0:00

Gooday humans, welcome

0:02

to the safe space for dangerous

0:04

ideas, and it's the biggest doozy

0:07

of a dangerous idea of all

0:09

when it comes to world peace.

0:11

It's the reason why the Ukraine

0:13

war ever mattered in the first

0:16

place. The dangerous idea is this,

0:18

that prior to the Second World

0:20

War, certainly prior to the First

0:23

World War, the... majority of humans

0:25

in the majority of places at

0:27

the majority of times lived under

0:29

regimes that were constantly under threat

0:32

of attack from their neighbours and

0:34

we invested vastly too much in

0:36

both human capital and in money

0:38

and treasure and blood in avoiding

0:40

being invaded or trying to invade

0:43

other people and World War II

0:45

changed all that and we managed

0:47

to erect the imperfect artifices of

0:49

the United Nations and NATO and

0:52

other international norms, all underpinned by

0:54

an American security guarantee that ensured

0:56

that countries would not just randomly

0:58

send tanks over the borders of

1:00

smaller neighbors and try to take

1:03

their land. Russia's invasion of Ukraine

1:05

changed that. And we now stand

1:07

at a precipice, which is sort

1:09

of no less pressing than it

1:11

ever was, which it seems entirely

1:13

possible that the President of the

1:16

United States and the leader of

1:18

Russia will come to some kind

1:20

of an arrangement to effectively allow

1:22

Russia to win this war. It's

1:24

worth reminding ourselves what the stakes

1:27

are, taking a snapshot of where

1:29

the conflict currently stands, what the

1:31

upsides, downsides, perils, opportunities are of the

1:33

current situation in Ukraine, what Donald Trump

1:35

is trying to do, what Vladimir Putin

1:37

is trying to do, and whether or

1:39

not the interests of the people who

1:42

actually live in Central and Eastern Europe

1:44

should matter to us at all. Thus

1:46

we invite back on the show, the

1:48

one and only Misha Zalinsky. Misha was

1:50

the Australian Financial Reviewal correspondent. in Ukraine

1:52

from 2022 to 2023. This is his

1:54

second appearance on the show. We had

1:56

him on in 2022. to give us

1:58

a snapshot at a very different time

2:00

during that conflict. He's a Fulbright scholar

2:03

and a national security expert. He tried

2:05

to run for federal parliament in Australia

2:07

at the last election, but that attempt

2:09

was derailed. I would be very surprised

2:11

if he doesn't try it again at

2:13

some point in his future. He has

2:15

his own podcast called Diplomates, not diplomats,

2:17

but Diplomates, as in good a mate,

2:19

and he has the great honour of

2:21

being personally sanctioned. by the Vladimir Putin

2:24

regime. We talk about Ukraine, but also

2:26

its implications for global security, Taiwan, China,

2:28

and all the rest of it. Misha's

2:30

book is entitled The Sun Will Rise.

2:32

It's a novel based on his time

2:34

in Ukraine. I hope you enjoy as

2:36

much as I did. The one and

2:38

only Misha Zelenski. What have you been

2:40

making of the events of the... I

2:42

guess foreign policy from the Trump administration

2:45

since... Can you believe it's only like

2:47

63 days or something? It feels like

2:49

63 years is genuinely, like before the

2:51

Trump presidency, my friends in the sort

2:53

of foreign policy, geopolitical space, national security

2:55

space, I would say to them, does

2:57

it feel like the world's going faster?

2:59

And it really, you know, sped up

3:01

with the invasion of Ukraine in 2022,

3:03

but it is gone. It's like, I

3:06

don't know, what, from hyper drive to...

3:08

ultra-hopadrive, it's impossible to keep up almost,

3:10

which is in some ways a strategy

3:12

from the Trump team and the Trump

3:14

White House, but from a geopolitical point

3:16

of view, it's a cliche now, it's

3:18

the Lenin thing of, you know, sometimes,

3:20

you know, nothing happens in decades, but

3:22

weeks happen in decades, or decades happens

3:24

in weeks, and where it feels a

3:27

little bit like that kind of real

3:29

pivotal moment. How are you personally sorting

3:31

through what's worth paying attention to and

3:33

what's not? We've got a little bit

3:35

of the big things are. There are

3:37

a few very big things happen. There's

3:39

a lot of things happening in the

3:41

United States, domestic politics, which have profound

3:43

implications for geopolitics everywhere like Australia. We're

3:45

very staked in what happens in the

3:48

United States. We're waiting to get nuclear

3:50

submarines in seven years. Clearly. You should

3:52

hear the conversation that I just had

3:54

with the former Premier of New South

3:56

Wales and the Foreign Minister of Australia.

3:58

I know the bullet points. I was

4:00

like, he's like, he's like, he's like,

4:02

he's like, he's like, he's like, he's

4:04

never gonna happen, they're never gonna give

4:06

us the nuclear subs. And I was

4:09

like, let's just suppose they will. He

4:11

was like, yeah, but they're not gonna.

4:13

I was like, well, I'll. Thought experiment,

4:15

thought experiment. Yeah, Bob's, Bob's, Bob's, Bob's

4:17

very strighten, Bob's very strighten, Bob's very

4:19

strightenly opposed, Bob's very strightenly opposed, Bob's

4:21

very strightenly opposed, he opposed, Bob's very

4:23

strightenly opposed, but nevertheless, but nevertheless, but

4:25

nevertheless, but nevertheless, look. It's important

4:28

that what happens in the United

4:30

States implicates policy in Australia. And

4:32

so we need to watch what's

4:35

happening there. But geopolitically, there are

4:37

kind of three big theatres around

4:39

the world that matter the Middle

4:41

East. Whether or not there's going to

4:44

be an enduring piece there, that continues

4:46

to sort of simmer away and flare

4:48

up. Shouldn't be too hard, right? No.

