Front Burner - Russia vs. Ukraine, the latest chapter

Episode Date: April 23, 2021

For weeks, tens of thousands of Russian troops have been within striking distance of Ukraine’s border. And then on Thursday came a sudden announcement of a partial de-escalation. Today on Front Burner, Moscow correspondent Chris Brown on the politics behind these moves.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem, brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Elaine Chao, one of the producers on the show. I'm filling in for Jamie today, and I'm talking to my colleague Chris Brown in Moscow about the recent confrontation at the Russia-Ukraine border. Have a listen. The big difference what we've seen is suddenly we have Russian military formations,

battalions, destroyers, all kinds of aircraft being moved into a position right along the Ukrainian border. So whereas you might normally have, say, 20,000 or 30,000 Russian troops on the border, according to the Ukrainians, it's up to 120,000. So for weeks, that's what it looked like at the Russia-Ukraine border. This head-to-head situation got a lot of Ukraine's Western allies, including Canada, concerned. Many analysts worried this would escalate to a real conflict,

especially given the history between Russia and Ukraine. These are two countries that have clashed since 2014 when Russia illegally annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. But just yesterday, a sudden announcement. Russia's defense minister said there would be a partial de-escalation. CBC Moscow correspondent Chris Brown is here to explain. Brown is here to explain. Chris, I really want to set the context here a bit for our listeners. And a big part of the context here is this seven-year conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region.

And the Ukrainian government, you know, controls the West, as you said, and pro-Russian separatists in the East. And what role does that history play in this military buildup that we've seen over the past few weeks? Well, it's very important to understand the context here. And each side in this, that is, let's say the United States side and the Russian side, views the context and the history very differently. According to, let's say, our understanding of it, which most Canadians would believe are the facts, let's say, our understanding of it, which most Canadians would believe are the facts, it's the truth, Ukrainians rose up in popular revolt against an unpopular,

corrupt president in 2014, threw him out and restored democracy and tilted Ukraine appropriately to the West, towards Europe. The Russian narrative is very different. They see this as what happened was a coup orchestrated all by the United States, all designed by the CIA as part of a big global plot almost to get back at Russia. And so from a Russian point of view, this is a continuation of a long-standing conflict that goes way back to Soviet times between the United States and Russia. So there's two very different ways of seeing this. And so when that conflict happened in 2014, Russia took over Crimea. They were worried about their military base, they said, which they had there. And in the context of this being, well, you took

Ukraine, we're going to take this, a lot of Russians fully wholeheartedly supported it. Right. And Russia has gone quite far in justifying its claims over the region, right? Absolutely. And they have historical claims as well. There's language claims, there's ethnicity claims. And that's where you get into eastern Ukraine, which is a little bit different from Crimea. After a week spent sitting in park, one after another, the Russian aid trucks rolled across the border into eastern Ukraine without even tapping their brakes. And without permission from the Ukrainian government. This is a direct invasion, declared Ukraine's state security chief. There, many people did not want to go sort of in a Western direction legitimately. And there always were sort of a pro-Russia movement there.

Well, what has happened is that the Russians have fueled that and fed that. And that's how come you got this war that, I say has killed 13,000 people it's just been atrocious it was largely settled by something called the Minsk Accords it brought in a ceasefire in 2015 and the idea was that it would be a path to peace and Ukraine would eventually get these breakaway areas back but they would get them back with a little less control over what they did. Many who live in that potential demilitarized zone, such as Natalia Zhurbenko of Stanitsa Luganskaya, fear it's just a Russian ploy to control Ukraine.

