Russian President Vladimir Putin's demands for a ceasefire have been rejected by European leaders at a Ukraine summit.
The leaders of Italy and Germany have lambasted Putin's proposals, which included Ukraine handing over more territory to Russia.
It comes as world leaders meet in Switzerland to discuss ending the conflict.
New Zealand foreign affairs expert professor Robert Patman says Putin wants the invasion to be internationally recognised.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks dB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
World leaders have gathered at a Swiss mountain resort to
try to build support for Ukraine's peace proposal. Mark Mitchell,
that is going to be representing New Zealand. By the way,
I just went on and googled it's Bergenstock. Is the
Bergenstock on the shores of Lake Lucern. Oh wow, you'd
(00:31):
have to save up a little bit to stay there.
But of course Switzerland itself is an incredibly expensive but
what a gorgeous spot. We're not going to be talking
about the scenery though, but more than ninety countries are
taking part in the summit on Peace in Ukraine. Russia
was not invited and China its most important.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Ali.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I think this is a shame they refused to attend
and to discuss that, I'm joined by international relations professor
at Otago University and his name is Robert Patman. Robert,
good afternoon. So Russia has set out a ceasefire terms
which have been rejected by most European leaders. What did
you make of the offer of the ceasefire?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Well, it's a non aufer because the so called peace
initiative consists of mister Booting consolidating two regions Donetsk con Hands,
which he has under occupation, and two other regions which
are not fully under his occupation, which are cursed and Supportia.
(01:33):
So what he's saying in effect is that he wants
his invasion to be internationally recognized and the gains of
that illegal invasion to be recognized internationally. In return, he
will agree there should be no more fighting. So he's
looking at basically peeling off about twenty percent of Ukraine.
(01:54):
And in addition, Ukraine would have to give a solemn
undertake in never to join NATO, which means that he's
actually vetoing the sovereign voices of a neighboring country. So
to me, it's not a serious thing at all because
it's completely inconsistent with the UN Charter, with international law.
(02:17):
Why do you think he did it, Well, there's several reasons. Firstly,
it's not hitting the headlines, but the Russian armed forces
are now beginning to take a bit of a battering
in Crimea and air defense in EU Crimea has become problematic,
so he needs also responding to the fact that Russia
(02:38):
has taken huge casualties in Ukraine, and so he may
be feeling a little bit of domestic heat there and
he wants to I think he's not involved in the
Ukraine peace conference in Switzerland, so he wanted to get
the world's attention that he wants to play the reasonable guy,
the invader who's been misunderstood essentially. So yeah, I think
(03:03):
those in those motivations are there. He wants to take
a bit of flay away from the peace conference in Switzerland,
and he's also concerned I think about the battlefield situation.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Okay, just the fact of the offering itself, even though
obviously there's a lot of cynicism behind it, we suspect
does it give any cause for optimism that we can
read into the fact that, well, he's at least raised it.
Does it Does it give Europe and Ukraine's something to
work with or is it simply just a distraction and
(03:37):
a piece of cynical politics.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Well, I think is a distraction and the cynical politics
because it's not based on a rules based order. For
a country like New Zealand, we have to operate internationally
on the basis of rules and principles, and you can't
have a country effectively engage in a land grab and
then said, oh we're happy, we're twenty percent of what
we've grabbed. We did try to grab the whole country,
(04:00):
but we didn't manage to do it. And is the
international care I mean, is you're going to recognize such
behavior because it doesn't stop there? Ex that's a precedent,
and I think that's you know, it's not it's certainly
not in Usine's interests to say that's fine. So this
is an attempt for a land for peace deal. But
you know what happens in six what happens in six
(04:22):
months time if he decides those those regions that he
said he would accept in return for peace, he decides
he needs a bit more.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So it's not even a starting point for any sort
of case.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's not serious at all. I mean, let's be quite clear,
good mister Putin can stop this conflict within twenty four
hours by withdrawing Russian forces to the internationally recognized borders
of Russia.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, exactly what pretty much what Zelensky has said. What
about Europe using the money from frozen seized assets? Is
this is this part of making support for Ukraine trump proof?
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I think it's an attempt to do that. And also
in addition, of course NATO are taking a similar measure
because they've made with the exception of Hungary, which tends
to be pro putin, all the other members of NATO
are in agreeing to make a contribution to Ukraine's defense mandatory.
(05:18):
We also know that a number of European countries are
sending trainers to Ukraine's territory to train the Ukrainian army.
