0:01

The New Statesman.

0:06

I'm Megan Gibson, foreign editor in London.

0:08

I'm Ido Valk, Europe correspondent in Berlin.

0:11

I'm Will Lloyd, I am a commissioning

0:13

editor and writer, and I'm in London as well.

0:15

It's Thursday, the 25th of May, you're

0:17

listening to World Review from The New Statesman,

0:20

a twice weekly international news podcast.

0:26

Every Monday, we interview a guest for their unique

0:28

perspective and expertise. Later in

0:30

the week, we come together to unpack some of the most

0:33

significant stories in world

0:34

affairs. This week, we

0:36

discuss the UK's recent National Conservative

0:38

Conference and how a US movement has gone

0:40

global.

0:41

We need to get overall immigration

0:44

numbers down. And we mustn't

0:46

forget how to do things for ourselves.

0:49

There is no good reason why we

0:51

can't train up enough truck drivers,

0:54

butchers, fruit pickers, builders

0:56

or welders. And then we turn to the Belgorod

0:59

region, where Ukraine aligned militias

1:01

have staged an attack on villages within

1:03

Russia's

1:03

borders. We're

1:06

Russians like you, we're people like

1:08

you. We want our children to grow up in peace

1:10

and be free people that can travel, study

1:13

and simply be happy in a free country.

1:16

But that has no place in

1:18

today's Putin's Russia. We

1:22

discuss who was behind the attack and what it means

1:24

for the war in Ukraine.

1:25

Thank you for joining. Let's

1:27

begin. So

1:32

Will, I'm going to start with you. Thank you.

1:34

This is your first appearance. This is. I'm

1:36

breaking my duck. My World Review duck is broken.

1:39

I'm not even sure what a duck is. Anyway, sorry, Megan.

1:41

No, that's okay. Thank you for joining us.

1:43

So you've written the New Statesman cover story

1:45

this week, which is on, among

1:48

other things, the National Conservatism

1:50

Conference that took place in the UK last week.

1:53

So I guess just to start out for

1:56

any listeners who are not aware, could

1:58

you briefly define what.

1:59

what essentially national

2:02

conservatism is. Well, hopefully

2:04

the national conservatives, which

2:06

are a sort of pan-national

2:09

movement who stage events

2:12

off the back of a think tank called the Edmund

2:14

Burke Foundation, which was founded in 2019 by

2:17

an Israeli-American academic

2:19

philosopher called Yoram Hosany. Thankfully

2:21

last June, they actually released a statement of principles

2:24

because people were asking the question, what is a national conservative?

2:26

And obviously putting the word national in

2:29

front of any sort of political philosophy can sometimes

2:31

have quite sinister associations. So they released

2:33

their manifesto last June, includes

2:36

a variety of statements. So

2:38

it talks about the importance of the Bible and

2:40

the families, the foundation of Western civilization.

2:42

It has a critique of free markets,

2:45

not being absolute. It calls for restrictions

2:47

on migration. It's anti-imperial

2:50

in the present day, if perhaps not in the past.

2:52

And so it has a variety of points like that. It was signed by,

2:54

among other people, Michael Anton, former

2:56

national security advisor for Donald Trump,

2:59

Rodreia, who's quite famous, orthodox

3:01

Christian American author and

3:04

columnist,

3:05

Charlie Kirk, who's quite a regrettable figure

3:07

in American politics. He's a sort of talking

3:10

head. I think that's the most polite thing you could say about him.

3:12

Peter Thiel, who is- What's

3:14

the most polite thing you can say about Peter Thiel? I

3:16

think he's interesting. How about that? That

3:18

is very polite. Christopher Rufo, the

3:21

anti-critical race theory campaigner.

3:23

And so, yeah, and so the national conservatives have

3:25

got these manifestos and

3:28

they hold conferences all over the world. Now that's

3:30

the sort of surface level and that's who

3:32

are these people and a little bit about what they believe.