4:51

Is it a real Palestine? It's an

4:53

easy one to fix. complex. You've got

4:55

China's ambitions in East Asia, no hot

4:57

war there, but a lot of activity,

5:00

a lot of gray zone interference. It's

5:02

a reason why we want nuclear submarines.

5:04

China, very active, pushing into the territory

5:07

of its neighbouring nations. War exercises off

5:09

the coast of Australia, only a couple

5:11

weeks ago, which, terrifying, and to

5:13

my mind, really showcase the need

5:15

for things like nuclear submarines and

5:18

Virginia-class submarines. Just pause on that

5:20

for a second. So the anti-nuclear

5:22

submarine US alliance. faction would say

5:24

that's precisely why we don't need

5:26

to hitch our wagon to some

5:29

vast geostrategic global US-led nuclear submarine

5:31

like complicated malaki and why we

5:33

need to focus where we should

5:35

instead be investing those massive resources

5:37

in a really good solid local

5:39

conventional submarine fleet to be patrolling

5:42

our waters and making sure that

5:44

China doesn't shit on us in our...

5:46

Yeah, I mean that's an attractive argument, right?

5:48

And we should have indigenous capability

5:50

in our military hardware and kit

5:52

and ability to self-produce it. In

5:54

the years of the word indigenous,

5:56

they're politically incorrect. Are you going

5:58

to get canceled? by the word because

6:01

I don't think first nations people have

6:03

any submarines, nuclear or otherwise. Well, I

6:05

mean, I'll leave others to make that

6:08

their mind. While you fly, I don't

6:10

enjoy a delicious off beverage. I've got

6:12

a coffee right here. But to talk

6:15

about in a nuclear submarine capacity, it's

6:17

the world's best nuclear sub, sorry, submarines,

6:19

when you look at what's available in

6:22

the market, Australia is a huge landmass

6:24

surrounded by water. So we need asymmetric

6:26

capability, we need the ability to defend

6:29

our perimeter and also to have asymmetric

6:31

capability where our adversaries don't know where

6:33

we are. And so a nuclear submarine,

6:36

unlike a diesel submarine, can stay underwater

6:38

in perpetuity, essentially to run out of

6:40

supplies, right? All the crew needs to

6:43

be switched out can stay under months

6:45

at a time. There is nothing... Close

6:47

to approaching the capability of what the

6:49

Virginia class can do. It's the best

6:52

in the market and we are one

6:54

of the unique beneficiaries like no other

6:56

nation in the world apart from the

6:59

United Kingdom in 1958 has been shared

7:01

the you know the the jewels in

7:03

the crown of US critical military capabilities.

7:06

Yes, but A, it's only useful if

7:08

you actually want your submarines to be

7:10

up in the Taiwan straits. It doesn't,

7:13

no, that's not useful. It's not useful

7:15

for securing the homeland. No, that's not.

7:17

And secondly, it comes with massive liabilities,

7:20

like it puts a huge target on

7:22

our back and means that if you

7:24

got a target on the back. Well,

7:27

not so much. Well, but things get

7:29

boiled right down to, uh, is the

7:31

United States going to go to war

7:34

with China rather than what are China's

7:36

ambitions around the world? And so for

7:38

Australia, we need friends and we need

7:41

capability. The United States, the Trump administration

7:43

notwithstanding, is a critical friend of Australia

7:45

and we need the capability to defend

7:48

ourselves as well. And so we've always

7:50

worked together with friends, whether it's the

7:52

British Empire back in the... whether it's

7:54

the United States or what's European or

7:57

right-thinking democratic nations like Indonesia, like Japan,

7:59

like India, you look at the Quad.

8:01

People talk about Orcus, that's Australia and

8:04

the United States, but the Quad is

8:06

a critical partnership. The Quad is Japan

8:08

and India and the United States and

8:11

Australia. Now what are they having common?

8:13

What are they having common is that

8:15

they're all democracies and they're worried about

8:18

the rise of the Chinese Communist Party.

8:20

And so... The capability that we have

8:22

and the friends that we have are

8:25

critical in defending Australia and I think

8:27

I brought down to this. Massive land

8:29

mass, relatively small country, surrounded by water,

8:32

we want the very very best undersea

8:34

capability and there is nothing approaching a

8:36

Virginia-class submarine in terms of capability. Even

8:39

if it drags us into a war

8:41

that we would otherwise have the luxury

8:43

of choosing whether to be involved in.

8:46

Well that's a sort of a leap

8:48

where I don't necessarily support the underlying

8:50

thesis. There's no obligation for us to

8:53

go to war with the United States.

8:55

The United States goes to war, goes

8:57

to war, it's making its own decision.

9:00

But also, let's step back from that.