So I think that there's a recognition that mister Trump
may win the election and they have to protect their
strategic interest because mister Trump's made it quite clear he
will not be supporting the attempt of Ukraine to eject
(05:41):
the invasion force on his territory.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
How much has actually been seized with those assets? I mean,
and do you know how do you know how this
is going to work? Because who controls those seas deaths?
A yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I mean it's a bit problematic because while assets are frozen,
I think more than three hundred million. My understanding is
they're using the interest from those frozen assets. I think
the reasoning is that you know, Russia has broken international
law and therefore it's not entitled to the same protections
(06:16):
that everyone else has who's complying with international law. But
it's still I think many international lawyers are quite or
uncomfortable about what's happening because you know, it could set
a precedent as well.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well, I guess the thing is it's sort of like
a halfway house. They haven't actually taken the assets. Is
They're just going to use the benefits, aren't they. So
it's a sort of is it a compromise?
Speaker 1 (06:38):
When you look at the damage, literally one hundreds of
billions of dollars have damage to infrastructure of Ukraine in
an unprovoked war, you can understand why there is a
lot of feeling, not least in Ukraine. But they desperately
need an infusion of funds and why not use this money?
But as I say, the proof of that, you know,
(07:01):
the proof of the pudding is going to be eating.
How's this going to work out?
Speaker 2 (07:05):
It is an interesting one. They're talking about precedents, but
of course we've had reparations before for wars and stuff,
and so I'm not sure why they're Well, I can
understand why they're nervous about it. Lawyers are always nervous
about everything, aren't they But what would you think if
they actually said stuff that we're going to seize the
assets and we're going to apply all this for Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
I think it's a huge injustice if Russia doesn't make
any contribution to all the damage that it's caused in
a neighboring country. I mean, we are literally look at Mariopol,
a beautiful city which was just absolutely reduced to rubble
and all because of the territorial ambitions of the Putin regime.
(07:42):
And you have to say, you know that there has
to be some means of rebuilding Ukraine when foreign forces
are eventually ejected from that country.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Now onto the just on the Olympics, the Italian Prime
Minister Georgia Maloney says the G seven unanimously backed a
French proposal to request a global truth during the Olympic Games. Okay,
what chance of success of that.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Global truths in relation to the Ukraine during the Olympics, Well,
I don't think obviously that would depend on the two
conflicting parties. I don't know what mister Selensky said about that.
It's interesting though that the Ukraine Initiative, the Conference in Ukraine,
(08:33):
which you began with the introduction to mister Mistersky. President
Selensky is actually trying to begin the process of getting
in a comprehensive piece plan in place. So it's just
the beginning of a long process, but it's quite a
significant step and it shows I think, you know, mister
(08:54):
Putin is very concerned about this. What what is what
is uh Selensky hoping to do? Well? Is this this
conference is being offended by more than one hundred countries
and organizations. Actually, and yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Sorry, you know, you're right because actually I realized that
I one of my earlier questions get deflicted by Putin
and actually the whole question is yeah, so let's let's
just let's just flesh that out a little bit more
before you before we wrap it up as what are
they hoping to achieve from the summit they're having in Switzerland.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Well, hoping to come up with an internationally supported plan
to bring peace to Ukraine which is consistent with international
law and the Union Charter and amongst other things. The
plan that mister Selenski has tabled, although he said, you know,
he's he's willing to consider other variations on it, is
(09:43):
a cessation of hostilities, the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity,
withdraw Russian troops Ukrainian soil, and the restoration of Ukraine's
pre war borders with Russia. Now, none of that's acceptable
to the Russian leadership, but is what has wide support internationally,
and so it's putting pressure on Russia and is an
(10:06):
attempt to mobilize international support for Ukraine's position.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So Ukraine's military position was looking pretty a little bit
bleaker a few weeks ago. But how's it looking now, Yeah,
there was, it.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Was, But there's some worrying things from mister Putin because
Ukraine has is for the last few months, has been
baking a strategy what's called asymmetrical warfare. It's not attempting
to punch a hole through Russian defenses. Is going over
the top now because it's been given going over the
top of those defenses, because it's given permission by weapons
(10:40):
owners like the US and Germany to use their weapons
to attack targets or attack munitions and missiles which are
being launched from Russian territory at least close to the border,
anyway close to the border of Ukraine. So in a sense,
what we've seen is a dramatic escalation, particularly since the
last US arms deal worth sixty sixty sixty one billion
(11:05):
enables Ukraine. They've got longer range missiles now atoms as
their core, and they're using these long range missiles to
target air defense systems in Crimea. In the last few
days they've knocked out four I think three major Russian
air defense systems. What does that mean, Well, it's very
(11:26):
bad use mister Putin, because if Crimea reaches a point
where it can no longer be defended by the Russians adequately,
that puts a lot of political pressure on mister Putin
in the Kremlin. Mister Putin can't really politically survive a
situation where he's seen to lose in Crimea.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
As the only real thing that he's ever going to
respond to force.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Well, this is a person who hasn't tolerated opposition at
home and doesn't deal well when he counters resistance or
opposition externally. So there's nothing in the track record which
suggests he compromises or or you know, meets people halfway,
and there's no halfway solution to this. By the way,
(12:13):
you can't invade a country and they say I would
decide to have half a lover rather than the poor country.