3:34

But one of the things I say in the piece, I

3:37

think it's really important to think about the

3:39

national conservatives in another way. And I

3:41

would locate the origins of national conservatism

3:44

precisely the moment where Donald Trump

3:46

is in Trump Tower and he goes down that golden escalator

3:49

and he runs for president.

3:50

Now, within a few weeks of Donald Trump's sort

3:52

of speeches and rallies, a meme appears.

3:55

And that meme is the sort of political quadrant meme.

3:58

Authoritarian right, whatever.

3:59

libertarian left and in that meme someone had put

4:02

little bits from Trump's speeches and it managed

4:04

to fill every section of the quadrant. Trump was

4:06

basically a fascist, a communist, a

4:09

lib, he was everything all at once. Now somebody

4:11

had to make all this stuff cohere. People

4:13

on the right in America, the set of consensus

4:15

about what right-wing politics was, was completely smashed

4:17

by Trump.

4:18

And so somebody had to take all these weird attitudes

4:21

and sew them into a political

4:23

ideology. The person who first attempted

4:25

to do that was Steve Bannon.

4:27

Bannon obviously is a strategist who comes in August 2016,

4:30

does Donald Trump's tie, clips his fingernails

4:32

a little bit and helps him beat Clinton.

4:35

And Bannon leaves in 2017 and

4:37

then he goes on a kind of global populist

4:39

roadshow.

4:40

He flies over to Europe, he says he's going to start

4:42

a gladiator school for populists in the hills above

4:44

Rome. He attempts to form a group in the European

4:47

Parliament. His overtures are rejected

4:49

by European populists, it doesn't work. But

4:51

Bannon says something that I've thought about often

4:54

since he said it. I think he says this, correct

4:56

me if I'm wrong, but I think he says it in a speech

4:58

at the Oxford Union, maybe in 2018. He

5:00

says this to an audience of young people, he says, Donald Trump

5:02

will be in your life in 10, 20, 25 years time.

5:07

It's quite a strange remark, quite mysterious remark.

5:09

I thought, what does that mean?

5:10

When I, on the 15th of May, 2023, was

5:12

at the National Conservatism Conference and I watched

5:15

a series of sort of British academics, journalists,

5:17

pundits, philosophers

5:19

talk, I realized, ah, Donald Trump

5:21

is in my life. This is what Bannon meant. It meant

5:23

that people would take Trump and Trumpism

5:26

and try and make it into something, try and make it

5:28

into a real political program. And so that's what the

5:31

conference was about, I think, in a deeper way.

5:33

Yeah, so it's interesting that you make the point that

5:35

National Conservatism, as Bannon

5:38

saw it, and as he tried to like take it on his

5:40

European tour, it was dead on arrival.

5:43

It didn't really take off, but it did

5:45

take off in the US. It has transformed

5:48

the Republican Party. We see

5:50

elements of Trumpism in every

5:52

single candidate and every like strong

5:55

GOP grandi is too afraid

5:58

to actually distance themselves from.

5:59

more of the really dark elements of

6:02

Trumpism. Yeah, well the interesting thing is that

6:04

I think Trump is Trump. So Trump is

6:06

basically just a sort of appetite in a suit. He

6:08

sort of rolls around and he says his things.

6:10

But

6:11

so many other

6:13

Republican politicians, I'd include

6:16

Ron DeSantis in this, I'd include JD Vance

6:18

in this, I'd include Josh Hawley, the influential

6:20

senator in this, I'd include Marco Rubio, who used

6:22

to be the kind of GOP poster

6:25

boy of the old consensus. What was the old consensus?

6:27

It was foreign wars, it was not

6:29

really being that bothered about migration on the border. It

6:32

was belief in free markets and some stops to

6:34

social conservatives. Well that's changed. The social

6:36

conservatives have ridden on the back of Trump

6:39

and they have more power now. You know, Marco

6:41

Rubio was at the Miami 2022

6:43

National Conservatism

6:45

Conference and he went up on stage and said,

6:47

I am a national conservative. Ron DeSantis has also

6:49

spoken at these. Vance spoke at the one in

6:51

London via video link.