I have never believed Putin. The words of Russia's president mean nothing, she says. This has really been the sticking point, and that is Ukraine has not been willing to sign the so-called Minsk Accords because they fear this is Russia's back door into controlling them, that if they sign these agreements, there is no way they'll ever be able to join the EU, no way they'll ever be able to join NATO, because Russia will constantly be the puppet master pulling their strings. All this history, of course, has led to this military buildup that we've seen in the last few weeks? And what has Ukraine's response been to

this escalation? Well, Ukraine has made it clear. They said a number of times that they would not attack first. They claimed that there was no buildup on their part, that this was simply a lie dreamed up by the Kremlin to justify a massive troop buildup. But it does seem that there were some, at least some, more troops moved up to the so-called line of contact. Exactly how many, we don't know. But what it has done is, over the last few weeks, it's given Ukraine's leaders a chance to really make a plea to other Western nations, to Canada, to the United States, to Europe, to let them into NATO. You have to let us in to stop the potential Russian invasion.

It's also solidified President Vladimir Zelensky, who had been wobbling a little bit in terms of his position within Ukraine. His popularity had dropped. Well, now that's been erased. And Ukraine, I think, has done a fairly good job at making the the most of a bad situation for it. And you mentioned the Ukrainian government and President Zelensky making a plea to Western nations. What kind of response have we seen from those Western nations? We've seen a mixed response. The smaller members of NATO, countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, they're saying, yes, we should let in Ukraine immediately.

This is important. Just look at the Russian bear on their doorstep. They need our help. On the other hand, countries like Canada, certainly the United States and Germany, they really do not want a war with Russia. And they don't want to be drawn into one either. And the fear is, if they let Ukraine in under these circumstances, that's what would happen. So there's no consensus,

certainly, you know, not for years, I think it's fair to say that Ukraine is going to get into NATO. But nonetheless, that's not how the Russians see it. This appears in their minds to be a clear and present danger. So on Thursday, a rather sudden announcement from Russia's defense minister saying that the Kremlin would start withdrawing troops on Friday. And this was a bit of a surprise, right, Chris? I'd say a big surprise. And in the morning, they had just put out a video that it seemed to me was meant to intimidate Ukraine with all this military might off in the Black Sea.

Guns firing, so forth, helicopters dropping off troops, and it had been building up. And then, in an instant, it was like, okay, we're going to go home now, operation accomplished. Literally hours later, right, from the release of that video? It was hours later. You know, I've talked to a number of people who've kind of parsed really what the announcement says in the fine print. And what's going on here is that, yes, certainly this is a positive move from the point of view that it is a de-escalation.

So that's right off the bat, it's a good thing. On the other hand, not every Russian is going back to where they came from, their home, and certainly some of their military equipment is staying behind. So in the area that we were around Voronezh, the Russians are leaving a lot of very heavy equipment there. They may be sending the people home, but they're keeping the heavy stuff there at least for six, seven, eight months. And the idea, I think, is at least it's what the defense minister said, is that if NATO does anything on any of their exercises they're going to have over the summer, we're going to be there. So it's an interesting tactic.

They de-escalate, but at the same time, they're giving themselves a chance to jump right back into it very quickly. So, yes, it's a good thing. But on the other hand, I think we have to watch and see how many of those troops actually do go home, how much of their major hardware is left behind, and sort of what the positioning of all these forces are. Because it's not going to go back to just what it was before. Right. And what's the timeline like for the withdrawal? Supposed to be by May 1st. And, you know, we've no reason to believe that it won't happen. But it is, again, very strange because it was just a few days ago that various folks that track movements of Russian military equipment were pointing out that, gee, you know,

that anti-aircraft missile carrier came all the way from Siberia. Another one came from southern Russia. So a lot of this stuff has come like thousands and thousands of kilometers. And are they really going to send it back right away? That's what people are wondering. free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%.

That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Just search for Money for Cops. Chris, I want to try and get to the bottom of why this escalation happened and subsequent de-escalation. So let's talk through a few of the different players here. And what has the Ukrainian government had to say now about this withdrawal of troops? And are they still worried?

