening is.
But I don't want to give themthe benefit of the doubt either
and I want to ask you do youthink that they completely not
only failed in that respect, butturned a blind eye to what was
happening in their organization,how deep Hamas was infiltrating
(21:48):
the organization, using theorganization maybe as a front
and to protect the Hamasmilitary wing?
Avi Mayer (21:58):
Look.
According to former UNRWAofficials, there are no
pre-employment screeningprocedures in place.
They, essentially, will hirepretty much anyone, and so, yes,
we know as a matter of fact, upuntil this point and this was
admitted by former directors ofthe organization that there were
Hamas members.
Now we know that it's at leastone in every 10 members of their
(22:19):
team who are somehow affiliatedwith either Hamas, Islamic
Jihad or other terroristorganizations.
That is profound.
That is an organization thathas a very deep set problem, and
so you asked what thealternative is.
I think the alternative is veryclear.
What is the solution to thePalestinian refugee problem?
The UN High Commissioner ofRefugees, which deals with every
other refugee case around theworld.
The Palestinians are the onlygroup that has their own.
(22:42):
What would that do?
What would that do?
I'm sorry, what's that?
What would that do if you movethat?
Well, the UN High Commissionerof Refugees is an organization
that has a budget in thebillions, that deals with
millions upon millions ofrefugees around the world, and
it simply is not tainted in thesame way that UNRA is.
It is an organization that isunfortunately tainted to the
core.
It has been compromised formany, many years and it simply
(23:04):
needs to either reform and do soseriously, with an independent
investigation looking into whatall those problems are and how
they can be addressed ordismantled and absorbed into UN
High Commissioner of Refugees.
I don't see an alternative.
Dana Lewis (23:16):
Where do you think we're headed right now?
I mean, in Jerusalem there wasa conference last night that had
a lot of right-wing members ofNetanyahu's cabinet in there,
including Ben Gvir, who's youknow former Kach member, and you
know they were dancing aroundthe idea that they relocate
Palestinians out of Gaza.
(23:36):
I mean, is that not beyondextreme?
Do Israelis support that?
Do you think, or do you think,that that is gaining momentum
within Israel?
Avi Mayer (23:48):
I think the overwhelming majority of
Israelis are horrified by thenotion of any return to Gaza on
a permanent basis.
The notion of resettling Jewsin Gaza, I think, is one that is
entirely far into the vastmajority of Israelis.
What you saw at that reallyunfortunate conference in
Jerusalem last night, which, asyou said, was indeed attended by
(24:08):
members of this government, wasa display of extremism that is
highly unrepresentative ofIsraeli society.
What Israelis want is to livein peace and security.
That can only be achieved whenthe hostages are brought home
and Hamas' capacity To evercarry out a massacre like
October the 7th is dismantled.
That is the goal here.
The goal is not to repopulateGaza, and I hope that we're able
(24:29):
to achieve those goals verysoon.
Dana Lewis (24:31):
How does it end?
Is it military reoccupation ofGaza?
I mean, if you don't bringsettlers back, is it continued
military occupation of Gaza,which may go on for years?
And behind the scenes, what areyou hearing?
Do you think that there ismomentum for an international
effort now to bring about somekind of Palestinian self-rule in
(24:54):
Gaza that will replace theextremist group Hamas and get
them out of them?
Avi Mayer (25:01):
There are various proposals being floated at this
time.
From what I'm hearing, it islikely there will be some kind
of Israeli presence in Gaza, atleast till the end of the
current year, until the end of2024.
We'll not look the way it doesnow.
There will probably be farfewer troops actually on the
ground, but Israel will maintainthe capacity to come in and
deal with terrorist activity asit resurfaces, as it almost
(25:22):
certainly will.
As for longer-term arrangements, we've heard various
conversations about amultinational force, perhaps
populated by Arab states in theGulf, coming in and taking
responsibility for security ofthat territory.
But yes, certainly we wouldwant to see some kind of
Palestinian self-rule reemergein that territory, one that is
not tainted by terrorism likeHamas, or by associated with
(25:45):
terrorism, as the Palestinianauthority in the West Bank
currently is.