6:53

Oh, did he? What was his message? I

6:56

actually didn't watch it. Because I really wanted

6:58

to focus on the British side and I did need to speak

7:00

to people when Vance was doing his bit.

7:02

And I also, I'm

7:04

not sure how much I can

7:06

stand him really. Right. Because

7:08

I thought his book was quite interesting, but he's

7:10

become like a little miniature Trump.

7:13

I mean, there's no way of, we're now speculating

7:15

far away from what we're talking about, but I don't really

7:18

think he believes a lot of what he's saying, but he thinks

7:20

it will work. And so there's always a question with these new

7:22

political ideologies like, who's an opportunist?

7:24

Who's

7:24

a true believer?

7:26

Ron DeSantis has certainly gone on a journey,

7:28

I think. If we look at what this kind of stuff he was saying in 2013, Rubio

7:31

has gone on a journey, but then you look at someone like Teal,

7:33

or you look at someone like Josh Hawley, they haven't gone

7:35

on a journey. I think they believe this stuff.

7:37

Do you think someone like Hawley, not Hawley

7:39

in so much, but Teal definitely, less

7:41

that they're found something

7:44

that they're like, yes, this kind of spells

7:46

out what I believe in, or are they kind of a

7:48

guiding force for what this movement is?

7:50

Well, there's an interesting detail about the

7:52

Edmund Burke Foundation, who this

7:54

kind of grows out of in America. One of their donors

7:56

is something called

7:59

the Donor.

7:59

as trust. It's a dark money fund. We

8:02

don't know who gives money to it. I have no idea if Peter

8:04

Thiel's involved. I don't know what I could actually get

8:06

away with saying, but you have

8:07

some suspicions about. Well, I mean,

8:09

you wonder, you wonder what the, what the, you know, this is a very

8:12

generous billionaire in some ways. Um,

8:14

gave a lot of money to Trump in 2016. Although

8:16

he has said he's not doing it this time. But what

8:18

Bannon tried to do was make institutions and

8:21

you needed intellectuals, you needed young people, you needed,

8:23

you that kind of energy to turn these

8:25

movements into something that would outlive Trump

8:27

and survive Trump. And I think the national conservatives

8:30

are doing that

8:31

in 2019. They actually held a

8:33

one day conference in London and the main speaker

8:35

was Roger Scruton. Very few MPs there.

8:38

No, I'm particularly interested. The media wasn't interested in covering

8:40

it. Now look at 2023 because of what's

8:42

happened in America, because of how far this is going in America.

8:44

I think there's so much more interest in it now. And we had

8:47

two cabinet ministers from Rishi Sunyak's government

8:49

attending, making speeches, very different speeches,

8:52

I think with very different aims, but it was still very

8:54

telling.

8:55

You can, if you want, just for our listeners who

8:57

will not maybe have yet read your piece, because

8:59

we can talk about the UK perspective and, and

9:02

what, what kind of, what did it seem like these

9:04

cabinet ministers and the other MPs

9:07

who attended, what did they want to get out of this?

9:09

Are they opportunists? Opportunists maybe is a bit strong,

9:11

but they all wanted something different. So when a Bravenman came

9:14

over and she, um, she just made a leadership

9:16

speech, it was actually someone muttered as

9:18

they, as the speech finishes, as

9:20

she walked away, they muttered, that was a bit liberal.

9:23

And if you go and read the Bravenman speech, you

9:25

will find it was not particularly liberal.

9:27

Is that the first time that's ever been said about

9:29

a little bit? Yeah, possibly. I didn't include

9:31

it in the piece because I thought, God, Michael Gove

9:33

definitely isn't a national conservative. Michael Gove came

9:36

in, said, I'm a social liberal. At the end, he was asked

9:38

what conservatives should do if and when they lose the next

9:40

general election. He said that they should read Jane Austen.

9:42

So I don't think he was going for sort of

9:44

a Trumpist note.

