Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Martina Navratilova

Episode Date: May 2, 2022

On today's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers discusses the Russian nuclear threat and asks Martina Navratilova whether it is fair to ban Russian tennis players following Wimbledon's decision to exclude them from the competition this year. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pearz Morgan, uncensored. Tonight, Putin again ramps up his nuclear threat. Russian sports star should they be banned from Wimbledon. And a former President Trump serves his own volley. It's at me again. But first, it's my brain dump. As Vladimir Putin butchers Ukraine, millions of ordinary Russians are forced for the daily diet of six propaganda

to convince him of his warped alternative reality. And there's such thing as a free press to tell the truth or hold him to account. Putin's Russia is a country where journalists are routinely murdered. literally thrown out of windows reporting the facts. They face 15 years in jail for criticizing his evil war or the special military operation, as he so disingenuously calls it. Here in our free world, brave journalists are risking their lives daily so that we know exactly what is going on in Ukraine,

where the barbaric dictator is waging genocide in a democratic sovereign country. In Putin's Russia, even his closest allies had a football field away from their slayer-in-chief. But here in our free world, comedians consider a few meters away from the President of the United States, hurling zingers at him as if he was the groom at a wedding. You know, I was a little confused about why me, but then I was told that you get your highest approval ratings when a biracial African guy is standing next to you. So let me just say, Joe, I'm glad that I could do my part.

I think ever since you've come into office, things are really looking up. You know, gas is up, rent is up, food is up. everything. This is truly the golden era of conspiracy theories. Whether it's the right wing, believing Trump can still win the 2020 election, or the left, believing Joe Biden can still win the 2024 election. Well, that was Trevor Noah at the White House Correspondence Dinner, an annual event in Washington, but journalists who spend their lives scrutinizing and criticizing the President of the United States without fear of being killed. And amid the glamour, the black tie and the comedy, there was a very serious point here.

and Noah made it rather beautifully. In America, you have the right to seek the truth and speak the truth, even if it makes people in power uncomfortable. Even if it makes your viewers or your readers uncomfortable. You understand how amazing that is? I stood here tonight and I made fun of the President of the United States, and I'm going to be fine. I'm going to be fine, right?

Can you ever imagine Putin, President Xi in China or North Korea's Kim Jong- attending a celebration for journalists whose job it is to shine a light on their incompetence or allowing themselves to be publicly ridiculed on national television. We all know what would happen to a TV star like Trevor Noah who dare make jokes like that at their expense in those oppressive totalitarian regimes. And that's why we should never take any of our freedoms for granted. And that's why this couldn't have come as a more timely reminder of how important it is to live in a country with a free press and freedom of free.

speech. Well, just as mere tough talk and sanctions won't end this war, we can't defeat Putin the demon by demonizing ordinary Russians. Tennis stars from Russia and Belarus are barred from competing at the Wimbled and Grand Slam tournament this year over the Ukraine invasion. It means that two of the top 10 best men's players in the world won't be at the world's premier tennis competition. But despite both of them, courageously speaking out against the war and calling for peace. Well, tennis superstars like Novakovic and Andy Murray and Raffa Nadal have now all criticized the ban and I agree with them. I think it is very unfair to my Russian mates, my colleagues.

In that sense, poor them. There's not much they can do. Pour them. At the end of the day, it is not their fault. What is happening in this moment with the war? First of all, this reeks of hypocrisy. Do Wimbledon ban Stan Smith, Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe during the wildly unpopular wars waged by America in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course they didn't. And what about the ill-fated

and what many of you is illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and UK? Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick and Serena Williams all won tennis grand slams in 2003. Applying this new logic, they'd have been banned from taking part. There's also been no clamour to ban Saudi Arabian athletes over their country's bloody war in Yemen, which is no less reprehensible than Russia's war in Ukraine. In fact, Saudi Arabia hosted a Formula One Grand Prix just a few weeks ago. and its athletes compete in the Olympics. I fully support blocking Russian national teams who represent the Russian state under the Russian flag.

But targeting the country's individuals for blame over the behaviour of their despotic leader doesn't make sense and is part of a worrying trend. We've seen Russian sports stars heckled, Russian arts being cancelled around the world, Russian products being boycotted, even stupidly some of it does sound Russian, Russian restaurants blacklisted, even though some of them,

are run by Ukrainians. The city of Oxford even daubed over this sign because it used to be partnered with Perm in Russia. This is all pointless tokenism. It won't work and it hurts the wrong people. Dictators depend on stoking fear and hatred of the outside world. This is all just ammunition for Putin's propaganda drive. Cancelling Russian sport and culture won't win this war.

Well, speaking of alternative realities, the Conservative MP caught watching porn in the House of Commons, seeming global embarrassment on Britain's democracy, has fallen on his sword, no pun intended. Sadly, it wasn't without one last blast of cringeworthy squirming. Neil Parrish, who's also a farmer, first brazenly called for an investigation with the allegations, allowing rumours to swirl about his own colleagues

when he knew he'd done it, and he tried to explain it all the way with an excuse was frankly utterly ridiculous. The situation was that, funnily enough, it was tractors that I was looking at, and so I did get into another website that had a sort of very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn't have done. Who hasn't stumbled across Paul looking for tractors?

