67. Putin's Propaganda
43:07 Share

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Hello and welcome to the Friday episode of the Battleground Ukraine podcast with me, Patrick Bishop, and Saul David.

Well, after the drama of the Wagner mutiny, it was perhaps inevitable that things would quiet down a little. But there's still been some highly significant events over the last seven days, both on and off the battlefield, including a warning from Ukraine's President Zelensky that Russia may be planning to blow up the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. Yes, and we've also had the clearest explanation yet from the Ukrainian military as to what they're trying to achieve with their counteroffensive.

More indications that the various interests of Evgeny Prokhorin's Wagner PMC are being wound up in the wake of the failed mutiny. And evidence that up to 700,000 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia without their parents' permission.

But what about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant story, Patrick? It does sound particularly worrying. It is, Saul. Ukraine has long been warning that Russia might try to create what would in effect be an improvised nuclear device by blowing up the plant itself.

and then blaming Ukraine for the deed as a sort of false flag operation. Well, that doomsday scenario has come a bit closer, according to President Zelensky, who says that Russia has, quotes, placed objects resembling explosives on the roof of the nuclear plant,

and may be planning to detonate them and then put the blame on Ukrainian shelling. Now, this seems to be reinforced by what's coming out of Moscow. An advisor to Russia's Rosatom nuclear agency, someone called Renat Karcher, has accused Ukraine of planning an attack on the plant. Now, why Ukrainians would destroy their own plant and risk a nuclear fallout that would damage its own people was, of course, not explained by the Russians.

But let's face it, this is exactly the sort of, you know, let's not mince our words, the sort of wicked act that the Russians are entirely capable of and something that many experts in the West, including Hamish to Bretton Gordon, who listeners will remember was on the podcast a couple of weeks ago.

have been warning about. What's your feeling about this, Saul? Well, like you, I've no doubt the Russians are capable of it, Patrick. What might give them pause for thought is a recent bipartisan resolution by the US Senate. This resolution has, you know, almost crept under the radar of a lot of the people in the West. But it is quite significant, I think, because the resolution said that any actions by Russia, Belarus, or, and I quote, a proxy of Russia,

that led to a radioactive leak on Ukraine's territory, either by the use of a nuclear weapon or deliberate sabotage, would trigger Article 5 and bring NATO into the war on Ukraine's side. So clearly this would apply in the case of improvised nuclear weapons, like a deliberate explosion of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, and it might be enough to deter Russia. What we don't know, of course, are the conversations that are currently taking place between the Americans and the Russians behind the scenes.

But let's just hope Putin is getting the message. Well, let's turn to the battlefield now. The Ukrainian military has responded to criticism from some in the West complaining about the slow pace of the counteroffensive. And they've explained exactly what it is they're trying to achieve. The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Alexei Danilov

said the other day, and this was on the 4th of July, that Ukrainian forces were performing their main task of destroying Russian manpower, equipment, fuel depots, artillery and air defences, and that, as he put it, a war of destruction is equal to a war of kilometres. In other words, it's not just about the amount of territory you gain, but also what damage you're doing to Russian territory.

manpower and materiel. And Danilov's assessment was backed by the NATO Military Committee Chair, Admiral Bob Bauer, who noted that Ukrainian forces were right, they're doing the right thing to proceed cautiously and avoid high casualties, and that the counteroffensive was difficult because of landmines and other obstacles up to 30 kilometers deep in

into Russian occupied territory. Now, Bauer added that Ukrainian forces should not face criticism or pressure for moving slowly. Quite right. But there's always a public and a private face to what we know about what's going on, isn't there, Saul? I've just come off the phone from our great friend, the journalist and Ukrainian expert, Asgol Krushelnitsky, who's been giving me some feel for what Ukrainian intelligence sources are telling him.

Now, apparently, Batmout is still a very important sector of the front, and the fighting around there is very intense. Now, this is not something that's necessarily coming through on the news.

Ukrainian forces have been making considerable progress, is what he's hearing, to the extent that the Russians, and this is judging from the intercepted communications, to the extent that the Russians are really seriously concerned that they're about to be surrounded and cut off. And there are indications that some unit commanders are of a mind to clear out before they are indeed encircled.