What that looks like remains tobe seen.
There are various differentproposals floating about.
We certainly hope that that'ssomething that can be
effectuated as soon as possible.
Dana Lewis (25:56):
What a big remain to be seen, chapter that still
has to be written.
Anyway, avi Mayer, the formereditor and chief of Jerusalem
Post, great to talk to you.
Thank you so much.
Avi Mayer (26:07):
Thank you for having me.
Dana Lewis (26:14):
Mikhail Kasyanov is a former prime minister of
Russia and now he lives in exilein Europe.
Mikhail, welcome, I use thatterm and you can correct me in
exile precariously, because youleft Russia willingly when the
war happened in Ukraine, but nowyou probably cannot go back.
Mikhail Kasyanov (26:36):
Absolutely, I cannot go back.
That's why I just left Russiawhen they started to adopt just
legislation under which they canput in jail just people for
criticism.
And we have a number ofexamples and my collaborators
from my political party justsome of them already in jail,
some of them just waiting fortheir final court decision also
(26:57):
just sitting in jail.
That's why there's danger andof course, I didn't want just to
leave with this risk anymoreand me and my family left Russia
right after these events.
Dana Lewis (27:12):
It has to be emotional.
I mean, you're a patriot.
You worked next to thepresident, you worked in the
Kremlin, you worked for thecountry.
You rose to one of the highestranks in terms of the political
(27:32):
landscape in Russia.
You then fought, as anopposition person, suddenly to
be saying that you're a foreignagent and cannot go back to your
country.
These are dark days.
Mikhail Kasyanov (27:46):
That's absolutely strange and it took
them a year to decide whether toname me as a foreign agent or
not.
Because there's the informationthat even in September last
year I mean 2022, where alreadyjust my name was put for
consideration and that took thema year to make a decision and
(28:07):
maybe they were waiting for thepermission of Putin so that
whether it's possible to nameformer prime minister who worked
with Putin first, his firstterm, just as a foreign agent.
That is absolutely strange andthat's for an agent.
(28:29):
That is some kind of bazaar,because these people in power,
Putin's team, if we can call itthe team they believe that
critics of Putin's regime couldbe the crazy people of foreign
agent.
And that's what they've chosenfor me, just for an agent.
And that's what already justmore than 200 people and more
(28:49):
than 300 of differentorganizations named.
As for an agent, just forcriticism of Putin, for
criticism of the war yes, theyare correct, I condemn the war,
I criticize Putin, I walk partof Russian anti-war community.
That's what they also are justincriminating me that it is
(29:11):
dangerous organization becausewe're against the war.
All these facts and, as aresult, just a strange, strange
name.
But it is the fact, the law.
They produce this for an agent,that is, we are not for an
agent.
We're agent of our country, ofour motherland.
As I said, we are, of course,patriots of our country and we'd
(29:31):
like much better.
We're good for the country, butit's good for the country.
In Putin's mind, that'scompletely different.
His people believe that theirenrichment and their ruling and
the keep the power that is thegood for the country, but not as
us and other many millions ofRussians who believe that we
(29:54):
should live in a prosperous, Iwould say civilized country,
part of Europe.
Dana Lewis (30:01):
Do you know Boris Nejeshtyn, who is now running,
attempting to run against Putinfor president, and what would
you say about him?
Mikhail Kasyanov (30:11):
Oh, what I can say, just the most important
thing, is what I have to stress,that he continued to keep on
the opposition and openlydiscussing this and describing
this not in a very, I would say,direct way, but very clear,
very clear, with the moredelicate manner of describing
this as a crucial mistake orsomething like that.
(30:31):
And I think, and I almost sure,that he will not be registered
for the second part of Iranbecause of this position,
because just people would likealternative.
They don't know who Nadezhda isabout, but they would like to
vote for the person, whateverperson is, who against the war,
(30:54):
who wants to stop this war assoon as possible.
Nadezhda right now representsthis opinion.