That's just not on and I don't see there's any
way out, and quite frankly, I think the quickest way
of ending this war is to give Ukraine the support
it needs to prosecute the war against what is an
illegal invasion and attempted annexation.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do you have any optimism as a result of the
world leaders or gathering right now?
Speaker 1 (12:39):
I think it's a good move. I would personally like
to have seen New Zealand represented. This is no slight
on the Minister for Police, but heads of state. Fifty
countries are setting their heads of state, including by the way, Japan,
where mister Luxean is about to visit. So I would
have liked to have seen either the Prime Minister or
(13:00):
the Foreign Minister or the Defense minister being present in Switzerland.
But it is an important conference because it's important for
liberal democracy is in particular to show their solidarity with
a country like Ukraine which is a liberal democracy. But
he's also a country which has given them nuclear weapons.
You know, it shares that with New Zealand that we
(13:21):
have non nuclear two countries have a non nuclear vision,
so it's important. I'm please we've bought someone there. I
just thought it would have been nice. We've just elevated
it a bit. But that's you know, it's politics as Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Well, Robert, I really appreciate you taking the time to
talk to us this afternoon. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. That's Robert Patman. He's
international relations professor at a Tiger University. Some fascinating insights there,
interesting developments. Isn't it a couple of big things happening
in that respect?
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Well?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Probably, I'll throw this into talk back as well. Actually,
is it a mistake that we're not sending Christopher Luxen
or maybe Winston Peters. I can see the logic for
Mark Mitchell having served in international conflicts and having an
insight in that stuff, But from a diplomatic point of view,
I mean, world leaders are going and we're sending our
ministra police. I think Robert Patton makes an interesting point there.
(14:11):
You can text me your feedback on nine two ninety two.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
For more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Listen live to news Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks dB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
World leaders have gathered at a Swiss mountain resort to
try to build support for Ukraine's peace proposal. Mark Mitchell,
that is going to be representing New Zealand. By the way,
I just went on and googled it's Bergenstock. Is the
Bergenstock on the shores of Lake Lucern. Oh wow, you'd
(00:31):
have to save up a little bit to stay there.
But of course Switzerland itself is an incredibly expensive but
what a gorgeous spot. We're not going to be talking
about the scenery though, but more than ninety countries are
taking part in the summit on Peace in Ukraine. Russia
was not invited and China its most important.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Ali.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I think this is a shame they refused to attend
and to discuss that, I'm joined by international relations professor
at Otago University and his name is Robert Patman. Robert,
good afternoon. So Russia has set out a ceasefire terms
which have been rejected by most European leaders. What did
you make of the offer of the ceasefire?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Well, it's a non aufer because the so called peace
initiative consists of mister Booting consolidating two regions Donetsk con Hands,
which he has under occupation, and two other regions which
are not fully under his occupation, which are cursed and Supportia.
(01:33):
So what he's saying in effect is that he wants
his invasion to be internationally recognized and the gains of
that illegal invasion to be recognized internationally. In return, he
will agree there should be no more fighting. So he's
looking at basically peeling off about twenty percent of Ukraine.
(01:54):
And in addition, Ukraine would have to give a solemn
undertake in never to join NATO, which means that he's
actually vetoing the sovereign voices of a neighboring country. So
to me, it's not a serious thing at all because
it's completely inconsistent with the UN Charter, with international law.
(02:17):
Why do you think he did it, Well, there's several reasons. Firstly,
it's not hitting the headlines, but the Russian armed forces
are now beginning to take a bit of a battering
in Crimea and air defense in EU Crimea has become problematic,
so he needs also responding to the fact that Russia
(02:38):
has taken huge casualties in Ukraine, and so he may
be feeling a little bit of domestic heat there and
he wants to I think he's not involved in the
Ukraine peace conference in Switzerland, so he wanted to get
the world's attention that he wants to play the reasonable guy,
the invader who's been misunderstood essentially. So yeah, I think
(03:03):
those in those motivations are there. He wants to take
a bit of flay away from the peace conference in Switzerland,
and he's also concerned I think about the battlefield situation.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Okay, just the fact of the offering itself, even though
obviously there's a lot of cynicism behind it, we suspect
does it give any cause for optimism that we can
read into the fact that, well, he's at least raised it.
