Episode Info
- Season12
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
As the G20 was underway this week, global attention sharply focused on a tiny Polish village near the Ukrainian border. News came that a missile had killed two local residents. Russia insists it played no part in the incident, but as investigations progress, U.S. President Joe Biden, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and Polish President Duda all said preliminary findings indicate the explosion came from a Ukrainian air defense missile. What does this mean for Ukrainians, their supporters in the West, and Vladimir Putin? One Decision's Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 considers how this conflict is increasingly at risk of spilling beyond Russia's and Ukraine's borders.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mcfarlane: You're listening to a special episode of One Decision. I'm your host, Julia McFarlane. Early on Wednesday morning, world leaders gathered in Indonesia for the G20 summit, woke to the news that a tiny village in Poland had come under attack. A missile struck a grain silo, killing two Polish citizens. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was quick to call out Russian escalation. But in the twenty four hours since it happened, we've heard from President Biden, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, and Polish president Andrzej Duda that all indications appear the blast was caused by Ukrainian air defense. None of the Western allies have blamed Ukraine and have all been at pains to emphasize the cause of the tragedy lies with Russia's recent bombardment of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But how close really is the conflict to spilling over its borders? How should the West respond? Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of MI6, weighs in. We've now had statements issued by NATO, by The US president, by Poland's Andrzej Duda, that they believe that it was a Ukrainian air defense missile, which had perhaps gone astray or malfunctioned or or something. And what's interesting is that the Western allies have all been at pains to say that they don't blame the Ukrainians, that they do blame the Russians. Because, of course, what happened yesterday was a huge barrage of rocket attacks across Ukraine by the Russians. There were rocket strikes in Kyiv, and Zelenskyy was on the airwaves telling his citizens to to run underground and seek shelter.
ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE
Dearlove: Yeah. I mean, the moment I heard that news, I was of the view, and and someone rang me just after that happened to ask me that it was almost certainly would be an accident. I thought probably initially it was a Russian missile that had gone off course and missed its target or got out of control. But as we subsequently learned, it was almost certainly a Ukrainian defensive missile that had missed its target and crashed over the border. I mean, the problem is that, you know, you're going to get incidents like that in this sort of war. I'm surprised it's the first one. But on the other hand, accidents can be quite provocative if people don't handle them very cleverly when they occur. And, you know, there are many cases during the Cold War when there were accidental escalations, and people got incredibly sort of worried and concerned that they could lead to something more serious. So it's very easy to sit back and say, okay, it was an accident, which it clearly was. But there's a danger in an event like that, that, you know, it can have unintended consequences that quickly lead to an escalation. Thank goodness, on this occasion, people seem to have behaved very sensibly. And I mean, I agree with the judgment that if the Russians launch a massive barrage, which they did, on the electricity infrastructure again, you know, there's going to be a defensive repost from the Ukrainians and some of those missiles will not hit their targets and they'll just land in the countryside.
Mcfarlane: I I wanna ask you a bit more about Russia's escalation on on Ukraine. But just while we stay on on the Polish missiles, I just wanna ask for your thoughts on how the Ukrainians have responded because quite a few Ukrainian government ministers, including the foreign minister, they were very quick to to to blame the to to point the blame at Russia. President Zelenskyy, he had called the incident an escalation by Russia. And what was interesting was that a lot of Ukrainian government officials were still repeating this line even after there was a lot of picture emerging on social media from the scene that quite clearly showed that the missile was an S-300, which is a surface to air defensive missile system. And a lot of people worked out that it was highly unlikely to be Russian because their known positions in Belarus, they don't tend to go that far based on where the Polish village is located. I mean, the intelligence, the OSINT movement of people like Bellingcat and all these digital forensics, what they're able to glean on the battlefield is really, really quite extraordinary. But the Ukrainians seem to be taking quite an odd position. They haven't, as of yet, apologized to the Polish. They haven't indicated that they're prepared to accept any responsibility for it being errant, despite the fact that it seems that The US, NATO, the Poles themselves have made it quite clear that they don't blame the Ukrainians. Are they being counterproductive by digging their heels in and continuing to insist that the missile is likely Russian and any evidence that it was a Ukrainian missile? They're sort of demanding the Poles give them access to the investigation site before they change their message.
Dearlove: Well, I think it's sort of unsurprising that the Ukrainians should have had that reaction. I mean, they would it would be massively to their advantage if there was a Russian escalation, even if it was an accidental escalation. And then, you know, NATO were more formally drawn into the conflict. And of course, I think I heard David Richards, the former Chief of Defense staff, this morning saying how important it was that NATO wasn't drawn into the conflict. So you know, you've got two different points of view there, both of which are thoroughly understandable. And I think, you know, we need to be cautious, very cautious in not getting sucked into direct conflict with the Russians. I'm not surprised that Zelenskyy saw it. I mean, I think probably initially as a political opportunity. And I just think it's less really for him that one should be quite cautious when these events occur, and there will be others probably, that you don't sort of give an immediate spontaneous reaction. I mean, I've learned that lesson myself in my past, and that you wait a little bit, because sure as hell, you know, the forensics or whatever. And you're right about Bellingcat, for example. I mean, it's incredible. I don't really understand how Bellingcat managed to turn up quite so much material from open sources, but they it's extraordinary what they do. Yeah.