That's why there is a growingpopularity of him, and I'm sure
that they will not I meanKremlin, putin will not take
this risk to register him forthe final run, because just
people could definitely could goto the voting stations and put
(31:20):
the ballot, but of course, theresult will be predictable.
Putin would win, but the riskthat people, and a lot of people
, including many officers,military officers and from the
police, they would understandthey voted against that but
result could appear just asPutin wanted.
That would create a public riskand a risk of, I would say,
(31:46):
demonstrations, protests on thestreets.
I don't think Putin would takethis risk.
That's why Nadezhda will not beregistered.
Dana Lewis (31:52):
Do you think it was a mistake by the Kremlin to let
him get so far now, becauseit's become quite public?
Or do you think that theywanted to create the atmosphere
of a democracy, even though weknow that these elections are
not democratic?
Mikhail Kasyanov (32:09):
They wanted to create an atmosphere of
democracy, but they don't caremuch about that.
But in fact there was nothing,as I would say, potential
methods to cut him from on thisstage, just simply to put a jail
, just for criticism.
But they didn't do this andthey wanted some kind of
(32:33):
landscape to appear that manypeople and they would like.
The outcome just visiting justpolling stations would be high.
That's why they're thinkingthis way.
They didn't know that Nadezhdawill continue to have such
anti-opposition and people wouldcontinue to support and
(32:53):
demonstrating their will to putsignature for his registration.
And I think that it's alreadyjust.
They run too far.
Dana Lewis (33:02):
You think it's getting away on them, that it's
getting out of control for them?
Mikhail Kasyanov (33:06):
Not getting out of control, but much more
difficult for them and much morerisky for them, as they
expected.
Dana Lewis (33:12):
What happened to you when you tried to run for
president?
Because you were very organizedand you traveled the country.
You had a real grassrootsorganization, parnass, and you
had local election offices.
Tell me from your experiencewhat did they do to you to stop
you?
Mikhail Kasyanov (33:32):
Yeah, correct, and that time that was a
completely different time.
It was almost democracy existedand at that time we all
believed that there was a chanceto change, not to allow Putin
to go this route.
What we come now, nobody couldexpect that we could come.
But at that time, of course, asyou correctly mentioned, that
(34:00):
political group, political party, just was organized and we were
prepared for this, collectingthe signatures and the trouble
of the country.
But they didn't expect theKremlin, they didn't expect that
popularity my popularity wouldstart to raise so rapidly.
Within one month of colleague'ssignature my rating was 6% and
in one month it was 18%.
(34:22):
And they understood that atthat time not Putin but Medvedev
was running from Putin's teamand at that time just was
absolutely dangerous and it wasa great risk and I believe just
we potentially could have windthose elections, one of the
selections as a general supportbasis, on the basis, on the
(34:45):
basis of the general support.
It didn't happen.
They caught me on that stage.
What as they going to do this?
Dana Lewis (34:51):
They tried to say what?
The signatures weren't valid.
The people who supported youwere not real people.
Fictitious signatures, I meanthey did everything.
Mikhail Kasyanov (35:02):
They were two million signatures and they say
170 they don't like and out ofthis 175, 35, they believed was
not put by real people.
But it was just technicalreason.
But of course everybody knowswhat actual political grounds
(35:22):
were for that.
Dana Lewis (35:25):
We're sitting in one of the Baltic countries
which sit in great fear ofwhat's happening in Ukraine
right now, that they believethat Europe and America are
going way too slow on weaponssupplies, that we're reaching a
dangerous precipice where Russiawill continue not in eastern
(35:51):
Ukraine but they will threatenother sort of NATO frontline
countries.
What is the mood where you areand what do you believe?
If you were to take a snapshot,historically, of where you
think we are and where we'regoing, what would you say?
Mikhail Kasyanov (36:09):
You are correct that, in terms of Baltic
states, people here, andpoliticians in particular, are
just very much concerned aboutthat because they understand how
Putin hates these countries andthe people of these countries.