9:02

Well there is, no, but the obligation

9:04

is not that we would have to

9:06

declare war, it's that war would have

9:09

to be declared upon us because we

9:11

would be functionally apart in the United

9:13

States. A world where, I assume you're

9:16

talking about a world where China is

9:18

at war with the United States. Yeah,

9:20

that's right. That is going to be

9:23

a profoundly massive conflict that would have

9:25

far broader implications than what Australia decides

9:27

to do in those circumstances. Right, but

9:30

having a submarine-based nuked would make it

9:32

additionally bad. If you have a situation

9:34

where nuclear warfare is at play, or

9:37

we haven't seen nuclear war ever in

9:39

play, thankfully, since the, you know, the

9:41

nukes were created in the 1940s. If

9:44

you talk about Australia being nuked, I

9:46

mean, I... profoundly wild scenarios are at

9:48

play there where I'd imagine we would

9:51

want to go to war anyway. But

9:53

I think the idea that Australia would

9:55

be nuked because the United States and

9:58

China war is just like a kind

10:00

of elite by three and fourfold that

10:02

I think is not one. Well isn't

10:05

isn't strategizing three and fourfold out precisely

10:07

the sure but I mean let's just

10:09

strategy to bring it to a real

10:12

live example if you if nukes is

10:14

that if you're allergic to that idea

10:16

then you can just say massive conventional

10:18

aerial bomb. But the United States of

10:21

US military assets that we would not

10:23

otherwise be in possession. Well let's take

10:25

an example that's live Ukraine's being supported

10:28

by the United States being Russia

10:30

is not nuked Ukraine nor is it

10:32

yuked the United States' capacity to do

10:34

so. So I just think that it's

10:36

a furphy. I don't think we should be

10:38

thinking about whether or not there's

10:40

risks of us being, you know,

10:43

attacked by nuclear weapons or conventional

10:45

weapons when we're thinking about how

10:47

to arm ourselves. Why wouldn't you

10:49

think about whether or not we're

10:51

going to get attacked by nuclear

10:53

or conventional weapons when you're thinking

10:55

about? What I'm most worried about is

10:57

the ability to resist. conventional

11:00

subsea or on surface naval

11:02

exercises off our coast and

11:04

the ability to resist that

11:07

is heightened with the superior

11:09

technology. You're most worried about

11:11

resisting exercises. Well, what does an

11:13

exercise lead to? Why is China showing

11:16

that it can perform these things off

11:18

our coast because it wants to intimidate

11:20

us? And the way to... Stop being

11:22

intimidated by a larger opponent, have asymmetric

11:25

capability. If we have asymmetric capability undersea,

11:27

it'll make China think twice. But what

11:29

do you mean by asymmetric in that

11:31

case? Having superior tech. China design. We're not

11:33

going to be, it's not going to be asymmetric

11:36

with China. Well, we're never going to have a

11:38

better military than China. Well, the Virginia class is

11:40

way better than anything in the Chinese countries. We'll

11:42

have what, three of them. Well, three to five,

11:44

maybe more. How quickly will their naval capabilities

11:46

out strip ours? Well the thing about, it's

11:48

not about just simple numeric numbers, it's about

11:51

how good equality of your tech is, right?

11:53

And what I'm saying is yes China's producing

11:55

a lot of military equipment at the moment,

11:57

but it's not as good as what you

12:00

see. currently at least in the Western

12:02

Hemisphere. You don't think that having US,

12:04

having been so closely into the US

12:07

military machine makes the homeland of Australia

12:09

more of a target where we'd come

12:11

to blows with China? Look, I mean,

12:13

what do you think that is true,

12:16

but it's nonetheless worth? What I'd say

12:18

is what I'd say is we're already

12:20

deeply woven into the United States military

12:23

hardware Those are decisions that we've made

12:25

as a country for like 40 years

12:27

I think at the end of the

12:30

day you've got to choose who your

12:32

friends are in the world and The

12:34

United States for all its faults is

12:36

still a good friend to Australia. What

12:39

if your friends don't care about who

12:41

their friends are? Well, that's a whole

12:43

other question. And I mean, there is

12:46

a profound change underway now in USGS

12:48

strategic posture, and it's a worry, right?

12:50

I genuinely do worry about that. And

12:53

I think everyone's right to worry about

12:55

it. Now, whether or not this becomes

12:57

a permanent fixture or if it's a

13:00

temporary problem, we don't know, right? But

13:02

yeah, look, the Trump administration has upending

13:04

years or decades of wreck of thought.

13:06

in this space, but I don't think

13:09

that changes the questions around what kit

13:11

you want. You still want the best

13:13

kit and the best kit on the

13:16

shelf right now is a Virginia class

13:18

nuclear submarine. I sidetracked you a little

13:20

bit from articulating the three things. So

13:23

you said the middle is the Middle

13:25

East, the strategic concern considerations. Domestic policy

13:27

then the United States. What was number

13:29

three? Oh, sorry. So domestic policy United

13:32

States. Yeah. the Middle East. Middle East,

13:34

yes. What China's ambitions are, which I

13:36

think we've sort of ventilated lately. And

13:39

then of course obviously the hot war

13:41

in Ukraine, so you've got like a

13:43

regional war in Middle East, you've got

13:46

a cold war if you want to

13:48

phrase in those terms, but you know,

13:50

gray zone, foreign interference type conflict and

13:52

assertiveness going on in East Asia in

13:55

our neck of the woods and into

13:57

the South Pacific, and then you've got

13:59

a hot war, a land war in

14:02

Europe of mass attempted conquering attempted conquering

14:04

conquering. which we haven't really seen since

14:06

World War II. And how's it going?

14:09

Brutally and awfully. It is, it's a

14:11

peculiar war, Josh, in that I describe

14:13

it as both ultra-high-tech and ultra-low-tech. So

14:15

high-tech, the types of weapons you've never

14:18

seen before, the use of drones, is

14:20

actually change warfare extraordinarily. Drones in the

14:22

air is like hundreds of thousands in

14:25

the theater at any one time. So...