Now, were that to happen, this would be a huge propaganda victory for Ukraine, wouldn't it? Given the symbolic value that the Russians have invested in what was a very, very costly campaign to capture Bakhmut, largely remembered by Wagner forces. And so its fall would be another huge blow to Putin's prestige coming so soon after the Wagner mutiny.

It would also bring a big haul of prisoners, which would be very damaging, I would say, to the Moscow narrative. So a bit of a Stalingrad moment in reverse, you might say, Saul. Yeah, I mean, just think, look at the different tactics that the Ukrainians are using. That's fascinating, by the way, Patrick, because that sort of nuance is not really coming in to the general news reports at the moment. I'm going to talk a little bit in a second more generally about about

what the Ukrainians have been doing, but Bakhmut would be a hugely significant blow. If we see the way the Russians tried to fight for that city, kind of driving through the center, inching forward bit by bit by bit and taking enormous casualties, uh,

contrast that with Ukrainian tactics of advancing on either side. I'm writing about Tunisia at the moment, Patrick, and when they invaded North Africa, they didn't go straight for the ports because they were the most heavily defended. They landed on either side and enveloped the ports. And that's effectively what Ukraine is doing. Very sensible strategy.

costs a lot, many fewer lives and is far more effective because as you say, Patrick, in the end, you get a lot of the enemy in the bag. It's the sort of German tactics in the Second World War. But just to go back to that sort of broader point of what they're trying to achieve here, it's true the pace has been slow.

but they are still liberating territory. Even last week, according to Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Hannah Malia, more than 37 square kilometers were liberated in eastern and southern Ukraine. Now, the assessment of the respected Washington, D.C. think tank, which we often mention,

the Institute for the Study of War, is that the current pace of Ukrainian operations is, and I quote, not indicative of a stalemate or evidence that Ukraine cannot retake large areas, just underlining the point you've just made, Patrick. They cite the fact that the rapid advance in Kherson province, that's last autumn, of course, came after a slow and gradual interdiction campaign against Russian concentration areas in east bank Kherson,

and limited ground attacks on the West Bank, something similar seems to be happening now. Now, the ISW also contrasts the Ukrainian counteroffensives with the recent Russian winter-spring offensive that made, as we just discussed, no significant gains apart from the extremely costly capture of Bakhmut. And another bit of encouraging news is that, according to U.S. officials,

America is thinking of approving the ATACMS long range missile system to Ukraine and also providing cluster bombs. Both will be a huge help in attriting Russian forces in Ukraine. So overall, there are grounds for optimism, I think, Patrick. And General Milley, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was right to recently tell the Western press and the West more generally that,

not to criticize the slow progress of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead to be patient because they know what they're doing and it will have an effect.

So let's move on to our old friend Prigozhin, Patrick and Wagner. What's the latest you've heard on that? Well, there's never a dull moment, is there, Saul? The latest is that Russian armed police have raided in very theatrical style Prigozhin's palace in St. Petersburg. I can't believe that's the only one. These guys usually have several, don't they?

and made a huge media event of it, releasing footage to state outlets, showing these guys dressed up in SAS-type outfits, breaking in, moving from room to room. And there's lots of highly detailed information about what they found there. Gold bars, about £86 million worth of rubles in cash, lots of guns,

lots of ammo, said to be a framed picture of the severed heads of some of Prigozhin's enemies, etc., etc. All the sort of stuff you'd expect to find in any self-respecting warlord's mansion. But what was surprising was the discovery of a, to

to me anyway, of a cupboard full of wigs in shades ranging from melty grey to brown. But I always thought that Prigogine had embraced and celebrated his slap-haired look.

He went with a kind of hard man image that he's always projecting. Maybe the FSB planted these wigs there to discredit him. Anyway, it would all seem to suggest that Prigozhin and Wagner are out of the picture or kind of fading from the picture in Russia, at least for the time being. It would also suggest that he himself is no longer in power.