Well, there's what they're saying and what they're thinking. And we don't know what anyone's thinking, really. But what they're saying is that it's a positive move. Ukraine, from the beginning, has said this was all a big Russian lie, that they never did anything to provoke this, that there was never any buildup and that they were never going to attack anyone. Ukraine's army is about a tenth of the size of Russia's. So it stretches belief to think that they might actually be any kind of a military threat. On the other hand, there are those within Ukraine that would love nothing better than one night when Mr. Vladimir Putin is asleep to roll their tanks back into Donbass and take it back again. So I think that's in part what some Ukrainians would believe. Most don't. Most believe that this is, for the moment, a frozen conflict. And again, that's one of the

problems is that there doesn't appear to be a roadmap to get out of it. The other big player in this is, of course, the U.S. And as this confrontation has been happening, U.S. President Biden did invite President Putin to a summit to talk. But then a couple of days later, the U.S. also imposed more sanctions on Russia for a massive cyber espionage campaign and interfering in the most recent U.S. election. Today, I've approved several steps,

including expulsion of several Russian officials as a consequence of their actions. I've also signed an executive order authorizing new measures, including sanctions to address specific harmful actions that Russia has taken against U.S. interests. I was clear with President Putin that we could have gone further, but I chose not to do so. I chose to be proportionate. The United States is not looking to kick off a cycle of escalation and conflict with Russia. Do you think that this escalation in part has been like a test in a way of how President Biden would act against Russia? So we've had a couple of different official statements from Russia on this. Some people close to the Kremlin have said this was about Ukraine

and their troop movements. The defense minister has said it's actually about NATO's troop movements. And we've seen lots of NATO aircraft flying all very close to Russia's territory. And so both things are true and both could be true. In terms of what the United States has done and whether or not this summit was, you know, the key thing behind the scenes that made Vladimir Putin change his mind, we're just never going to know that. It's very unclear what the Russian goal was in this. Was it to test Biden? Was it to try to split Europe? Was it to try to scare Ukraine?

Was it to try to put pressure on all sides to get the Minsk agreements on the separatist territory signed? It's very unclear. And in fact, maybe Putin himself did not know. But what he did do clearly was give any possibility a chance to succeed, at least for a while, by sending in lots of troops. So he's obviously an opportunist. We know that. People who've written his biography say he's less of a strategist. So it's very difficult to know what was in his sights when this happened. But as you say, he did get a meeting with Joe Biden. And as we speak, it appears that that's going to happen, even if we don't know exactly when it is. And do you think that has implications then on the future of U.S.-Russia relations? You know, it's a very difficult time for this. It almost appears that under Joe Biden that the Americans have decided there's not really too much to gain by dealing with Russia. We've already done the easy things like signing or re-signing a deal on limiting

strategic nuclear missiles. That one was done within a few days of Biden being sworn into the White House. The rest of the stuff is quite difficult. And I think there's not much sense of hope, really, either from the Russian side or from the American side, that there's going to be much gain to be had on issues such as Ukraine, on issues such as Russia's use of its cyber activities, the hacking, which is what you said earlier, this triggered the sanctions. These things all seem too far apart to be closed. So the American strategy may just be to have as little to do with Russia as possible and get the low-hanging fruit.

Chris, you just mentioned kind of the U.S.-Russia relationship there. But what could all this mean for Canada's relationship with Russia? Do we even figure in this? I do know that we have about 200 troops in Ukraine. We do. And Canada, I'm being a bit simplistic, but I'll say we're all in on Ukraine. Whenever there is a major crisis, the Ukrainian foreign ministry makes it a point within a couple of press releases of saying they've reached out to Canada. And we know in this case, Canada's defense minister, Canada's foreign affairs minister, global affairs minister, both had

very rapid conversations with their Ukrainian counterparts. Canada promised to support Ukraine in terms of a roadmap that might one day get them into NATO. And so, you know, in diplomacy, words matter, and Canada's been there with words. And I think from the point of view of the Ukrainians, they're feeling pretty good about how that relationship has gone. As far as Canada and Russia, well, there's not a whole lot really going on with that relationship. The trade commissioners here in Moscow don't have a whole lot of trade to facilitate.