9:45

I guess that's not in the Natcon manifesto.

9:48

The reading list, as far as I can tell, has not included

9:51

Jane Austen. Although the way social

9:53

relations were set up during the time of Austen's

9:55

novels would probably appeal to quite

9:57

a lot of people in the movement. You know, everyone

9:59

get your bonnet.

9:59

ready for the NatCon takeover. I

10:02

shouldn't be too sarcastic because one of the things I really want

10:04

to do in this piece is take it very seriously. If

10:06

we look at what's happened in America, in Britain

10:08

I think it means that it's on us to take

10:10

these ideas seriously, try and imagine what

10:13

kind of appeal they might have. I think the big difference between

10:15

America and Britain, Britain does not have

10:18

that religious right. It just doesn't really

10:20

exist here. This is an incredibly secular country.

10:23

For 300 years, schoolboys in Britain read John

10:25

Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress.

10:27

If we took a copy of The Pilgrim's Progress

10:29

out on the street and waved in someone's face, they would

10:31

not know what it was. That Protestant

10:34

thing

10:35

doesn't exist in Britain anymore. That evangelical

10:37

thing is quite strong in London, but not in

10:39

a way that can tip the scales of politics. So that's

10:41

one of the challenges for national conservatism in the UK.

10:44

Can I ask, I think implicit in your

10:46

remark about the Trump political compass is that

10:48

Trump can't really be placed ideologically

10:51

beyond, I think, very strong tenets

10:53

on particular ideas, but if you were to

10:56

try and pinpoint him ideologically, it would

10:58

be not too easy. He's not either

11:00

kind of typical right populist, but also has positions

11:03

that are very heterodox in terms of pre-Trump

11:06

republicanism, for example. That makes

11:08

him as a kind of ideological model quite

11:10

complicated for other national

11:12

conservatives across the world.

11:14

I was wondering if you could talk about perhaps a

11:16

more kind of coherent ideological model.

11:18

Victor Orban, who is the influence cited

11:22

on national conservatives and strikes me as

11:24

a more coherent, ideologically

11:27

coherent, role models than Trump

11:29

for people who are not in the US who

11:31

were

11:32

perhaps looking to emulate some of the ideas

11:34

of national conservatives. I

11:36

can't actually think of a time when Hungary has been so

11:38

influential on the way that, for

11:41

one of the better word, Anglo people think. In

11:43

Rome in 2020, the National Conservatism Conference,

11:46

Orban was a kind of guest of honor. He was fated, that

11:48

was fanfare for him. And what they look to in

11:50

Hungary is a model of anti-globalist,

11:52

pronatal resistance to

11:55

the ravages of modernity.

11:57

And so you've had Tucker Carlson do. Did

11:59

he do? a week of Fox shows

12:01

from Hungary. And you've had Ron DeSantis explicitly,

12:04

I think, or either DeSantis or people

12:06

who advise him explicitly talk about Hungary as a model

12:09

for the state of Florida. Now, what

12:11

to make of this? I mean, we know that Orban's

12:13

pro-natal policies haven't really worked, haven't really

12:15

affected the birth rate in Hungary. We

12:18

know there's probably going to be more dealmaking

12:20

with the EU than staunch resistance to

12:22

it forever, just because sheer economic

12:25

factors like the number of German car parts

12:27

that are made in Hungary mean that politics and economics

12:29

can't really be separated. And one

12:31

of the things that Natcons are quite weak on is actually

12:33

thinking about economics in a serious way, other

12:36

than saying we don't like it

12:38

at the moment. We don't like

12:39

what they call globalism. We don't like

12:41

the way trade works with China. We don't like

12:44

importing workers into our countries and stuff like that.

12:46

The Hungarians are basically ubiquitous in this movement

12:48

though. The Hungarians in London, they're always Hungarians

12:50

in the American conferences. A lot of money

12:53

is sloshing around in Brussels from Hungarians

12:55

who are selling out magazines and think tanks and

12:57

institutions. They are pulling the

13:00

direction of Anglo-American conservatism, pulling

13:02

it towards what exactly

13:04

I think is a very open question. So

13:06

if I have this right, the way

13:08

National Conservatives has manifested

13:11

in the UK so far

13:13

seems to be still a bit

13:15

more incoherent than it is in the US.