Petersburg, there were previous reports suggesting that even though he decamped first to Belarus, he probably then went off to Petersburg. But it would seem now he probably has returned to this new base in Belarus. The Russian government is, again, mixed signals. They appear to be dismantling some of Prygoshin's financial interests and his power base in Russia. For example, they've cancelled this very, very lucrative catering business.

contract to the services, which was really the foundation of his fortune. Also, the Wagner Bot Farm, that apparently is being taken apart. And that's a very significant thing that was used to influence the 2016 US or attempt to influence the 2016 US presidential race. But having said that, there are also reports that

Again, one from the ISW saying that the Russian authorities are actually absolving Prigozhin of financial responsibility for the damages caused by the Wagner Group attempted putsch. And reportedly, they've actually handed back some liquid assets that were

seized from Wagner. And this is possibly part of the deal negotiated between Putin, Prokosin and the Belarus dictator, Alexander Lukashenko. Well, you know, there's loads of money sloshing around.

And some of it seems to be finding its way back into Wagner hands. I mean, the money, even the money that was seized in the mansion, according to some Russian media reports, has already been, it will be turned back to Wagner. So it's all, as usual, fascinating and very confusing, Saul, isn't it? What do you make of it?

I mean, the first thing to say, Patrick, is that I think all of this is evidence that the mutiny was real. I mean, we had questions last week. Was it a false flag? Was it all a big plot to get Wagner up in Belarus so that, you know, there's going to be a kind of strike from that area? No, I think you can see here that the mutiny severely weakened Putin overall.

Why else would he return Pogosian's money? I mean, you know, this is most unlikely, isn't it? On the one hand, they're dismantling Wagner. No question about that, as you pointed out. But on the other hand, they're giving him back his cash. So if Putin wasn't concerned about the consequences of reneging on the deal and punishing him, it just makes him, in my view, look weak and effective.

Now, another bit of significant news this week was the admission by Moscow that it has brought 700,000 children from the conflict zones in Ukraine into Russian territory. And incredibly, this was actually admitted by Russia. This has long been a charge, of course, of the Ukrainians. But Gregory Karasin, the head of the International Committee and the Federation Council,

Russia's upper house of parliament, said on Telegram this week, and I quote, in recent years, 700,000 children have found refuge with us, fleeing the bombing and shelling from the conflict areas in Ukraine. Now he's painting it as a humanitarian act, but really this is a ridiculous own goal by Russia because it provides evidence

from their own mouths that they have indeed been unlawfully deporting huge numbers of Ukrainian children, far more, in fact, than the Ukrainians have been claiming, an act for which Putin and Russia's Commissioner for Children's Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, have already been charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Both, of course, are now subject to arrest warrants.

Well, of course, there's a long history, isn't there, Saul, of the Russian state shifting vast numbers of its population around its territory for political reasons. Now, before we sign off,

for part one. I just want to flag something up. We sometimes reference the dangers that the media face covering the war in Ukraine, many of them friends of the podcast, but I'd also like to mention the dangers facing those brave souls who report from Russia and live in the knowledge that at any moment there may be a knock on the door from the FSB. Well, it's now 100 days since the American Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was

Thank you.

and the other Western journalists still working in Moscow face in bringing us some idea of what's going on there. All right, well, that's all we've got time for in part one. Do join us after the break when we'll be answering listeners' questions.

Welcome back. Well, as usual, we have another bumper crop of listeners' questions. And the first one comes from Andy Tilson in Cobham, England. He writes, like millions of others, I struggle to fully understand the attitude of the non-Western world. All individuals have the capacity to ignore inconvenient facts.

And I also appreciate there's an anti-US feeling in so much of the world. That was articulated again in your recent interview. However, and this is Andy's point, I still do not understand how this leads to the judgment that these countries make. This is not just the ability to ignore the unjustness of a major power.

invading a smaller nation with no provocation. It is also the ability to ignore the method of conducting the war by breaking every international convention and the committal of thousands of war crimes. And Andy, we are, of course, in complete agreement, but it is a fact.

that, although we know that the West is reasonably in tune on this in its condemnation of Russia's aggression, there is an awful lot of the rest of the world, beginning with China, of course, which has sort of strategic partnership with Russia, but is at the same time is also playing a bit of a moderating influence, certainly in terms of the potential use of battlefield nuclear weapons, as we mentioned many times on the pod.

