Matt Killingsworth, Head of Politics and International Relations at UTAS School of Social Sciences

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Listenlive at Tasmania Talks dot com au.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
It is Tasmania Talks with Alan on a Thursday. Big
show coming up today, We've got Vetcorner coming up after eleven.
We've also got Bridget Archer coming up after ten. But
yesterday we were reminded once again exactly how precarious this
Russian situation really is. Every couple of weeks something seems
to happen and it makes everyone sit up and take notice.
We've got powerstations being shot at, which makes everyone get

(00:28):
very nervous. Yesterday morning we had a couple of Russian
made missiles that landed in Poland, which has the potential
if indeed it was a deliberate act by Russia, it
means that all of NATO is basically at war with Russia,
which is a bad situation all round. To try and

(00:48):
make sense of it, Head of Politics and International Relations
at UTAs School of Social Sciences, it's Matt Killingsworth.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Good morning, Matt, how are you. I'm very well. This
is just.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Another reminder of just how precarious this whole situation is
and how I guess close we keep coming to this
becoming basically World War three isn't it.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, I think you're right. I think the exactly. I
think it's a reminder of the risks of miscalculation, the
reminder of that when missiles are wizzing around, there is
always the sort of the chance of misinterpretation and things
going wrong, and that's exactly what's happening at the moment.

(01:30):
I think the news this morning, though, suggests that we've
sort of stepped back from the precipice with for lots
of reasons. So both the Polish president and the head
of NATO have confirmed that they were in fact Ukraine
air defense missiles that landed in Poland and unfortunately anapologies,

(01:52):
obviously unfortunately killed two people. And yet Stottenburg from NATO
has been very much on the front foot in saying
that he still hold Russia responsible for this because they
are flying, because of they are launching missiles so close
to the Ukraine or heading to so close to the
to the Ukraine Poland border.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
It's I mean, we keep getting told that once Russia, well,
we're not going to do it now. But at the beginning,
we were told that once Russia managed to take over Ukraine,
they were going to move on to other countries, and
I guess now, and that's probably why all these other
countries are helping Ukraine out in this on this for
this whole thing.

Speaker 3 (02:34):
Is very much so.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
I mean, how close are we with NATO.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
I mean, what would it take for NATO to just say, look,
we've had enough, that's it, We're shutting this down.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
We're going to finish it off. I mean, are we
getting close to that or not?

Speaker 3 (02:48):
No, No, NATO is being and so this is where
this is where. So what we had with the most
recent we had a quite lengthy explanation from Stoltenburg about
how it while there is Article five in the Washington Treaty,
which is the NATO Treaty, that says an attack on
one is an attack on all, he made it very
clear that that isn't necessarily a triggering mechanism, that it

(03:10):
also requires the country attacked to request help from NATO,
and that there's a political decision making process over which
NATO will then decide through its executive, through its executive,
whether it will trigger Article five. So there are a
few processes that will still that were still to go through. However,
your point is really valid because the war in Ukraine

(03:31):
as you know, has encouraged both Finland and Sweem to
apply for NATO membership and they have subsequently been been
admitted to NATO. And so the the the relevance of NATO,
I don't think has ever been stronger, but there is

(03:51):
also NATO has been very very careful in its language
to sort of and an understanding of NATO of boots
on the ground in Ukraine changes the complexity of this
war entirely. And that's where you get the World War
three scenario that you alluded to in your introduction.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's where that's where Putin decides that it's the world
against him, isn't it?

Speaker 3 (04:14):
It is? And and I think that the still the
existential threat here remains not necessarily and I remain terribly
afraid that person in becoming an increasingly irrational actor is
going to test NATO's resilience and my greatest theory that
he will test it through the use of a theater

(04:36):
or a tactical style of nuclear weapon. I think that
remains really greatest. Yeah, yeah, that and that would that
would definitely test the resolve of NATO on how they
would respond to the use of again not a not
a massive sort of hydrogen bomb Nagasaki herozomous style, but
a tactical nuclear weapon. That's that I think presents the

(04:58):
greatest test of NATO's resolve.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
What would happen if that happened? What would NATO do?