13:17

Yes. Has it made any

13:20

attempt to grapple? You said it hasn't

13:22

really thought deeply about economics.

13:25

Has it made any attempt to grapple about the

13:27

hard backs of governing versus just

13:30

lofty ideals?

13:31

Well, look at the way

13:33

British conservatism has gone since 2016. I kept, this is a very strange

13:38

thing to admit on a New Statesman podcast, but I

13:40

felt this kind of deep, deep sense of nostalgia for

13:42

David Cameron watching these people talk. I thought,

13:44

oh God, no, talking about spiritual

13:47

crisis is all very well and good,

13:49

but how to solve it? I didn't really see where that

13:51

was coming from. And then I remembered something

13:53

that Bannon said. He talked about a generational

13:55

project, forming a counter-elite,

13:57

breaking the hegemony of the big liberal institution.

14:00

a long war, a long

14:02

march. And I thought maybe it's the attitude

14:05

that actually is important. Maybe it's if

14:07

this criticism resonates with people.

14:09

It's very dark criticism. I know the word I use is Welbeckian.

14:12

It's like being in a Michelle Welbeck novel.

14:14

If that can land with people,

14:16

then maybe they will have the opportunity to govern. I

14:18

mean, it looks like in America that may

14:20

happen at some point. So I don't have a

14:22

good answer to that question.

14:24

Just a slightly nervous feeling. To

14:26

compound that nervous feeling. My last question before

14:28

we'll let you go. You said you went in this taking

14:31

it seriously. You really wanted to grapple with

14:33

what was happening there. Do you think that

14:36

this could be the direction that the Tory party

14:38

is headed in?

14:39

If the Tories lose the next election, which

14:42

seems likely, but then after the

14:45

previous four or five years of politics,

14:47

I do feel as if almost anything can happen now. So I don't

14:49

want to write them off. People who are representing

14:52

Sounak at this thing or knew Sounak were

14:54

very firm in their belief that this is the most

14:56

competent Tory prime minister for a generation

14:59

and that he was actually really good at this job and that he

15:01

would turn it around. They try their best to spin

15:03

journalists. But if they lose, then the

15:06

kaleidoscope has been smashed. The pieces

15:08

are all lying all over the place. And what's

15:10

there? There's a sort of Liz Truss vision, Tory

15:12

politics. There's a Boris Johnson vision. And

15:15

there's this thing. And say

15:17

DeSantis is

15:17

in the White House. How will that make people

15:20

think about national conservatism in the UK? They

15:22

will think, ah, maybe if it worked

15:24

over there, it could work over here.

15:26

We've had Rachel Reeves this week over in America talking about

15:28

biodynamics, talking about how it's a model for the Labour

15:30

Party. One of the things that British

15:32

politicians love more than anything is American politics.

15:34

They love reading long biographies of Lyndon B. Johnson. Washington

15:37

sneezes, we catch a cold. So I do think

15:39

for that reason, there is a possible

15:42

future where you have a national conservative

15:44

leader like Soweto Braven or someone

15:46

else. But my main thing, the

15:48

thing to leave on is that I felt like I hadn't seen

15:51

the person who was gonna do that.

15:52

I felt like I was watching people sort of drumming

15:55

for that person. And it may or may not happen. I

15:58

did get this sort of eerie feeling. on

16:00

that foreboding note. Thank you so

16:02

much Will. Thank you for joining

16:04

us. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Ido.

16:36

Hi, I'm Anoush, and I host the New Statesman

16:38

podcast. Twice a week,

16:40

we get under the skin of Westminster to help

16:43

understand what's going on and what's going to happen

16:45

next. We interview politicians,

16:48

policymakers and people on the front line

16:50

to get you the full story behind the headlines.