That's why, of course, theyhave all reasons to think this
way that if Ukraine will bedefeated, it means just next
(36:33):
step would be Baltic states.
They don't want to beunprepared.
That's why they're very nervousand asking other NATO members
to support them.
I think just the NATO membersare just doing this.
But in talking about Ukraine, Ibelieve that all these I would
say mass which we take I don'tthink just we correct what.
(36:58):
But what's going on in the USright now just in terms of not
agreeing on adoption of thesupport or package, the support
for Ukraine.
But I know I talked topoliticians of both countries
there just half a year ago andall of them just raised
bipartisan consensus on thesupport of Ukraine.
(37:20):
But internal problems, internaldisagreements, just blocking
the support Unfortunately it hasalready has an effect on the
situation in the front inUkraine.
Ukraine and all, of course, theinformation and I would say the
landscape provides that somekind of fatigue come and
(37:41):
European countries just will notbe so actively in support, but
I talk recently to Europeanpoliticians that there is also
absolutely great consensus andthe readiness to continue
support Ukraine.
That's what we need right now,as soon as possible.
Decision, positive decision inthe US.
I'd like to believe it will besoon, Although I disappointed
(38:01):
that that didn't happen inDecember.
I thought and earned as soon asthe Congress will reintegrate
just the process.
Now it didn't happen, but I'dlike to believe they will make
the decision soon.
European Union on the 1st ofFebruary going to make this
decision too, and I'd like tobelieve that Ukraine would feel
just very solid grounds andcontinue to defend themselves.
(38:24):
They are sovereign in here.
Dana Lewis (38:26):
Because what will Putin do?
Do you think he's content tokeep Eastern Ukraine, maybe some
expansion along the Black Seacoast, or do you think that his
goals are much broader than that?
Mikhail Kasyanov (38:45):
There was, of course, much broader.
The goals were much, muchbroader, but right now I think
just Putin already switched thewar for war and attrition.
He managed during one year toswitch Russian economy on
military stands and, in fact,just those production facilities
(39:06):
which were left for decadesafter Soviet Union collapsed
over Soviet Union.
Now just they reintegrated allthose production and they
produce a lot of ammunition, ormaybe not all such high-tech
quality, but that is a lot ofthings and it's 10 times the
(39:28):
quantity, 10 times bigger thanUkraine can use just right now.
That's why just they believethat competition of potentials,
economic potentials and humanpotentials, Putin, he believes
that he would win.
That's what.
Also he believes that fatiguealready come and just expecting
(39:51):
that Donald Trump will winelections and then just
reconsider the attitude tosupporting Ukraine.
I think all these factorscombinational factors and he
will wait.
I don't think that he's goingto have another offensive
operation in spring, as somepeople say, because just he
already have also facinginternal problems and there will
(40:12):
be more growing problems ineconomy and financial system in
Russia.
But of course he believes thathe will win the war of attrition
, competition of potentials.
He believes that West will fedup of supporting and allocating
so much money and sooner orlater they will press Ukraine to
(40:35):
sit down and to accept Putin'sterms of capitulation.
Dana Lewis (40:41):
What do your European context?
I know you talk to politiciansa lot and you talk to people in
the EU.
What do they say about apossible reelection of Donald
Trump as president and thedangers to not only Ukraine but
a wider NATO and European Union,and what are they doing to
(41:05):
prepare for that?
Do you think that they arepreparing for a Trump presidency
as best they can, whether thatbe domestic weapons production,
or will they continue to supportUkraine and go it alone?
Just Europe and Ukraine if theUS is not back?
Mikhail Kasyanov (41:21):
That's interesting question, but it is
of course, better to ask thoseEuropean politicians, but my
impression is that of coursethey are very much concerned
about that.
I think what happened in thepast, especially relations with
the European Union and all thesanctions and quotas etc.
And barriers in trade and alsoproblems within NATO, that's
(41:42):
what of course, people alreadyknow, just how to tackle these
problems here.
But of course, talking aboutUkraine, that's the most
important issue.
The European Union withoutUnited States would not be
capable to support for the suchextent so that Ukraine could win
this battle.