14:27

War has changed profoundly in that sense

14:29

and the ability now to use very

14:32

cheap drones to attack a very expensive

14:34

kit like essentially blow up a tank

14:36

with a very cheap drone is changing

14:39

the way tactically. War is fought but

14:41

then at the same time you still

14:43

need men with guns to take terrain

14:45

and the war on the on the

14:48

front line is brutal and almost World

14:50

War One style trench warfare of a

14:52

meat grinder and particularly when you look

14:55

at the tactics that the Russians are

14:57

using where they are just throwing walls

14:59

that they got walls of meat but

15:02

walls of men running into gunfire in

15:04

artillery fire it is the casualty rate

15:06

is massive. Who are they using at

15:08

the moment? Because even a year ago

15:11

they were already having to pull people

15:13

out of prisons and across Russia and

15:15

send them out. I mean, they wanted

15:18

to go to the front line. It's

15:20

a combination of conscription, so the Russians

15:22

have conscription and a combination of recruitment

15:25

out of places like the prisons system,

15:27

etc. and saying you can get out

15:29

early and we'll pay your auto money.

15:31

Also paying a lot. for people to

15:34

go. And like any war, it's the

15:36

poor people as well in regional areas

15:38

and the Russian, Putin's base is in

15:41

Petersburg and Moscow, the Russian middle class.

15:43

Not many of them are fighting, though

15:45

increasingly they're going to have to, some

15:48

of them. But you see a lot

15:50

of the poorer out of regional rural

15:52

areas and also the ethnic minorities that

15:54

are doing the fighting as well. So

15:57

it is brutal stuff and awful stuff.

15:59

Who are the ethnic minorities? So you

16:01

see the stand. parts of the world.

16:04

So Darkistan and other, essentially, I mean,

16:06

Russia is still relatively racist kind of

16:08

country where they try to run a

16:11

monoculture, ruzo culture where Russians preaminate, but

16:13

there are a lot of ethnic minorities,

16:15

Muslim minorities and others that they draw

16:18

from the Central Asian parts of it.

16:20

You say that they're going to have

16:22

to start drawing on more people, but

16:24

maybe they won't if the great President

16:27

Trump and President Putin can come to...

16:29

an agreement. Well that's a great

16:31

if isn't it? I think what

16:33

Trump's realizing is he said he

16:36

could solve the war in one

16:38

day. I think what do we

16:40

say was 60 odd days in

16:42

so we still haven't got a

16:44

resolution so 60 days at minimum

16:46

over his own deadline. I think

16:49

you know he came away from

16:51

a two-hour conversation with a ceasefire.

16:53

that was only for aerial bombardment,

16:55

which was immediately broken, an agreement

16:57

to play an ice hockey match

16:59

between Australia, sorry, the United

17:02

States and Russia. So, not

17:04

much of an agreement. They

17:06

just had a meeting overnight

17:08

where again, not much was

17:10

agreed. They've come away saying,

17:12

oh, they're going to have

17:14

an increased ceasefire on the

17:16

oceans. And also the Russians

17:18

got smashed up. So. massively

17:20

by the Ukrainian military that they kind

17:22

of have a pullback. They had their

17:25

their flagship sunk which has not happened

17:27

since the Falklands war by the Ukrainians

17:29

who have no Navy. So the Russians

17:31

ages ago. Yeah yeah yeah it was

17:33

a couple years ago. Yeah it's right.

17:35

And so the Black Sea ceasefire is

17:37

already kind of informally in place if

17:40

not formally. The Russians are already kind

17:42

of breaking many of the terms of

17:44

the ceasefire. So what Trump's working out is

17:46

he may want peace and look. We all

17:49

want peace, right? But peace is any price

17:51

to be a bad peace. And the price

17:53

of peace that Putin has said from the

17:55

outset is he wants Ukraine. He

17:57

wants to own Ukraine. Now, leaving us...

18:00

how you might feel about the Ukrainians

18:02

who got strong views about whether or

18:04

not they want to be owned by

18:06

the Russians. They've made it very clear

18:08

and they're paying with their own blood

18:10

for their freedom and so whether or

18:12

not they're going to get to a

18:14

piece it really depends on what Trump

18:16

is prepared to trade away and there's

18:18

all manner of moving parts here. You

18:21

saw the meeting with Zelenski in the

18:23

White House. which is awful and very

18:25

shocking I think for many people around

18:27

the world to see you know the

18:29

United States a leader of the free

18:31

world for many many decades since World

18:33

War two berating a fellow democratic leader

18:35

telling him to be more grateful and

18:37

that you know jade advancing to him

18:40

as well and it was just awful

18:42

to see but then Ukrainians pivoted from

18:44

that very quickly that they're smart and

18:46

dexterous in their foreign policy managed to

18:48

get to a situation where the Russians

18:50

now are kind of seen to be

18:52

the side that aren't coming to the

18:54

party in the party in the deal

18:56

but Any terms of the deal I'd

18:59

always be skeptical of because the Russians

19:01

one thing Vladimir Putin always does is

19:03

breaks his word He's done that for

19:05

20 years the lesson of deals with

19:07

Putin is he never honors them For

19:09

20 years any time he's done something

19:11

bad and said that'll be the last

19:13

time I do it and we believe

19:15

him. He does something worse so bad

19:17

behavior unpunished becomes worse behavior, right? and

19:20

so His ability to continually fool us,

19:22

like it's a fool, you know, fool

19:24

me, won't shame on me, fool me

19:26

a hundred times, like I don't know

19:28

what the, there's no pun for that,

19:30

but yeah, he's done that consistently, sorry,

19:32

to cut across you, but you go,

19:34

look at his history. 2008, he invades

19:36

Georgia, the world sort of does nothing.