But not just Russia, other people doing business like India, North Korea supplying arms, Iran is too. But there's a huge amount of sympathy, as we've heard from a number of interviewees, basically in the South, particularly Africa. But those southern hemisphere nations who do not feel the same sort of natural sympathy.

empathy for Ukraine for the simple reason that they're very anti the USA, as Andy points out. So it is mystifying to us, but we sometimes need to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine what they're thinking and how the history of the last hundred years has affected their outlook on the world. Yes, I would say, Saul, that whatever warm feelings these countries may have historically about their relationship with Russia,

They're really committing a blunder by siding with Russia now. There will, if there is any justice, which of course is a big if, be consequences as a result of their support. Anyone listening to Putin's video address, which he made to the Shanghai Cooperation Council, where a lot of these countries were giving various degrees of support to Russia,

the Russian war effort in Ukraine are gathered must have been able to tell that it was all bluster. I mean, one of the claims that Putin made was that the Russian economy had actually been strengthened by the Western sanctions regime that's been imposed on Russia since the beginning of the war. That's clearly nonsense, isn't it?

When this is all over, one way or another, Russia is clearly going to be hugely weakened and not really what any sensible government would regard as a valuable strategic partner. There's also the question of morality, isn't there? Now, these countries often speak in very sort of highfalutin terms in their rhetoric about how foreign policy should be conducted along ethical grounds.

lines, especially the African countries often say this sort of thing, the ones who were former British colonial possessions or possessions of some other European power. And it would seem pretty hypocritical, to say the least, to back Russia now when, as you were saying, Saul, its record of systematic war crimes is clearly documented. So as far as I can

that their stance is not only damaging their own interests, but it's also pretty hypocritical. Okay, we've got a fascinating message here from Nathaniel in the United States. And he points out, as we've often mentioned, there's substantial warranted concern

that if the Republican Party reclaims the White House in 2024, a material decrease in aid to Ukraine will follow. Well, I do not agree, says Nathaniel, that this threat is legitimate. I do want to provide some comfort for you and the pod's non-American listeners. From my perspective, the desire to eliminate or reduce aid to Ukraine is not as widespread as feared. But at its worst, the attitude is one of apathy.

I noted recently that one of the Republican candidates on the ticket in 2024, former Vice President Mike Pence, has the support of Ukraine as one of his key positions. This struck me as encouraging, since in my estimation, Mr. Pence represents the grounded far right of American politics.

And finally, I've noted in my time in the moderate right-wing media, specifically the Wall Street Journal, that the editorials and reporting are exclusively in support of Ukraine. I don't believe I've seen a single editorial since the full-scale invasion that presents an isolationist line. While my points are admittedly anecdotal, the impression I have received of the right-wing in the US is that Ukraine is largely supported. While some individuals may tout the age-old isolationist talking points,

These are not deeply rooted beliefs within the Republican Party. Concern is warranted, he says, but there are many people on the right who remember the lessons of history and stand with Ukraine. And frankly, Patrick, that's one of the most encouraging messages we've had from America.

because we have been pointing out the dangers of a victory, a sort of Trumpist-type character, which were weak in support for Ukraine. And the fact that, you know, the sands of time are running out and things need to move at least by this time next year. But it is really encouraging to have had this message from Nathaniel because it does give us hope that whatever the consequences of the election next year, there is still going to be widespread support in America for Ukraine's position.

Yeah, and on a related topic, from a superpower to a very modest European power, we've got one here from Zach in Ireland who's saying, what do you think Ireland needs?

could do more of to be more involved in the war and to support Ukraine. Well, Ireland's position is interesting on this. It comes from a historical deep-rooted antipathy to getting involved in any wars at all. As long as Ireland's been a state, it's been militarily neutral, even during the Second World War, which caused a huge amount of anger in Britain, particularly from

Churchill, but that is, as I say, a strong political and cultural tradition. It has taken part, the Irish military, tiny though it is, has taken part in UN peacekeeping missions down the years.

But it's still a very, very small part of their kind of governmental apparatus. Irish defense spending is the lowest of any EU country. They only spend 0.2% of GDP. And they've done other stuff. They've taken in refugees. They've delivered a certain amount of non-lethal military aid, 122 million euros worth to Ukraine since the start of the current conflict.

There's still a lot of support for neutrality.