16:53

Plus, hear from our award-winning editorial team,

16:56

including political editor Andrew Marr, to

16:58

get to the bottom of what on earth is happening. Listen

17:01

to the New Statesman podcast. You can subscribe

17:03

now wherever you get your podcasts.

17:18

We'll make sure to link

17:20

to Will's cover piece for the New Statesman on

17:23

the National Conservatism Conference in the UK

17:26

in the show notes. Now

17:30

moving on, we head to Russia,

17:32

where Ukraine-aligned militias

17:35

have attacked villages in

17:37

the Belagrad region. Ido,

17:39

I'm going to come to you on this.

17:42

I was wondering, could you start a bit by talking about

17:44

exactly what happened with the attack

17:46

and what's happening on the ground and what is the latest?

17:49

So what seems to have happened is

17:52

on Monday this week, so on

17:54

the 22nd of May, a group of anti-cremnant

17:58

Russian fighters broke into... Russia

18:00

proper so as you said the Belgorod region

18:03

which is on the border of Ukraine sort

18:05

of north of the current front

18:07

line and they claim to

18:09

have quote liberated a couple of very

18:12

small villages just on the border

18:14

and they're probably not still there they were probably

18:16

pushed out but these are two Ukraine

18:19

based groups who oppose the

18:21

war in Ukraine they're called the Russian volunteer

18:23

corps and the Free Russia Legion they

18:25

seem to have basically broken into Russia

18:28

obviously they were probably doing

18:29

this with the support of Ukraine but they seem to have broken

18:32

into to Russia proper taken several

18:34

villages killed Russian soldiers it's

18:37

just a kind of slightly different aspect to the war

18:39

because these are apparently people

18:41

who claim to be really some of them are Russian

18:43

citizens speaking Russian who seem

18:45

to be hinting that they

18:48

will bring the war inside Russia

18:50

actual fighting as opposed to kind of isolated

18:52

attacks

18:53

and am I right in saying Zielinski's government

18:56

has some distance itself from the attacks

18:58

and said they had nothing to do with it

19:00

yeah I mean Ukraine throughout the

19:02

conflict we were talking about it on the podcast

19:05

very often throughout the conflict there are attacks

19:08

on Russian territory and Ukraine says it

19:10

has absolutely nothing to do with it

19:12

bluntly that seems quite unlikely

19:14

it is I would think almost impossible

19:17

that there would be a group of armed

19:19

soldiers there would be a couple of army units

19:22

hanging out in northern Ukraine completely

19:25

unhindered who just decided

19:27

to pop over into Russia and then presumably

19:30

pop back into Ukraine the idea that they

19:33

would be doing that without any kind

19:35

of tacit support from from Ukraine

19:37

any kind of encouragement being provided with weapons

19:40

and vehicles and so on that seems to me to

19:42

be

19:42

vanishingly unlikely the government of

19:44

Ukraine has distance itself from these fighters

19:46

but it seems impossible to me that these

19:49

groups would not be acting with

19:51

at least the kind of tacit endorsement

19:54

of Ukraine or even the

19:55

open support and backing mm-hmm we

19:58

have talked quite recently podcast

20:00

about these attacks within Russia,

20:02

within within the borders of Russia. Of course, we've

20:05

always probably added that with how

20:07

difficult it is to know who is actually

20:09

behind this, but it does seem like

20:12

there's been a definite escalation

20:14

of these sorts of attacks. If you think about, we discussed

20:16

a few weeks back the drone attacks on the

20:18

Kremlin,

20:20

these attacks this week. Is this something

20:23

that, do you think this is something that

20:26

we're going to see more of if it is ordered by Kyiv?