But nevertheless, I believe inthe European politicians, also
(42:05):
believe that even Trump, butassuming that Trump is a
president, but in any case hecouldn't have a consensus and to
get just everything settled inCongress, but, as I said, be
part of some consensus orsupport.
Ukraine exists and strong, butthe only technicalities.
(42:27):
But I think that will be theadjustment.
Somehow we will see a lot ofnegative talks and a lot of
populistic talks, but that willcreate delays, that will create
a problem for Ukraine.
But in general terms, I thinkthat would be maybe not at such
scale and at such direct waysupport as current
(42:51):
administration provides for, butI think that will be.
In any case, transatlanticunity continue to exist in terms
of supporting Ukraine.
Dana Lewis (43:02):
Last question to you.
There have been a lot of peoplecampaigning, especially people
like Bill Browder and others,campaigning for Russian assets
that were frozen both in the USand in Europe to simply be
seized now and turned over toUkraine, especially given the
(43:23):
fact that there are the delaysand funding coming from the EU
and coming from the US.
Do you think there's a dangerin doing that, or that would be
a wise decision to turn overfrozen Russian assets in
European and American banks tothe Ukrainians?
Mikhail Kasyanov (43:38):
There are two types of those assets.
One of them private assets.
I mean just different, callthem oligarchs or whatever,
billionaires or whatever stuff.
Here it is completely different.
Things that should not beseized in any case in terms of
just because they don't condemnthe war.
That should be differentconsideration.
(43:59):
Because there's privateproperty, there's untouchable
thing for existing of the worldorder existing right now.
That should be consideration,individual basis on what is our
generation, et cetera, et cetera.
They I think they're doing this.
But other part of assets, thecentral bank, international
reserve, central bank, 300billion US dollar, that is a
(44:20):
different thing.
That's what discussion is goingon about, that the main problem
, what I expect now and see, ofcourse, everyone is concerned
about just whether these such astep, if those assets are seized
, whether they create a problemof destroying the whole
(44:41):
financial system existing rightnow.
I am a bank, all thesesituations, just different
organizations with supportingcountries, et cetera.
Dana Lewis (44:48):
Because since today , and also the whole monetary
system of seeking haven in theUS dollar.
Mikhail Kasyanov (44:57):
suddenly, so that's what I also mean about
that too.
Yeah, that is the, since thistime it never happened.
Never happened.
You should have known it coulddestroy the whole and mental
attitude for this monetarysystem.
But what it could be used, andI believe just they're trying to
(45:20):
walk out the model just to haveit as a pledge for the
potential loans to Ukraine, sothat for reconstruction of the
economy and et cetera, et cetera.
But then on the later stage,when the Ukraine wins and put in
defeat, and that will be adifferent discussion.
But right now I think therewill not be not possible to have
(45:44):
such a tough step and to seizethese assets and to create a
precedent which will be widelydiscussed in the whole world and
would create a negative effectfor international monetary
system.
Dana Lewis (45:58):
You're not a fan of doing it.
Mikhail Kasyanov (46:02):
I'm, it's not the right question, I'm just.
I see the problems.
I see the problems I don't wantthe world order will be.
Will be, I would say, destroy.
Putin already tried to destroyjust international security
system.
He already just on this.
But if we already just to addto them destroyment of financial
(46:24):
system, that what will have inthe end?
And this world buildingeverything in the beginning and
from the stretch, that will bevery difficult.
There will be mass in the wholeworld.
We already see just someproblems in the Middle East and
Ukraine, russia and just otherin Africa, et cetera, et cetera.
But where we can end up, thatis difficult, difficult way.
Dana Lewis (46:50):
Prime Minister Mikhail Kassianov.
Always good to talk to you, sir.
Thank you so much.
Mikhail Kasyanov (46:54):
Thank you, Dana.
Dana Lewis (46:55):
And that's our backstory this week.
Share the podcast if you likeit, and we'll bring you more.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening toBackstory and I'll talk to you
again soon.
You, you?
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