19:39

2014, he invades Ukraine for the first

19:41

time, annexes Crimea, starts a war in

19:43

Don Bass. 2016, he gets medals in

19:45

the US election, he medals in Brexit,

19:47

he starts a war in Ukraine of

19:49

conquest in 2022. Effectively, there's been sanctions,

19:51

but not much, right? The penalties have

19:53

not been high, and if in the

19:55

end, poons on the verge of a

19:58

strategic defeat here, if we give him

20:00

a strategic victory, the lesson for him

20:02

would be what? Yeah, you start a

20:04

problem, you make the problem big enough,

20:06

in the West capitulates because they... get

20:08

bored or there's other priorities and that's

20:10

a lesson to him and others. Why

20:12

do you say he's on the verge

20:14

of a strategic defense? Well he's already

20:17

had one. Look at his economy is

20:19

a mess, right? So if you look

20:21

at where Putin started in 2022 and

20:23

to where he is now, he's literally

20:25

blown up his biggest market for his

20:27

biggest export. So Ukraineian territories where they

20:29

used to sell Russian gas into Europe.

20:31

Now that market is gone. There are

20:33

the biggest market is oil, that's been

20:35

completely... handicapped in terms of how they

20:38

can make money. Now they're still selling

20:40

oil, but the Indians and the Chinese

20:42

are extorting them at very cheap prices

20:44

and making hay out of it essentially.

20:46

And so his economy is ruined. Their

20:48

interest rates are at 21% inflation at

20:50

9%. So yeah, they got... I think

20:52

it depends on how you calculate about

20:54

hundreds of billions of US dollars frozen

20:57

overseas in their own wealth and assets.

20:59

So that's the kind of economic consequences

21:01

of it. In terms of the military

21:03

consequences, he's had his army humiliated. This

21:05

is meant to have been at least

21:07

the second most powerful military in the

21:09

world. They've had perhaps nearly a million

21:11

casualties of injuries and deaths. Now even

21:13

if it's half a million, like it

21:16

depends some of half a million in

21:18

a million in a million, right? Huge

21:20

numbers of people that have died. Now

21:22

Russia is a big country, 140 million

21:24

people, but no country can lose half

21:26

a million to a million young people.

21:28

He's had a million fleas, well, from

21:30

the conscription we talked about earlier. So

21:32

that's a kind of military humiliation. Half

21:35

the tanks he had before he started

21:37

blown up. So they have just been

21:39

completely shown to be a paper tiger

21:41

when it comes to the military. Their

21:43

prestige around the world is destroyed. They've,

21:45

you know, essentially not got many friends

21:47

left. So... And what's he managed to

21:49

gain in the process, some incremental gains

21:51

of Ukrainian territory. It seems like a

21:53

very high price to pay for all

21:56

that, you know, very little gain. And

21:58

so... Right, but all of those, all

22:00

of those strategic defeats were banked with

22:02

him. in the first six months of

22:04

the war, basically. I mean, in terms

22:06

of the past- Well, I mean, the

22:08

economic and military pain is ongoing. Yes,

22:10

it continues, but it was clear pretty

22:12

quickly that the world sort of got

22:15

our shit together on sanctions, and so

22:17

that that was gonna be tricky. I

22:19

mean, I guess when you say he's

22:21

on the verge of strategic defeat, that

22:23

makes it sound, that sounds more optimistic

22:25

than the way that most people were

22:27

from- Well, it comes down to us,

22:29

right. If it's a contest between Russia

22:31

and Ukraine, over time Russia wins that

22:34

contest, just because of sheer weight of

22:36

force of men, material, a larger economy,

22:38

over time they can grind them down,

22:40

if they're prepared to pay a high

22:42

price, which the Russians are showing that

22:44

they are. Now, they're paying, I would

22:46

argue, an unsustainable price, but over time

22:48

if Ukraine's left to its own devices,

22:50

logic would tell you that if Russia

22:53

is prepared to keep paying the price

22:55

that it is, it will make Ukraine

22:57

suffer and take more and take more

22:59

and more of its territory. but wars

23:01

afford on industrial bases and so if

23:03

it's Russia versus Ukraine then well the

23:05

outcome is probably more leaning towards a

23:07

Russian victory but if it's Russia versus

23:09

everybody else then it's a whole different

23:11

ballgame that's where it's been up until

23:14

recently where suddenly we've decided we don't

23:16

want to send weapons to Ukraine and

23:18

I would argue that the ability to

23:20

not only defeat Vladimir Putin in Ukraine

23:22

but to teach a lesson to any

23:24

other dictator that we can't have wars

23:26

of conquest in the 21st century. That's

23:28

a lesson that we can teach Putin

23:30

permanently and every other want to be

23:33

dictator that wants to go and start

23:35

a war of this nature. Now the

23:37

Ukrainians are prepared to do the fighting,

23:39

they're prepared to do the dying and

23:41

they're showing that every day with their

23:43

bravery. All they're asking for is weapons.

23:45

Now that's the deal of the century.

23:47

If you compare to what we had

23:49

to do in World War II, World

23:52

War I, another major conflicts around the

23:54

world, all we got to do is

23:56

send our stuff. The way I see

23:58

it, and we sort of talk about

24:00

the stakes, this is a pivot point.