Does it Does it give Europe and Ukraine's something to
work with or is it simply just a distraction and
(03:37):
a piece of cynical politics.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Well, I think is a distraction and the cynical politics
because it's not based on a rules based order. For
a country like New Zealand, we have to operate internationally
on the basis of rules and principles, and you can't
have a country effectively engage in a land grab and
then said, oh we're happy, we're twenty percent of what
we've grabbed. We did try to grab the whole country,
(04:00):
but we didn't manage to do it. And is the
international care I mean, is you're going to recognize such
behavior because it doesn't stop there? Ex that's a precedent,
and I think that's you know, it's not it's certainly
not in Usine's interests to say that's fine. So this
is an attempt for a land for peace deal. But
you know what happens in six what happens in six
(04:22):
months time if he decides those those regions that he
said he would accept in return for peace, he decides
he needs a bit more.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
So it's not even a starting point for any sort
of case.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's not serious at all. I mean, let's be quite clear,
good mister Putin can stop this conflict within twenty four
hours by withdrawing Russian forces to the internationally recognized borders
of Russia.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, exactly what pretty much what Zelensky has said. What
about Europe using the money from frozen seized assets? Is
this is this part of making support for Ukraine trump proof?
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I think it's an attempt to do that. And also
in addition, of course NATO are taking a similar measure
because they've made with the exception of Hungary, which tends
to be pro putin, all the other members of NATO
are in agreeing to make a contribution to Ukraine's defense mandatory.
(05:18):
We also know that a number of European countries are
sending trainers to Ukraine's territory to train the Ukrainian army.
So I think that there's a recognition that mister Trump
may win the election and they have to protect their
strategic interest because mister Trump's made it quite clear he
will not be supporting the attempt of Ukraine to eject
(05:41):
the invasion force on his territory.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
How much has actually been seized with those assets? I mean,
and do you know how do you know how this
is going to work? Because who controls those seas deaths?
A yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I mean it's a bit problematic because while assets are frozen,
I think more than three hundred million. My understanding is
they're using the interest from those frozen assets. I think
the reasoning is that you know, Russia has broken international
law and therefore it's not entitled to the same protections
(06:16):
that everyone else has who's complying with international law. But
it's still I think many international lawyers are quite or
uncomfortable about what's happening because you know, it could set
a precedent as well.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Well, I guess the thing is it's sort of like
a halfway house. They haven't actually taken the assets. Is
They're just going to use the benefits, aren't they. So
it's a sort of is it a compromise?
Speaker 1 (06:38):
When you look at the damage, literally one hundreds of
billions of dollars have damage to infrastructure of Ukraine in
an unprovoked war, you can understand why there is a
lot of feeling, not least in Ukraine. But they desperately
need an infusion of funds and why not use this money?
But as I say, the proof of that, you know,
(07:01):
the proof of the pudding is going to be eating.
How's this going to work out?
Speaker 2 (07:05):
It is an interesting one. They're talking about precedents, but
of course we've had reparations before for wars and stuff,
and so I'm not sure why they're Well, I can
understand why they're nervous about it. Lawyers are always nervous
about everything, aren't they But what would you think if
they actually said stuff that we're going to seize the
assets and we're going to apply all this for Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
I think it's a huge injustice if Russia doesn't make
any contribution to all the damage that it's caused in
a neighboring country. I mean, we are literally look at Mariopol,
a beautiful city which was just absolutely reduced to rubble
and all because of the territorial ambitions of the Putin regime.
(07:42):
And you have to say, you know that there has
to be some means of rebuilding Ukraine when foreign forces
are eventually ejected from that country.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Now onto the just on the Olympics, the Italian Prime
Minister Georgia Maloney says the G seven unanimously backed a
French proposal to request a global truth during the Olympic Games. Okay,
what chance of success of that.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Global truths in relation to the Ukraine during the Olympics, Well,
I don't think obviously that would depend on the two
conflicting parties. I don't know what mister Selensky said about that.