But what's interesting, Zach, and I'm sure you've noted this yourself, is that the voices are now being raised and saying it's time for a rethink. And the government seems to have responded to that by saying that they're setting up a forum to discuss international security policy. So that would seem to be that they're going to be at least examining the idea of moving away from this historical neutrality and taking a more proactive part in European defence.

all as a result of what's happening in Ukraine. Okay, well, the last message I read out was encouraging. This is less so. This is from Juan in the UK. And I just wanted to give you an insight, right, Juan, into how the long arm of Putin's propaganda can reach here in the UK. My barber is a Lithuanian with Russian heritage. And on having my hair done the other day, I made the mistake of asking her if she was following events in Ukraine and wondering where she stood on the terrible state of affairs there. What I got was,

could have been well out of Sergei Lavrov's playbook, writes Juan. Ukraine started it by bombing the Donbass, denazification, corrupt elite running the country, etc., etc. She went on about aggressive NATO expansion and completely defended the special military operation, as she called it,

She had no love for Ukrainians and she was all about supporting Russia in the whole sorry affair. Needless to say, writes Juan, I was fairly shocked. My thought is how on earth can we expect the normal Russian population to go against Putin at any time soon when even a Lithuanian with distant Russian connections living in the UK with presumably access to Western news outlets can.

can have such an entrenched, brainwashed view as well. It goes to show how powerful and dangerous Russian propaganda is, in my view. I have to say, Juan, if you're shocked, I'm pretty shocked too. I don't know about you, Patrick. I mean, we know there's an element of, you know, in a funny way, of course, Lithuania and probably a lot of ethnic Russians living in Lithuania have, a bit like a lot of the ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, begun to see the

the danger that Russia poses and do not just have that sort of, you know, that blood link, that ethnic link that says we're, you know, we're unadulterated supporters. They can see the destabilization. And of course, it's obvious Russian speaking Ukrainians. But what's interesting is I suspect these views are much more likely when you're separate from both Russia and also, of course, the era, the wars going on at the moment, Ukraine or some of the frontline states from Lithuania. But it is still pretty shocking nevertheless.

Yeah, there's a lot of confusion. The truth of the matter is, we really don't know what goes on in private discussions in Russia. We really can't get a firm fix on Russian public opinion. I mean, there have been serious efforts made. There's a book that's just come out by Dr. Jade McGlynn, who I think we might try and get on the podcast, which is analysed.

social media traffic and comes to a slightly depressing conclusion that insofar as Russians do give voice to their feelings, they are by and large kind of not unfavorable to the regime to say the least. But then we've got another one here from, this is a big topic this week, we've got another one here from Alan from Perth in Western Australia,

who says that he's married to a Russian woman and they live in Australia, but the rest of the family are all back in Russia. She's from a small town about three hours east of Moscow and they stay in touch. They call each other up and they, so, you know, there is communication there.

She's got real connections to what's going on. One of her brothers was called up into the Russian army. She's got a first cousin in the Belarusian army, et cetera, et cetera. Now, what he says is that during our weekly meetings,

phone calls to Russia. There's never any mention of the war or of politics of any kind because her parents are afraid that this type of conversation will result in repercussions. But what he's really saying is that, you know, you can't generalize. You can't say that people are ambivalent to the war or support the war. This would be a mistaken view. Now, I think, you know, we've got to tread very carefully here.

But what I would say is that whatever people are privately thinking is not translating into actual pressure from below, pressure on the streets to the government to actually do something about bringing the war to an end. That's really a reflection of how effective repression is. It may not be as heavy handed as in the old days, but it certainly works in terms of stopping people from expressing their true feelings about any political event in Russia.

OK, we've got a question here from Richard in East Riding in Yorkshire. Good afternoon. The effectiveness of anti-tank mines in the present stage of the conflict is causing significant problems for Ukraine. Do you think, he asked, it's time for the UK to change its policy about no mines to reintroducing anti-tank mines?

They're certainly effective at channeling movement of armour or creating no-go zones. They're cheap and effective. So should we have them back in the British military, Patrick? It's interesting, isn't it, that there were some attempts to do away with kits that they're useful on the battlefield, but left after the battlefield cause extraordinary harm to civilian populations. In many ways, it's a kind of positive element of our armed forces. But should they come back, Patrick? What's your feeling about landmines?

Well, I was just reading something, a BBC report actually from the front about just how

Bigger problem mines still are not just anti-tank mines, but also the old anti-personnel mines, Claymore mines, which were an American invention much used in Vietnam. You basically put them around the perimeter. They're kind of banana-shaped things, and they spray shrapnel out in all directions. I know quite a lot about Claymore mines because I myself was a victim of one back in Bosnia. I think it was 1993 when I was out on a patrol with the Brits.