24:02

Whatever the lesson of this conflict in

24:04

Ukraine is, will really drive what the

24:06

next... 10 and 20 years of geopolitics

24:08

looks like if the lesson is you

24:10

shouldn't invade your neighbours, democracies can resist

24:13

dictatorships and big countries can't crush small

24:15

countries that don't like them, that'd be

24:17

good. But if the lesson is you

24:19

can do that, Australia is a country

24:21

26 million people. We cannot survive in

24:23

a world where big countries destroy little

24:25

countries, where might is right, that's a

24:27

dangerous world for Australia. So if you

24:29

never want to see war, we talked

24:32

before about... you know, conflict in our

24:34

region, whether or not we get dragged

24:36

on conflict with the United States and

24:38

China or a major world conflict. If

24:40

you never want to see a conflict

24:42

like that, if you never want to

24:44

see tanks having to be deployed in

24:46

Australia or in our region, then send

24:48

those tanks to Ukraine. That is the

24:51

single best way to make sure that

24:53

we never have conflict anywhere else around

24:55

the world. And I believe that passionately.

24:57

So it's not about charity, sending stuff

24:59

to Ukraine, whether you're Australia or another

25:01

nation around the world. And it's also

25:03

not some sort of like... bleeding heart

25:05

or sort of forward leading foreign policy

25:07

where we've got to promote democracy around

25:10

the world. It's saying this is a

25:12

national security objective of Australia that big

25:14

countries cannot destroy small ones. It feels

25:16

a little bit like we're talking in

25:18

2023 in the sense that let's suppose

25:20

that Donald Trump hadn't won the election.

25:22

Let's suppose that the US administration was

25:24

full rah-rah-rah-rah on Ukraine. What would we

25:26

be doing right now that would lead

25:28

to a decisive military defeat for Russia

25:31

since, as you mentioned before, it seems

25:33

like it's a World War I style

25:35

mate and a war of attrition. Like

25:37

in what universe is Ukraine retaking the

25:39

east of the East of... Ukraine. Well

25:41

weapons is the first step, right? We've

25:43

never ever given Ukraine the weapons they

25:45

need to win. We've given Ukraine enough

25:47

weapons not to lose. That's kind of

25:50

been the unfortunate truth of what we've

25:52

done and everything we've given. The weird

25:54

thing about military aid is you say

25:56

we're not going to give you these

25:58

things and then in the end you

26:00

give them but you give them too

26:02

late for them to be comprehensively decisive

26:04

on the battlefield. Remember you go right

26:06

back, can't give you... Ukraine tanks gave

26:09

them tanks, can't give them high miles,

26:11

we gave them high miles, can't give

26:13

you long range missiles, gave them, you

26:15

can't shoot these into Russian targets. And

26:17

they've done all these things, right? And,

26:19

but when the time to do them

26:21

where it may have been most decisive,

26:23

we haven't done it. Like you think

26:25

about the fact that Putin survived the

26:28

near coup because the pressure he was

26:30

under, like all those things I talked

26:32

about, the pressure on Russian society is

26:34

high. You talk about cost of living,

26:36

but. high levels of casualties in your

26:38

community, that pressure and that cut off

26:40

from the world, in the end something

26:42

popped in progression, you know, stage kind

26:44

of a half-koo and there are no

26:46

half-koos? Yeah, you got to go the

26:49

whole way. And then he strangely had

26:51

some aviation difficulties. Well indeed, indeed, right.

26:53

And we can talk about the, you

26:55

know, what that means with Putin regime,

26:57

but ultimately... Couldn't you make the argument

26:59

that... a flailing autocrat who's been backed

27:01

into a corner is a risky, you

27:03

know, entity to provoke. And so that's

27:05

why you're cautious about what you give

27:08

Ukraine. You don't want to come out

27:10

of the gate giving Ukraine the capacity

27:12

to strike well into Russia and then

27:14

escalate it into, you know, at the

27:16

time, Putin was saying, this will be

27:18

World War III, but he hasn't done

27:20

it. Well, he didn't, but... My analysis

27:22

of Putin when he talks about nuclear

27:24

weapons, the war is going very badly

27:27

for it. You actually look at whenever

27:29

he starts saying, well, just never forget

27:31

Russia's got nuclear weapons, it's generally when

27:33

things aren't going particularly well. That doesn't

27:35

mean that it's not a risk. No,

27:37

look, I mean, you should, and anyone

27:39

says nuclear warfare, you should pay attention,

27:41

but think about it though, it's not

27:43

a risk. And anyone says nuclear warfare,

27:46

you should pay attention, but think about

27:48

it though, it's teaching Putin if he

27:50

says nuclear weapons, then we go shit

27:52

like we capitulate and we back off,

27:54

right. He knows then he's got us.

27:56

Cowed in a way right so you

27:58

need to take him seriously but not

28:00

be completely terrified of what he might

28:02

do and look there's be consequences that

28:04

and privately I think it's been communicated

28:07

that what the consequences would be and

28:09

also I think what's interesting about the

28:11

nuclear stuff is even when you're sort

28:13

of about tactical nuclear weapons which people

28:15

talk about tactical nuclear weapons what are

28:17

they just small nukes that can potentially

28:19

use in the battlefield but no one's

28:21

ever obviously used them when he was

28:23

talking about nukes quite a bit the

28:26

Chinese had a back channel where they

28:28

said look mate just called on that

28:30

and there's been less talk of that

28:32

from Putin because China's right on the

28:34

you know the border of the Russians

28:36

and not interested in nuclear warfare on

28:38

their doorstep. When you say that behind

28:40

the scenes the you know it's probably

28:42

been made clear to him what the

28:45

consequences would be of crossing that Rubicon.

28:47

I do remember hearing some rumours about

28:49

what the Biden administration might have been

28:51

talking about but do you have any

28:53

suspicions about so there was a moment

28:55

where I think in 2023 where it

28:57

seemed... That the nuclear the

28:59

conversation about his potential use of tactical

29:01

nuclear weapons in the battle field Yeah,

29:03

that was at at a peak. Yeah,

29:05

and Anthony blink and the the Secretary

29:08

of State I think right at the

29:10

time we up to Moscow Yeah, had

29:12

a meeting with the hooten or his

29:14

foreign minister and then all of a

29:16

sudden that went away and I heard

29:18

some people saying like, well, it's interesting.