20:28

Is it something that they can really demonstrate the

20:30

fact that they can bring this

20:32

war? I guess in actual

20:35

absolute terms, this doesn't really seem that

20:37

significant an escalation. These are really two

20:39

very, very, very tiny villages right on the

20:42

border with Ukraine, kind of territorial

20:44

terms. This is not a huge incursion or

20:46

whatever, but I think it does force Russia to

20:48

think a bit differently about how it's

20:50

going to defend against this much-wanted counter-offensive

20:52

because Russia was fortifying the front line,

20:55

fortifying its current positions, which were

20:57

obviously nowhere near Belgorod. They

20:59

were further south in occupied Ukrainian

21:01

territory. Essentially, Ukraine

21:03

is telling Russia that it has the capability

21:06

and the willingness to at least endorse

21:09

attacks across the Russian border to the north

21:11

of the defensive positions, which are presumably

21:14

much less well fortified. Russia

21:17

was counting on holding its troops

21:19

along the current front line,

21:22

the current line of defense. Then this

21:24

perhaps forces Russia to think

21:26

a bit differently about that, about moving some troops

21:29

back up north to on the border with Ukraine

21:31

in the Belgorod region, perhaps further

21:33

up.

21:34

I think this is potentially the kind

21:36

of thing that would suit Ukraine's aims

21:39

if they can use these Russian units,

21:41

which by the way, it looks like at least some

21:43

of them are open neo-nazi. These

21:45

are very unsavory people.

21:49

You might question to what extent

21:52

it would be wise and

21:54

advisable for Ukraine to ally with essentially

21:56

open fascists, even if they happen to be fighting

21:59

the same.

21:59

But yeah, I think this is the kind of thing you

22:02

could see more of simply because it forces Russia

22:05

to spread its forces a bit more thinly to defend

22:07

places it thought that it didn't have to defend.

22:10

And presumably Kiev isn't too

22:12

keen to associate themselves

22:15

with these attacks because its Western

22:18

allies probably wouldn't be

22:21

too happy with the fact that

22:23

the war could be escalating outside of Ukraine

22:25

into Russia.

22:26

It seems to be the condition

22:28

that a lot of weaponry has been provided to Ukraine.

22:31

For example, the UK provided long range

22:34

cruise missiles to Ukraine called the

22:36

Storm Shadow missiles on the condition that

22:38

they weren't used to attack Russia proper

22:40

because presumably the UK is scared of

22:43

escalation and wants to avoid escalation. So

22:45

Ukraine can use it within its own internationally

22:48

recognized borders, but it can't use it across into

22:50

Russia proper. And of course, these are incursions into Russia

22:52

proper. I can't imagine Ukraine's

22:54

allies are particularly happy about this,

22:57

but

22:58

it is also important to maintain some kind of perspective.

23:00

This isn't like a big ground invasion of Russia.

23:02

It's a couple of units who captured a couple

23:05

of tiny settlements, a few kilometers

23:07

from the border. It's not some kind of

23:09

it's not the 24th of February in reverse. So

23:11

yeah, it's probably important to maintain some kind of

23:14

perspective. But I guess it does show that that

23:16

Ukraine is willing to

23:19

ally with anti Putin forces

23:21

even made up of Russians. There are

23:23

Chechens fighting on the Ukrainian side.

23:26

There are Russian and Belarusian units who have

23:28

been fighting on the Ukrainian side. It wouldn't make sense

23:30

that they would be used inside Russia

23:32

proper because ultimately that's

23:35

that's who they're fighting for. This group is called

23:37

the Free Russia Legion. Their leader

23:39

published a video and they said, you know, we want to live in a free

23:41

country. So clearly helping

23:44

the Ukrainian war effort is a step

23:46

to their own ultimate aim of liberating

23:48

Russia from Putin.

23:49

You know, thanks so much.

23:54

But that's all the time we have for today. Join us

23:57

Monday when I will be interviewing the Ukrainian historian

23:59

and author. Sarah A. Plocky about his

24:01

new book, The Russell Ukrainian War. If

24:05

you're a regular World Review listener and haven't already

24:07

subscribed, please subscribe. Please

24:10

also give us a nice review. It really does

24:12

help.

24:13

Our producer has been Michel-Francois Duval. Thank

24:16

you for listening

24:16

and spending time.