They had been fighting all night between Croats and Bosniak forces. And we were going up to check out what was going on. Everyone was still very kind of hyped up. And indeed, a lot of the guys appeared to be drunk drunk.

And as we approached, one of them set off by hand. You can actually detonate them. They can be detonated by tripwire or just by a command wire. And for some reason, no known to himself, or the bottle of Snivovitz he had just consumed, he decided to detonate it. I got caught.

on the edge of the explosion and got shrapnel in my leg, my arm, my bum and it would have been worse if I was wearing a body armour so I escaped the worst of it but unfortunately the good old British Army whisked me back to base and I was patched up and

good as new in a couple of days. But yeah, so these things are still going strong and they're making big problems for advancing troops. You know, they're cheap, they're easy to operate and they take a lot of time to get rid of. So yeah, I mean, at present it's more of a problem for the Ukrainians than it is for the Russians. But yeah,

I would say maybe in the future it would be a good idea to think about reintroducing them. But at present, the problem is the other way around. You want kind of better demining stuff than actually planting your own mines if you're Ukrainian. Okay.

Okay, we've got a question from India. This is Harry Haran, and he's asking about F-16 air power. Is it going to be crucial for Ukraine to take another hand in the war? And when are they likely to get into action? And how many will there be? We don't know for sure what exactly what's going on there. I mean, the Ukrainians are still complaining bitterly that nothing really seems to be going on, even with the training of the pilots. And an explanation for that

I think, has come out in the press this morning, Patrick, which is a story in the Daily Telegraph about the next boss of NATO. Now, anyone watching, listening to the podcast and watching events closely will know that Ben Wallace, the British Defence Secretary, was a front runner. He is no longer, and apparently Biden, who really has the final say in these matters, once Ursula von der Leyen. Now, this is a really interesting story. The question is why, and apparently the reasons

according to the Daily Telegraph, is because this is payback for the British pushing hard on F-16. So it's fine for the Brits to give Challenger tanks because they're ours and it's fine for us to give the Storm Shadow missiles. But

But by pushing hard and going against, frankly, the American say-so at the time by saying we will encourage both the training and also the procurement of F-16s meant that we were very much out of line with what the Americans were trying to do. And so this disqualification of Wallace, who...

everyone agrees, including the Americans agree, would have been a very good choice of the next NATO Secretary General, is related to the F-16s. And it also implies or also explains a little bit, I think, why the Americans are dragging their feet. It's like, we're not going to be pushed around on this. This is not a question of

the tail wagging the dog. It's got to be the other way around. So it seems petty, particularly when they could have such a vital effect on the battlefield. But there is some strange undercurrent going on there, Patrick. And so the answer to the question from India, from Harry Haran, is that probably we're not going to be seeing them anytime soon. That seems to sadly to be the truth. I've got one here from Matt Smith, who says that

He's been troubled slightly by the fact that he's a Labour supporter and he usually gives right-wing news outlets a wide berth. However, when finding out what's going on in Ukraine, his main sources of information, primary sources are coming from The Times, The Telegraph and CNN, both kind of slightly on the right of the spectrum.

He says, I'm aware that I listen to these outlets as they reflect my views on the complex. So while I believe it to be honest reporting, I don't find my beliefs being challenged. It may be laziness on my behalf in not seeking out left-leaning publications to give an opinion. Or has this war highlighted a weakness with the left?

in that confronting the idea that the West has the moral high ground in this war might be an unpopular paradigm. Now, he goes on to say it would be helpful if you could point me in the direction of any work that's been done with regard to the UK left-right response to this war, i.e., you know, how...