It's interesting though that the Ukraine Initiative, the Conference in Ukraine,
(08:33):
which you began with the introduction to mister Mistersky. President
Selensky is actually trying to begin the process of getting
in a comprehensive piece plan in place. So it's just
the beginning of a long process, but it's quite a
significant step and it shows I think, you know, mister
(08:54):
Putin is very concerned about this. What what is what
is uh Selensky hoping to do? Well? Is this this
conference is being offended by more than one hundred countries
and organizations. Actually, and yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Sorry, you know, you're right because actually I realized that
I one of my earlier questions get deflicted by Putin
and actually the whole question is yeah, so let's let's
just let's just flesh that out a little bit more
before you before we wrap it up as what are
they hoping to achieve from the summit they're having in Switzerland.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Well, hoping to come up with an internationally supported plan
to bring peace to Ukraine which is consistent with international
law and the Union Charter and amongst other things. The
plan that mister Selenski has tabled, although he said, you know,
he's he's willing to consider other variations on it, is
(09:43):
a cessation of hostilities, the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity,
withdraw Russian troops Ukrainian soil, and the restoration of Ukraine's
pre war borders with Russia. Now, none of that's acceptable
to the Russian leadership, but is what has wide support internationally,
and so it's putting pressure on Russia and is an
(10:06):
attempt to mobilize international support for Ukraine's position.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So Ukraine's military position was looking pretty a little bit
bleaker a few weeks ago. But how's it looking now, Yeah,
there was, it.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Was, But there's some worrying things from mister Putin because
Ukraine has is for the last few months, has been
baking a strategy what's called asymmetrical warfare. It's not attempting
to punch a hole through Russian defenses. Is going over
the top now because it's been given going over the
top of those defenses, because it's given permission by weapons
(10:40):
owners like the US and Germany to use their weapons
to attack targets or attack munitions and missiles which are
being launched from Russian territory at least close to the border,
anyway close to the border of Ukraine. So in a sense,
what we've seen is a dramatic escalation, particularly since the
last US arms deal worth sixty sixty sixty one billion
(11:05):
enables Ukraine. They've got longer range missiles now atoms as
their core, and they're using these long range missiles to
target air defense systems in Crimea. In the last few
days they've knocked out four I think three major Russian
air defense systems. What does that mean, Well, it's very
(11:26):
bad use mister Putin, because if Crimea reaches a point
where it can no longer be defended by the Russians adequately,
that puts a lot of political pressure on mister Putin
in the Kremlin. Mister Putin can't really politically survive a
situation where he's seen to lose in Crimea.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
As the only real thing that he's ever going to
respond to force.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Well, this is a person who hasn't tolerated opposition at
home and doesn't deal well when he counters resistance or
opposition externally. So there's nothing in the track record which
suggests he compromises or or you know, meets people halfway,
and there's no halfway solution to this. By the way,
(12:13):
you can't invade a country and they say I would
decide to have half a lover rather than the poor country.
That's just not on and I don't see there's any
way out, and quite frankly, I think the quickest way
of ending this war is to give Ukraine the support
it needs to prosecute the war against what is an
illegal invasion and attempted annexation.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do you have any optimism as a result of the
world leaders or gathering right now?
Speaker 1 (12:39):
I think it's a good move. I would personally like
to have seen New Zealand represented. This is no slight
on the Minister for Police, but heads of state. Fifty
countries are setting their heads of state, including by the way, Japan,
where mister Luxean is about to visit. So I would
have liked to have seen either the Prime Minister or
(13:00):
the Foreign Minister or the Defense minister being present in Switzerland.
But it is an important conference because it's important for
liberal democracy is in particular to show their solidarity with
a country like Ukraine which is a liberal democracy. But
he's also a country which has given them nuclear weapons.
You know, it shares that with New Zealand that we
(13:21):
have non nuclear two countries have a non nuclear vision,
so it's important. I'm please we've bought someone there. I
just thought it would have been nice. We've just elevated
it a bit. But that's you know, it's politics as Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Well, Robert, I really appreciate you taking the time to
talk to us this afternoon. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. That's Robert Patman. He's
international relations professor at a Tiger University. Some fascinating insights there,
interesting developments. Isn't it a couple of big things happening
in that respect?
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Well?
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Probably, I'll throw this into talk back as well. Actually,
is it a mistake that we're not sending Christopher Luxen
or maybe Winston Peters. I can see the logic for
Mark Mitchell having served in international conflicts and having an
insight in that stuff, But from a diplomatic point of view,
I mean, world leaders are going and we're sending our
ministra police. I think Robert Patton makes an interesting point there.
(14:11):
You can text me your feedback on nine two ninety two.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
For more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Listen live to news Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.