There's not a whole lot of diplomatic contacts. There's virtually nothing. They used to kind of get together and try to do some hockey and cultural things. And even those seem to have dried up now. So it's a pretty bleak scene. Chris, it's obviously hard to read President Putin's mind in a situation like this, but could this military escalation have been a distraction from domestic issues? There's been a lot of attention paid to the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, his most outspoken critic.

It's possible. I don't really think so, though. The more you look at what's happened with Alexei Navalny to much of the world, this is a horrible situation. He survives an assassination attempt that most people, most foreign agencies believe was perpetrated by Russia's secret police. Then he comes back to Russia, gets thrown in jail. He's in rough shape. He's starving. They don't let him have doctors and so forth. This is a horrible personal situation. But on the other hand, it's not moved Russians really that much, I have to say. We had a big protest the other night.

And yes, people can expect to lose their jobs, lose their scholarships, get kicked out of school, get beaten up by police. But, you know, the numbers were in the thousands, not in the tens or hundreds or millions that they would really need to have the kind of successful public street protest that would lead to like a Maidan situation that happened in 2014 in Ukraine. So I think Putin probably feels quite in control of the whole liberal opposition situation. I think he's confident, he knows Russia, he's got the support, obviously, of all of the elites. No one of any significance in the government or in industry or in any other part of Russian public life has peeled away. So I tend to think that this was not a

distraction, that there was some game plan here, whether it was simply to show deterrence, or perhaps to compel Ukraine into doing something. That's my best guess. And of course, you mentioned Alexei Navalny there, and he's been on a hunger strike in prison for weeks. And the last time we spoke to you on FrontBurner was about Navalny. And what do we know at this point about his condition? I've seen that there is a whole lot of concern from his supporters. post posted by his team that he was as thin as a skeleton. Some doctors who looked at him said he had so much potassium in his bloodstream that it was a risk to his heart that he'd be essentially poisoned and die within days. That was a big deal. Navalny himself seems to have walked back some of that. He's not sounded as dire in his public statements that he's been able to get out. That's not to say he's not in rough shape. He obviously is in rough shape, but maybe not perhaps as bad as some of his supporters had suggested. He's in jail for years, it appears,

and many governments, foreign governments, have said to Russia, if you let him die, there's going to be big consequences. We are gravely concerned about this. But exactly what they would do if Navalny dies in prison, you know, they would, what, expel more diplomats, throw some economic sanctions? We're not sure, but it's probably not much more than that. And I say that because that seems to be the line that most Western nations have drawn with Russia.

Navalny himself, before he was locked up, made an appeal to sanction key members of Vladimir Putin's elite structure. You know, the leaders of crown corporations and so forth, oligarchs. And yet Western nations have been very reluctant to do that. Many of these people have interests in their countries. They do in Canada for sure. There's also been some calls that maybe Russia should be cut off from the international banking system. A lot of companies have put a lot of money into Russia over the years, and they're not crazy about that idea either. So I think when you're looking at Alexei Navalny, it's awful to say it, but in many ways, I think he's on his own.

Thank you, Chris, for talking to us today, and we'll be keeping an eye on this. All right. Thank you. Before we go today, some Canadian COVID-19 news. The federal government has banned all direct passenger flights from India and Pakistan for 30 days, starting late last night. Yesterday, India broke the record for the world's highest one-day surge with nearly 315,000 new COVID-19 cases. The variant called B.1.617, first discovered in India, has also been found in Quebec and B.C. This move comes after opposition leaders and premiers urged the government to reduce flights from COVID-19 hotspot countries. People traveling an indirect route from India or Pakistan into Canada will now need to obtain a negative COVID-19 test from their last point of departure. That's all for this week.

FrontBurner is brought to you by CBC News and CBC Podcasts. The show was produced this week by Shannon Higgins, Katie Toth, Ali Janes, Ashley Fraser, Tatiana Furtado, and me. Our sound design was by Mackenzie Cameron and Derek Vanderwyk. Our music is by Joseph Chabison of Boombox Sound. The executive producer of FrontBurner is Nick McKay-Blocos. And I'm Elaine Chao. Jamie Poisson will be back on Monday.

Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.