The war has been reflected across the political spectrum. His personal feeling is that, I'm quoting, Labour, while supporting efforts that the Ukraine government are undertaking, are kicking the can down the road, hoping it's all over before the next election. That's

interesting point of view. Well, Saul, you often talk about this strange nostalgia, don't you, that the left feel for the Soviet Union. Do you think this is another example of that? It is surprising in many ways, isn't it? But there's also a good explanation for it, as you're sort of suggesting, Patrick. I mean, I think we should say that the Guardian reporting of the war is fairly solid, but it isn't anything like as in-depth

or as constant as you're getting from the right of centre press, the Times and the Telegraph. It's interesting that Matt also mentions the CNN. I mean, in America, CNN is seen as left of centre, but in a comparative sense to the way we see politics in the UK, Matt's probably right to say it's more like the Times and the Telegraph. So what's going on here? Well, there is this kind of strange legacy, isn't there, of USSR and the kind of natural sympathy,

that Labour felt for the old USSR, Russia generally, the kind of anti-capitalist feeling, the socialist brotherhood. And as a result, it is quite tricky for them to paint even modern Russia, which is very different, of course, as we all know, from the USSR in the same light. And this is exactly the same reason which we've also mentioned on the pod a couple of times, why Africa with its old links to the USSR, the freedom fighting of the 1980s, 1990s,

It's also why they find it very difficult to criticise Russia and have this sort of natural affinity. It is true, Matt, that most of the little snippets we're picking up, they come from lots of sources, but the most reliable stuff, I'm afraid, is tending to come from The Times and The Telegraph, which is where Patrick back in the day reported from. So you're probably not that surprised, are you? No, but what I am surprised is how long that left nostalgia there.

I've just been reading the stories of Isaac Babel, who was an Odessan writer of Jewish origin, who was with the Red Army in their war with the Poles in the early 20s, early 1920s.

And it's all there. What strikes me is Babel was a very, very interesting character. I mean, he was himself a communist, but you don't have to read between the lines in his stories to see just how morally confused the whole story is. He was Jewish, and yet, you know, you can see that the anti-Semitism was just as virulent, really, on the communist side as it was among the white Russians.

Okay, we've got a question from Sydney, Australia. This is Matthew McAuliffe. He starts off by telling us, great podcast. Thank you, Matthew. If only poms could play cricket as well as they do podcasts with a smiley face. Well, that's tough for us to swallow, frankly, given the shenanigans last week with the rather dodgy stumping of our wicketkeeper. But in any case, let's get to the point of Matthew's question, which is surely the West and, dare I say, China must be concerned about

about what might happen to Russia's nuclear weapons if central control under Putin is eroding. And this is a kind of wider fear a lot of people have

better have Putin than not, because at least, you know, but like Saddam Hussein, at least he's sort of controlling matters. And if his power erodes, and if Russia, the Federation breaks up, there's a danger, these nukes are going to get into the wrong hands. And he's absolutely right, it is a concern. But I've never felt that this argument is good enough to say, do you know what, it's better to keep Putin, something worse could be down the line. Because the reality of Putin's position now is that he is heavily invested in this war,

He's the one who launched it. And he is the only one who can bring it to a close. And he's not going to do that until he gets some kind of win in inverted commas out of this. You know, my calculation is that if he's toppled at some stage, then there's an opportunity who

for whoever comes in next, however good or bad they are. And frankly, they've got to be pretty bad to be worse than Putin. To say, actually, nothing to do with me, mate. Let's let, you know, my personal credibility is not tied up in this and that I can pull out before things get even worse for Russia, which frankly, they are going to. So,

Yes, we need to be concerned. But the last point I'll make on this is China is playing, I think, a very sort of, you know, calming role when it comes to anything to do with nuclear weapons. And China is definitely concerned about what might happen to those weapons. And that's a good thing, frankly. China's concerned, America's concerned, and they are the two key players in all of this. Yeah, Matthew, I'll just say that today is the, as we're recording, is the opening day of the third test at Headingley. I've been actually pretty impressed by how the

the Poms, as you would put it, have been playing thus far. I think it's been pretty evenly balanced. And as you know, we always play fair. So that's probably been to our disadvantage in the last test anyway. There's everything to play for. Coming back to the point, yeah, I completely agree with you, Saul. I think this talk that, you know, beware of what lies ahead if Putin does go is

is overdone and that I completely accept your point that whoever comes in has a golden opportunity to get out of this terrible morass by saying nothing to do with me, gov, you know, let's move on. Maybe we'll revisit this question later on.

and basically wash their hands of the terrible problems that Putin has created for himself and for Russia. So yeah, anything is better than Putin in my view. Okay, that's all we have time for this week. Do join us next week, next Wednesday, when we'll have another fabulous interview. And of course, also on Friday, when we'll be analysing all the news and answering more listeners' questions. Goodbye. Goodbye.