Mcfarlane: And about the the rocket barrage that has been happening in recent days this week, I wanted to ask what you thought about the timing of that. Because obviously, the Russians have tried to handle this very humiliating withdrawal out of Kherson, which was the only regional capital that they managed to fully control throughout this nearly a year of this war. And the announcement earlier this month that they were pulling out was greeted with jubilation by the Ukrainian government. And, you know, we've had Zelenskyy traveling to Eastern Ukraine. He did this liberation speech in in Kherson. They made a lot of political capital of it. But also this rocket barrage, I mean, it could have been seen to be perhaps a response, Putin's wounded ego after the Ukraine is making the most of the Kherson capitulation. But what about the fact that world leaders are currently gathered without Putin in Indonesia? They're all talking about the need to respond to Russia. And also, we talked about the the quite warm meeting between China's president Xi Jinping and The US president Joe Biden. You know, last time we had a lot of world leaders gathered in in one place at the UN General Assembly, that was the day that Putin made the announcement of mobilization. He, you know, he escalated more and at a time that world leaders were gathered somewhere all without him or sidelining him and talking about the need to be strong in their response against him. So do you think that the the escalation against the capital city Kyiv was perhaps either a response to the Ukrainians making too much of a meal out of the Russians pulling out of Kherson, or do you think it was more because, you know, the G20 is going on in Indonesia without the Russian president being involved in that, and Putin just wanting to send another sign and and to hijack the agenda?
Dearlove: Well, I think it's mainly a response to the humiliation of the Russian forces in Kherson, which was a pretty significant event, the only provincial capital they ever occupied, and they leave with their tail between their legs. And okay, they tried to make the best of it by saying it's a strategic or a tactical retreat. But it was a pretty dreadful thing to have happened. I think that was the primary reason. I think the secondary reason probably was the coincidence of timing with the G20. And the fact that Zelenskyy had just given a very provocative address. I mean, provocative in terms of, you know, projecting Ukraine's just cause. And it's typical Putin in a way to say, right, we'll show you. It's a very extreme reaction. And I think shows us that one could question Putin's judgment, mean, his sort of strategic judgment, because what he's doing, again, is attacking civilian targets. Mean, he's trying to make life very, very problematic and difficult for the Ukrainian population. And every military commentator I've heard said, historically, if you attack the civilian population, it just makes them more intransigent, more determined to resist. And the extraordinary historical parallel, of course, is how the Russian population resisted the Nazi invasion in World War II, and fought to the death and successfully, in the end, to drive the Nazis out of Russia. Putin is a confusing character. He talks about the lessons of history and makes lots of references to Russian history and then reacts in a way which he would have thought shows that he's learned nothing from his country's own history.
Mcfarlane: Well, his sources for history are probably not the most clear sighted, and certainly his intelligence leading up to the moments before the Ukrainian invasion, he was clearly surrounded by yes men who perhaps didn't give him the full picture. Or perhaps he is not the four d chess player that perhaps we all thought he was until he launched that hugely misguided invasion back in February. You mentioned Zelenskyy's speech to the G20. He wasn't there, but he spoke via video conference. And something that struck me is that he has sounded very bullish recently. And yes, of course, he you know, it's no surprise that he's been very buoyed by the fierce resistance in Kherson and the Russian decision to pull out of that city and to withdraw. Do you think his goal has changed somewhat? Because at the start of this conflict, he wasn't talking about seizing back all of the Russian occupied territories. He for example, he never really talked about Crimea, which, you know, has was Russian territory until Stalin changed that a hundred years ago. But he's now saying things like he wants to take back all of Ukrainian sovereign territory, including Crimea. Do you think that that is problematic? Do you think that is something that is going to to make this conflict more difficult to resolve?
Dearlove: A military conflict ends in in two ways. One you know, one side is defeated, and throws in the towel and agrees to surrender terms initially. The other is you have a negotiated settlement to which both parties contribute and compromise. I think it's very hard historically to see Russia in this war being actually, in inverted commas, defeated. But on the other hand, militarily, it's going pretty well for the Ukrainians at the moment. And I think, you know, if you're a wartime leader, Zelenskyy, we all admire in the way that he stepped up to this extraordinary role and fulfilled it very successfully. I mean, he's going to play his cards in the direction of victory. I mean, I think one can see signs, I think, of the pressure from the international community beginning to increase. And maybe, it's not meant to be a pun, but I mean, maybe Crimea is going to be a bridge too far, and that they can retake more of the territory that they lost back in 2014. And then you perhaps do have some sort of negotiation. I mean, there are some quite interesting sort of strategic considerations. For example, if the Ukrainians capture more of the area around Kherson and cross the River Dnieper and secure that dam, if they were able to do that and then advance a little further to the east, they actually then control the water supply to Crimea, which is rather crucial strategically. So there are all sorts of factors which come into play. And I think at the moment, there's good reason for the Ukrainian military to feel quite ambitious, and not to be, as it were, setting themselves limits, but saying, well, you know, we'll carry on the campaign because at the moment we're winning. And I suppose militarily on the ground, they are winning. And the problem the Ukrainians have, of course, is this massive strength in-depth that the Russians have, and they can go on whacking strategic targets inside Ukraine. And Ukraine is really faced with a massive problem despite the international aid they're getting to get the spare parts and generators and all stuff fast enough to repair their electricity grid. So I think Putin is testing the West in terms of time. How long are you prepared to stick at this? We're prepared to stick at it for a long time. Will you lose your urge and unity to support the Ukrainians, because we're just gonna carry on indefinitely. I mean, I don't think the Russians necessarily can because they'll start running out of kit if they go on bombarding. I mean, there's always already suggest their supplies are beginning to get quite low.