Speaker 3 (05:03):
Indeed, And that's the question I'm not sure indeed. And
this is where So if there would be division in NATO,
I imagined there would be countries such as Poland, for example,
probably the British, and probably the Americans who would be
wanting to be on the front foot. Germany, for example,
would be very reluctant to enter into a war because

(05:23):
of its militaristic pass So again, this is the this
is the calculations that would go on with with how
NATO would respond.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
I yesterday morning I kind of thought whether Belarus was
somewhere in there, because I think last I heard tell
me if I'm wrong here. This is just off the
top of my head. I think Russian troops were going
to Belarus.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
That is that, right? Am I making that up?

Speaker 3 (05:48):
No, you're not.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
That is true.

Speaker 3 (05:50):
Very strong ally of Russia and has been involved in
the conflict. In fact, in the beginning of the conflict,
Russian Russian troops entered through the north of Ukraine, and
they intended to take Kiev. They entered through Belarus. They
regularly have military exercise with Belarus. So no, you're you're
definitely correct about that.

Speaker 2 (06:10):
I sort of wondered whether these rocket well, I mean,
it's now been disproven, but I did wonder whether they
could have come from there. What would happen if something
did happen out of Belarus, would that escalate the situation?

Speaker 3 (06:21):
Yes, indeed there is multiple points of escalation. And it's
really interesting and you say that this is this being disproven.
Uklaim president of Volati Menzelinski, is still claiming that these
were Russian missip Yes.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
I wonder if he's playing politics or whether he knows
something else.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
You know, very much, so very much. So it's important
for him to be able to be able to sort
of continue to point to Russia as a bad guy.
And it's not a good look obviously for him for
his air defense system to have been responsible for this mistake.
So again, there is still that all of those unknown

(07:02):
with respects to this war that continue to sort of
inflame and already really really fraught situation in the region.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
It's getting weirder and weirder. How do you reckon this
is going to finish? There? You go look into your
crystal ball, man.

Speaker 3 (07:17):
Yeah, this is a really good question. I've sort of
got three ways this for finish, and there's I think
this is how this is proceeding at the moment. The
least sort of palatable option is that with the European
winter coming up, that this is going to enter into
an attritional war where Russia is no longer going to
be on the offensive, but they are also going to

(07:38):
sort of conduct defensive military operations and continue to sort
of lob heavy weapons and heavy armory into civilian based areas,
and there will be a little bit of advancement and
then a little bit of counter advancement, but nothing will
happen for a long period of time. That's a bad option.
The second option is the one that it seems that
the Americans are pushing a little bit of the moment,

(08:00):
which is encouraging Jolinski to go to the negotiating table.
And I think and he's made it very clear that
the only sort of context under which he will negotiate
is if the starting point is a return to pre
twenty fourteen Ukraine border. So that's so, that's Russian troops
out of don Yetsk, out of Lugans, out of Crimea,

(08:23):
and it's and so the pressure is going to come
from Ukraine's western allies. As the war becomes more expensive,
as for example, energy supplies in Europe start to dwindle
in the cold weather, there is going to be pressure
on Jolinski to start sort of having overtures of diplomacy.
So I think they're the two scenarios under which this

(08:45):
will this will happen. I can't see a scenario in
which Putin unilaterally retreats. He has invested too much of
his own political capital and legitimacy in this war, So yeah,
I think that's there. They're there too. Most likely scenario.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
It's going to be hard for Putin to make it
look like he's won anything, and this really isn't it
if he just said okay, yeah, it's just going to
be a really hard spin. I'm sure he's going to
try and spin. He might be able to do it
in Russia, but it's not going to win by the
way this is going. I heard a while ago that
the Russians are actually running out of missiles and things.
Is that a possibility to I think I heard that
the missiles that they were using were progressively getting older

(09:24):
and older, and eventually they were most likely to run
out of the things.