29:20

It's fascinating to sort of think about

29:22

what the sticks are in the carrot

29:24

and stick metaphor that the United States

29:26

basically said listen if this happens then

29:28

instantaneously this happens this happens this happens

29:30

and this happens so quit it do

29:32

you know what the this is well

29:34

I mean there's all matter of different

29:37

things I could do and those some

29:39

theories that essentially the the Americans would

29:41

immediately sink Russia's entire Black Sea fleet

29:43

that they could deploy their own, like

29:45

literally deploy US military into Ukraine, that

29:47

they could strike Russia. Like there's a

29:49

lot of things that the Americans are

29:51

not doing that they could do to

29:53

Putin. and his armies right now that

29:55

they're not. What's extraordinary is the Ukrainians

29:57

have been holding off Russia with really

29:59

kind of the stuff in the warehouse,

30:01

right? Like the Americans have been kind

30:04

of, what have we got here? Yeah,

30:06

you can have some of this stuff

30:08

and they've been using that to hold

30:10

the Russians off. The American military might

30:12

has not nearly been brought to bear.

30:14

on Putin. So, like, there's a lot

30:16

of scary things they could do. And

30:18

I'm sure that was communicated. And so

30:20

in terms of the, you know, the

30:22

use of battlefield nuclear weapons, the other

30:24

reason why I think Putin didn't do

30:26

them, other than the fact that there

30:28

would have been consequences for him, and

30:31

not just consequences from the United States,

30:33

but I think anyone that's been tacitly

30:35

supporting him. whether it's the Indians getting

30:37

to buy things or the Chinese, you

30:39

know, giving black market support of equipment

30:41

and other material, they would have been

30:43

it. It's completely unsustainable to continue to

30:45

support them in any fashion. So Russia

30:47

would have been utterly isolated at that

30:49

point as well. But the thing about

30:51

the use of tactical nuclear weapons is

30:53

that wouldn't have been decisive. The Ukrainians,

30:55

they've got a modern military approach. They

30:57

don't, funnily enough, the Russians still do

31:00

it to a large extent where they

31:02

will pull their... defense or sorry they'll

31:04

pull their soldiers and tanks all together

31:06

in one area. The Ukrainians are spread

31:08

out so you where you're launching them

31:10

and how and why so it's attractive

31:12

as an idea but all you really

31:14

do is create a lot of damage

31:16

in an area you know sort of

31:18

environmentally but you wouldn't create a battlefield

31:20

advantage right so Putin doesn't get a

31:22

battlefield decisive victory by using them. Suddenly

31:24

he's got complete isolation from his allies.

31:27

or you know he's got no one

31:29

to sell anything to correct and no

31:31

way or not what the Americans might

31:33

do right so you kind of look

31:35

at that go why would I do

31:37

it where it remains useful is still

31:39

as a I might use them right

31:41

and so for the reasons I talked

31:43

about with you earlier it's often scarier

31:45

to say you might do something to

31:47

actually go through and do it because

31:49

all that's happening now I've comprised it

31:51

in whereas that fear of unknown still

31:54

does it has and continues to create

31:56

a degree of hesitation in policymaker's minds

31:58

for the reasons you've said. I think

32:00

fundamentally you have to grit your teeth

32:02

and ignore it. You can't completely discount

32:04

it, but you've got to also remember

32:06

Putin's, whilst he's a megal maniac dictator,

32:08

he still fundamentally is like cunning rat

32:10

who wants to survive and that would

32:12

be... kind of essentially fatal move here.

32:14

So I just want to clarify what

32:16

best case and worst case scenarios are

32:18

from where we stay in. No, no,

32:20

we'll go in there and we're kind

32:23

of addicted to it. So let's take

32:25

it as a given that almost, let's

32:27

take it as a given then that

32:29

what should have happened when he first

32:31

invaded Ukraine is that we should have

32:33

thrown more. unrestricted long-range weapons at Ukraine

32:35

and said go for it. Go for

32:37

it kiddos and hopefully we wouldn't have

32:39

ended up in the situation that we're

32:41

in where there's effectively a stalemate border

32:43

in the east of the country. Now

32:45

that we have that, do you still

32:47

see a universe in which Ukraine becomes

32:50

whole again and like retakes Crimea or

32:52

something? Like what's good? What's good case?

32:54

there's kind of what could happen which

32:56

as I said you could give them

32:58

the weapons to get the job done

33:00

and they you know they grind out

33:02

a tough comfort behind victory right now

33:04

does that seem likely no it doesn't

33:06

seem likely it can't happen without United

33:08

States support right and that does not

33:10

appear to be on offer from the

33:12

Trump administration so then what becomes probable

33:14

well what in an ideal world you'd

33:17

still want to do is give Ukraine

33:19

you know the advantage on the battlefield

33:21

that Trump sorry not Trump that Putin

33:23

feels as though he's got to make

33:25

a deal because he's starting to lose,

33:27

right? At the moment I think Putin

33:29

thinks, well, it's kind of all going

33:31

my way. That's why he's being recalcitrant

33:33

on any sort of 30-day ceasefire. He's

33:35

like, well, why would I do it?

33:37

Yeah, I'm kind of grinding forward here.