Mcfarlane: I read a month or so ago somewhere that Russia has used a huge proportion of its missiles in storage on this war in Ukraine, and particularly because as we've seen throughout this year, their ground forces have made quite slow progress. They've had frontline supply issues. They've had to turn back. They've had to abandon their tanks, all that kind of stuff. So they've relied heavily on their airstrikes, and they are running out of the missiles that they have. And there were people speculating earlier in autumn that the Russians would perhaps maybe lay off some of the aerial bombardment because, of course, they have to keep a reserve just in case there is wider conflict or, God forbid, a confrontation with NATO. So the fact that there's been such a sort of heavy barrage of Kyiv this week, it was an expensive move for the Russians to make. And yet it doesn't seem to have been one that had strategic priority because it wasn't accompanied by any ground forces advancing. It was a move that seemed to be one committed out of spite and an expensive one at that. What do you make of that?
Dearlove: Yeah. Think well, I think that's very much what's happening. I mean, the Russians cannot advance militarily. They seem to be at the moment incompetent on the battlefield, therefore taking territory, taking land. They're going in the opposite direction. They're going backwards. But what's the alternative? If you stand back from a safe distance and bombard the critical infrastructure of Ukraine and knock out as much as you can to make life very, very difficult. I mean, makes life difficult militarily, of course. So it isn't just the civilian population that suffers. It's the military capability that suffers too. And, you know, they're following a pattern, which is we've seen the Russians deploy, for example, in Syria, where, you know, they just use their kinetic power to bombard a target into submission. I think this is not going to work in Ukraine. I just wonder how long it is before the Russian military leadership understands this. It's clearly not gonna work. The as long as the West's sort of conviction and unity in supporting Ukraine continues, I think the Russians are going to be at a larger and larger military disadvantage. Interestingly, the barrage that took place during the G20 conference will have silenced leaders like Macron, who behind the scenes, I think were pushing very hard for a strategic compromise and for pressurizing the West into behaving in such a way that Zelenskyy would have to sit down and negotiate and probably agree to things that anathema probably to most Ukrainians, particularly to the Ukrainian leadership at the moment. I think that's gone by the board. So in a way, what Putin's doing at the moment is counterproductive.
Mcfarlane: I totally agree. And the other thing that it does is it proves everything that the Baltics and Poland, everything they've been saying for months and months and more than that since the start of of this war, that, you know, even if this was accidental, even if it wasn't Ukraine if if it wasn't Russia, it was a Ukrainian response to Russian missiles, it doesn't it almost doesn't matter who fired the shot. It shows that this conflict has the potential to spill out over the border. And, you know, the the Poles, I I expect, you know, even though the Ukrainians are being a bit funny with their response, I I I expect the Poles are gonna use this as an as a reason to step up military support for Ukraine. And I wonder if you're gonna start to see more people saying, you know, now is the time to give the Ukrainians jets.
Dearlove: Yeah. Well, I'm sure that there are areas like that, you know, which in a way may be escalatory, but they're they are worth the risk. And mean, what's extraordinary is that the Ukrainian Air Force have done so relatively well with limited means. And clearly, Russians have a reluctance to use a lot of their aircraft because they've been losing so many. And, you know, as the sophistication of the defensive weapons that the Ukrainians have got increases, as their ability to use them increases, you know, becomes more and more difficult for the Russians. So, I mean, the way this conflict has played out is is in a way quite extraordinary. And I think we're at a very crucial point. And I think we're at a point where, either we might move towards negotiation but there's very little sign of that at the moment. Or we have a stalemate and therefore a very long term continuation of the conflict. Or there's a collapse of the Russian front, particularly in the southern area around Kherson. If that happens, then I think Putin is very close to the end of his time in power. I think there will be a knock on effect in Moscow if if militarily things go from from bad to worse.
Mcfarlane: This has been a special episode of One Decision. We've been closely following the twists and turns of Putin's invasion since day one. If you enjoyed this discussion, why not subscribe to our feed so you never miss an episode? We drop new shows every Thursday. From me and the team, thanks so much for listening, and see you next time.