Speaker 3 (09:29):
Yeah, so this is the other issue. So as the
sanctions bie and as the trade sanction of sanctions, especially
by the capacity that Russia has to continued fighting this
ball as it now is calling up reserves, as the
war becomes increasingly unpopular, and as Russia's economy continues to tank,

(09:51):
I think they are no longer paying back international debt.
Gets there, it becomes fascinating in the geopolitical and what
will the role of countries like Iran even China be,
for example, in supplying Russia with possible So Iran already
supplies Russia with drones, So I guess they're sort of

(10:13):
the next part of that of who wants to be
on them openly be supporting Indeed, all those drones.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
They're causing a lot of trouble over there, and I.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
Think at one stage they were saying, oh, no, those
drones were sent before the war, but it's now become
apparent that's not the case indeed, So I mean it's
a bad look for them to have been dealing with Russia.
But it's not doing Ukraine any good, is it? These
drones going over They've managed to kill a lot of
people so far.

Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yes, And I think Iran is sort of of the
of the opinion that we're already a pariah state with
the West. They're providing arliaments and drones to Russia. Is
not going to make us any more of a pariah state.
So this is an opportunity for us to share exactly
and then sort of my enemy's enemy is my friend
type of scene here. And I think I think in

(11:00):
some ways this is the same case with India, who
also continues to sort of buy Russian arms and continues
to buy a Russian energy as well. So the geo
politics have just remained fascinating.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
It's very confusing.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
H seventeen, of course, which after the murder of thirty
eight Australians on board along with a whole bunch of
other people. This going to soon, after many years, be
some sort of a handing down of a verdict.

Speaker 1 (11:26):
What are we expecting there?

Speaker 3 (11:28):
So there will be a handing there's a report that
the verdict will be handed down in a court, a
Dutch court in the Hague where four people are three
Russians and a Ukrainian has been tried in absentia and
have been blamed for the attack on seventeen and then

(11:54):
facts for firing the missile that shot it down, the
missile most intelligence and it's being confirmed that the missile
came from Russian back militia controlled don Bath. The Russians
refuse to hand over the suspects, they will most likely
be found guilty. It is unlikely, unfortunately, they will serve

(12:16):
any time in prison. But I think this here is
a some degree as much as it's not the sort
of the justice that especially the families of the thirty
eight Astralians would be looking for, there will be some
degree of closure I think post the post the announcement
from the Netherlands, either today or tomorrow, I'm fairly sure.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
So we're expecting individuals to be found guilty as opposed
to Russia as a state to be found guilty of this.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
Indeed, so this is a court that's unable to sow
anything that would be finding Russia guilty of crimes would
be the International Court of Justice, a Dutch court, and
the way that this trial again three Russians, so igo Grinken,
Sergo Dubinsky, Ole Kulatov, who were variously either members of

(13:06):
the military intelligence or Russian intelligence but also working for
the Ministry of Defense for the so called don Bats
and militia, and Leonard Leonard Kashenko who's the Ukrainian who
was also were a militiaman in twenty fourteen. So it

(13:28):
will be only those. But having said that, the Dutch
court has also alluded to the fact that they believe
that the orders for the attack came directly from the
Ministry of Defense and possibly also at the behest of
the Russian President Vladimir Pusin.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
So the escapegoats these individuals indeed very much so.

Speaker 3 (13:51):
But again the Russians are protecting them. They will not
hand them over. They have said that handing them over
would would release Russian military secrets, and it's the type
of language you would expect. But it's unlikely that they'll
serve any time in prison, especially especially in the Netherlands.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
The whole thing is just bizarre, isn't it, And talking bizarre,
He's back. Trump is back. He's decided he's going to
go again. People in the Republican Party going to go
for Trump or Are they going to go for the
other guy? Ron just sentos. He's the governor of Florida,
isn't he? Who are they going to pick?