33:39

You guys look like you're about to

33:41

capitulate anyway. Stuff it. Right. I think

33:43

makes their position stronger. But fundamentally, the

33:46

real big decision here is what is

33:48

the price of peace. So if Putin's

33:50

able to extract out of the United

33:52

States, Europeans and others that Ukraine's on

33:54

its own, then I think if you're

33:56

a betting man, you know, Putin's going

33:58

to retool and come back for the

34:00

rest. If they're on their own and

34:02

they've got no security guarantees, then eventually...

34:04

it's going to, you know, I think,

34:06

end very, very badly for the world

34:08

and for Ukrainians. And so, you know,

34:10

is it going to be possible to

34:13

expel Russian troops from all of the

34:15

landmass they currently occupy? extremely hard. So

34:17

therefore what's the price of peace need

34:19

to be is it needs to be

34:21

that Ukraine is safe and secure and

34:23

sovereign in its own borders that it

34:25

has security guarantees that are bankable. And

34:27

you've got to remember Ukraine's memory of

34:29

security guarantees, you know this is a

34:31

history as of the 1994 Budapest agreement,

34:33

they had the largest arsenal of nuclear

34:35

weapons outside the United of Russia and

34:37

the US. and gave them up to

34:40

remind people that's because they were part

34:42

of the Soviet Union and so the

34:44

Soviet Union at the time. And they

34:46

were storing them in Ukraine. I mean

34:48

it's an obviously good spot to have

34:50

them because it's close to Europe. So

34:52

if you're an aggressor on Europe you

34:54

want to put them somewhere in the

34:56

Soviet Union. Then the Soviet Union falls

34:58

apart. Ukraine becomes an independent country. Correct.

35:00

Sitting on all these nukes. And the

35:02

new Russia and the United States and

35:04

everyone else goes, yeah we don't want

35:07

you having all these having all these

35:09

jokes. But don't worry, give us your

35:11

nukes, we'll guarantee that you're safe. Perfectly.

35:13

Fast forward a few decades. Not sure

35:15

about that. Guarantee. Yeah, no. No, it's

35:17

not going to happen. Didn't happen in

35:19

2014 was when it was first tested

35:21

and shown to be, you know, complete

35:23

bullshit. Yeah, right. It didn't get, you

35:25

know, defended. And so you can understand

35:27

they got some hesitation around, yeah. promises

35:29

on paper. So what does a promise

35:31

on paper look like? Well, I think

35:33

it looks like what the Europeans are

35:36

talking about. You know, Kiyastam is talking

35:38

about this, Emmanuel Macron's talking about this,

35:40

you know, Anthony Albanese is talking about

35:42

what you've got to have some level.

35:44

of allied or European or democratic soldiers

35:46

on the ground maintaining a peace in

35:48

Ukraine that keeps Ukraine safe in that

35:50

Russia then knows if we come back

35:52

we're not just taking the Ukrainians we're

35:54

taking on everybody and that's the only

35:56

way to air guarantee it. Now short

35:58

of NATO, now NATO would be ideal.

36:00

that again seems unlikely because the United

36:03

States essentially the way NATO works is

36:05

I mean US being the big dog

36:07

in the NATO arrangement but everyone's what

36:09

veto powers on new new membership and

36:11

so that seems unlikely that that would

36:13

give them the guarantees they need article

36:15

5 mutual defense would give them right

36:17

would there is there not a conceivable

36:19

arrangement where Ukraine does not join NATO

36:21

but NATO functions as the body that

36:23

enforce the peace? Whether it's NATO, the

36:25

United States at this point, Trump is

36:27

saying they're not going to provide any

36:30

security guarantees. So what the Europeans are

36:32

trying to do is to say, okay,

36:34

we'll do the heavy lifting. Now Trump's

36:36

whole thing is the Europeans are bludgings

36:38

on security basis. Now, that's kind of

36:40

true over a long period of time

36:42

with NATO spending. It's not true with

36:44

the Ukraine conflict. they've been supporting Ukraine

36:46

more than the United States have and

36:48

rightly so it's on their doorstep right

36:50

but nevertheless yeah yeah and so what

36:52

the Ukrainians are saying is sorry the

36:54

Europeans are saying we'll go in will

36:56

be the cops on the ground but

36:59

we do need the United States to

37:01

be a backstop if you know shit

37:03

hits the fan and Russia comes back

37:05

again yeah and so I think some

37:07

sort of piece is secure and guaranteed

37:09

where okay they're not in NATO but

37:11

they've got a NATO-esque type backing and

37:13

then they're in the European Union at

37:15

that point. What do the Ukrainians want

37:17

out of this? I want to get

37:19

away from Russia, they want to be

37:21

European, and they want to be democratic

37:23

and they want to be free and

37:26

liberal and get to enjoy the world

37:28

that we have, so grateful to have

37:30

here in Australia, that type of life

37:32

is what they aspire to. That would

37:34

be a good piece I think. I

37:36

still think. I mean isn't it a

37:38

massive economic? isn't the

37:40

eastern part of the

37:42

country, the bread

37:44

basket of of your own? It's

37:46

interesting. To hear hear

37:48

the rest of this

37:50

conversation, go to go

37:53

to uncomfortable.com dot sub stack dot

37:55

you will get your

37:57

own will get your own personal

37:59

podcast feed with at

38:01

least three extra episodes

38:03

of the podcast every

38:05

month and heaps

38:07

of extra stuff, including

38:09

the remainder right

38:11

now now. of the fabulous

38:13

conversation you've just

38:15

been hearing. If it

38:17

was worth listening

38:19

to this much of,

38:22

to don't rob yourself

38:24

of the rest.

38:26

Pull out your phone

38:28

right now now and

38:30

for uncomfortable conversations with

38:32

the conversations in subsequent.