Speaker 3 (14:28):
It's a really interesting one, and I don't know so
I guess the announcement was no great surprise. The announcement
had all of the things that we expected from a
Trump announcement, some of the things that weren't. There were
notable or prominent Republicans at the launch. Trump's advantages that
he will get a lot of money, and money is

(14:49):
extraordinarily important in US elections. It's a really interesting one,
I sense, and again this is me crystal balling, and
much of this could go wrong. The Republican Party is
deeply divided, I think after the midterms in which a
number of high profile Trump endorsed candidates didn't win seats
that they were expected to win. And here I'm talking

(15:11):
especially Senate seats in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia as well.
I think so prior to the mid terms, I think
this was going to be when when that red wave
was expected, that this was going to be almost a
coronation of when Trump announced.

Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well, I think everyone's saying that this announcement was pretty
low key for a Trump announcement.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
It was pretty local.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
Indeed, and it didn't and Trump. It didn't have the
energy of other Trump rallies and announcements either. It was
pretty flat. And he was flat too. I mean, I
love him or loath him, he is engaging in some respect.
This was really sort of again, very flat and unengaging.

Speaker 2 (15:58):
If he's run for this, that means somehow he can't be.
He can't he can't be dragged off to prison, on
to court and all the rest of it. For things
that all the allegations is that part of the plan here,
is that all it is? Does he just simply not
expect to get through but he's just on a by time?
Is that something that I mean, does that sound right

(16:20):
to you or not?

Speaker 3 (16:21):
It's not that he can't be. It just makes it
harder to.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Do it because why why does it make it harder?
How does it make it harder?

Speaker 3 (16:28):
Because it becomes then hyper political. It stops being legal.
If you arrest the candidate who is running for presidency,
that then stops being a solely legal issue. And then
and so especially when, for example, under a Democrat administration,
when the attorney General is a Democrat appointed position. When

(16:52):
it then so, so the fear is then that this
becomes partisan rather than legal. So if he wasn't running,
it becomes a whole lot easier to try him as
Joe's citizen rather than Donald Trump candidate for president of
the United States.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
So if they were going to do it, yeah, they
should have done it before he announced his running for this,
I guess if they were going to do anything.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
And this has been one of the criticisms of Merrick Garland,
who was the Attorney General. This has been that Garland
had to move before the midterms if he was going
to and especially on things such as the allegation that
he stole documents from the White House, especially on some
of the allegations that have come out of the January
sixth Committee. I understand Georgia are not moving fast on

(17:35):
accusations of voter fraud, but it does become much more
difficult to launch a legal case against the political candidate.
So it's not that him running protects him, and in fact,
even if he can, there is no protection under the
US Constitution for a fallon falons can run for president
of the United States.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah, it's weird.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
Isn't it excluding Yes, it is, It is so. But
I think you're right that this is This is I
think a strategy to avoid prosecution. Whether whether prosecutors allow
him to sort of do it is another story.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
How bizarre, How bizarre? Yeah, how bizarre.

Speaker 3 (18:15):
Just my fear is that even if he even if
he doesn't win, he's going to create a lot of
chaos and carnage on the way. I think the Republican Party,
while it might not be the party of Trump, they
have adopted a lot of his ideas, and I think
what they might be looking for is someone with his
ideas but without all of the trouble that comes with it.

(18:37):
And in that way, in that respect, Ron de Sanders
is that person. But we saw what Donald Trump does
two opponents in debates.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
Them he shreds them.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
Yeah, he'll say out in our lives, and people believe
him because he says it so well. Ron de Santos
has been described as Trump Light, which I don't know
if that's a good thing for him or a bad
thing it anyway.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
He's a make America great candidate, but he does it
with a more subtle I mean, some people might remember,
for example, Ron de Santas was the person that flew
migrants refugees from Texas to Florida then to Martha's vineyard
to make a case about the poorest nature of the
US border. He does he does these type of things.

(19:25):
I don't think he is the political performer that Trump is.
He's hugely popular in Florida. I mean, Florida is a
swim state, and anyone Florida in a cantor. So I
think there are other candidates we shouldn't forget as well.
Mike Pence, the former Vice president, will probably put his
hand up. There will be there will be other members

(19:46):
I think of the Nicky Hayley, former UN ambassador, will
probably put her hand up. So it won't to be
just a two horse race, but I think it will
be around money, and the Sanders and Trump, I think
have the best capacity to raise funds.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
Well, if Trump's only time, he might not bother much.
I guess he might just go along with the go
through the motions and not.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
Worry about it.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
Now.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
At the launch, Gina ryanha, what the hell was she
doing there?

Speaker 3 (20:09):
I saw this and I haven't heard. I saw the
pictures of this, and now it's in the papers. And
there was no announcement. I don't think there's been anything
on her on her web page. I don't think she
I don't know if she was invited.

Speaker 2 (20:23):
I thought you were going to say she may have
not wanted anyone to know she was there.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Well, yeah, but she's a fairly high profile public figure.
I don't think you can do. And the only photo
I'm in the photo that that revealed her was there
was actually she was in the background of a photo
with one of the Trump's sums and his wife. So yeah,
when we talk about sort of the high theater of

(20:48):
Donald Trump, I think this sort of fits into that
category of high.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
It's just weird. I just don't know where that one
fits in anyway.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
All right, look backtracking before I let you go, I'm
just going to ask you this. It's probably a question
that's way too early in the whole piece of this.
But going back to Russia Ukraine, is there going to
be reparations for Ukraine out of this. Russia is never
going to agree to pay anything back to Ukraine. It's
going to be up to the rest of the world,
isn't it.

Speaker 3 (21:13):
It is, But I think there's also a case there
is a scenario that I play out with some of
my colleagues at the university, where there is perhaps a
change of administration in Russia, that there is a Western
at least someone who is sympathy the West, becomes president.

(21:34):
Putin is overthrown that there is a scenario in which
they are offered money to help rebuild Ukraine, but on
the proviso, for example, that they hand over indict it
war criminals to an international tribunal. So I think there
is plus. I mean, there's also the opportunity, for example,

(21:54):
to freeze accounts and a variety of things in that way.
But no, it will not be purely out of the
good nature of Russia for spending the money to rebuild.
And Angelinski has said, I mean there have been talks
about a Ukraine Marshall Plan. We are talking that sort
of size of investment with the amount of infrastructure that

(22:16):
has been destroyed during this war.

Speaker 2 (22:18):
Gosh, it's a complicated thing all round. And who however
this ends, it's not going to end well, I don't
suppose it's just as long as it ends quicker. Are
you surprised that Putin's still kicking honestly?

Speaker 3 (22:32):
No, No, The nature of his regime and his so
I mean, I understand that sort of assessing his health
has become a sort of a cottage industry. But the
degree of his control over the political apparatus, the media,
popular sentiment in Russia is quite extraordinary. He is a

(22:54):
modern totalitarian, and so with respect to his ability to
remain in power, no, I'm not surprised. It's because of
the control and absolute control that he has over so
many of the leaders of power in this there was
a fraudient sleep I'm going to say Soviet Union.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
He wants it back, he wants it back, he wants
it back, but it's not going to happen. Richard just
said he's the Trump of Russia. So there you go.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
I don't know where well that's entirely true or not,
but anyway, it probably is. Look, I'll tell you what.
It's the unfolding and I'm reckoning. It's going to go
on for a fair bit longer, I'm sure, and you'll
be following it.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
Absolutely. We'll talk again down the.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
Track ahead of Politics and International Relations at Utah School
of Social Sciences. Matt Killingsworth, thanks for your time this morning.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
This is as many of your talks coming up to
half past nine. Listen live at Tasmania talks dot com.

Speaker 3 (23:45):
Don A U