It gets worse. Parrish later brief specifically he was searching for dominator combine harvesters when a rather different kind of dominator popped up. But there is a pathway to redemption for hapless parish and it comes in this form of his former conservative colleague Brooks Neubley. You may not remember the name, but Newmark quit as a British government minister in 2014, after newspapers exposed him by sending lewd photos to a reporter posing as a young female fan. For years after, he never really heard anything about him again.

But now it's emerged that Newmark has risked his life to almost single-handedly save over 7,500,000 Ukrainian women and children in the past two months, helping them evacuate the war zone. He raised $300,000 from friends and family to begin a bus service, taking refugees, out of Ukraine. From sinner to savior. Good for him. Now, I don't believe in cancel culture, so I was obviously distraught to learn

that the woman who canceled me has now herself been canceled. Yes, Netflix has shelved the development of Pearl, an animated series created by Megamarkal with Sir Elton John's husband, David Furnish, about a 12-year-old girl inspired by influential women. Apparently, it was based on her own very inspiring rags to Royal Rich's story.

But sadly, it seems nobody at Netflix, shared my inspiration. The streaming giant reported very bad results last week. A direct consequence, some critics say their increasingly tedious woke output, including a new series about a pregnant man. Netflix stocked tanks, so they've had to pull the plug on Megan's vanity project

to cut costs. And concern is now mounting that the Duke and Duchess of Netflix's whole hundred million dollar deal with a company may now be in jeopardy. None of this brings me any pleasure, especially after the sad failure of her nauseatingly patronising children's book, The Bench.

But it would be remissomy not to just politely suggest that Megan and Harry may be suddenly discovering that maybe the rest of the world isn't quite as excited by their self-righteous brand of pious, hypocritical, money-grabbing, virtue-signling world-bashing as they are. Because, let's face it, when the world's wokeest production company axes the world's woken project

by the world's wokenest celebrity, that's a whole new level of fun. humiliation. I wish, Megan, sincerely, all the very best at this difficult time. Russian state television have issued a brazen warning that Moscow could wipe out Britain with a nuclear tsunami and retaliation for supporting Ukraine, declaring there would be no survivors. In Britain, they seem to be rambling. Why did they threaten vast Russia with nuclear weapons while they are only a small island? Why do they play games? Another option is to plunge Britain into the depths of the sea using Russian underwater robotic drone, Poseidon.

The explosion of this torpedo close to Britain's shores will raise a giant wave, a tsunami up to 500 metres. This tidal wave is also a carrier of extremely high doses of radiation. Surging over Britain, it will turn what is left of them into radioactive desert. Well, retire four-star general, a former vice-chief of staff of the US Army. General Jack Keene joins me, as does Tobias Elwood, Conservative MP and former defence minister. Welcome to both of you. General Keene, first of all, great honour to have you on the show.

thank you very much for joining Piers Morgan Unsensated. When you hear that kind of rhetoric from the Russians, and we're hearing more and more of this now, it is pretty sobering listening, isn't it? It's frankly quite terrifying to many people. When I interviewed President Trump earlier this

week, he felt that America in particular should be using more bellicose rhetoric back, reminding them the Russians that America has just as many nukes as they do. What is your view? Well, the fact is We have a very effective strategic deterrence about the kind of warfare that's being threatened here, which is global nuclear warfare.

And that kind of language is absolutely horrendous and certainly outrageous to do that. I don't think we have to walk up the nuclear escalation with them, but we remind them that there is a significant strategic deterrence here among the United States, Britain, and France. and certainly the destruction of their entire country and population is what they're putting at risk here. I think they clearly understand that. I think this is mostly trying to rattle your population as well as mine and also impact our leaders. I think what's really troubling to them is the unanimity that the EU and NATO has really defined here, not just in getting better sanctions and improved sanctions, but most significantly is the arms and ammunition that we're providing to the Ukrainians.

And certainly, the backdrop here appears is the fact that the Russians have largely been failing, and even in this much smaller offensive that they're conducting right now, they haven't made much gains in last 24, 36 hours, they haven't been doing much of anything. So, yes, there is, SAB of rattling going on here for sure. Now, the issue with a tactical nuclear weapon,

I think that gives us all a little bit more concern that something like that could be used. I really believe the Biden administration could be much stronger about what our response should be here, both publicly and privately. And I will say this. I do think that some of this rattling is going on, particularly as it concerns the Biden administration, Pierce, because The Biden administration set the tone here very early on. March 21, 70,000 troops show up on the Ukraine border 60 days into the Biden administration's reign right after the inauguration. It's no accident. I'm absolutely convinced Putin is doing that to test this administration, which he believed would be weak and there's an opportunity. Okay. The Trump administration had a scheduled deployment of arms and munitions in March. of that year planned, Biden administration did not execute it and publicly stated the reason they did not want to provoke Putin.

We were already admitting the fear. Let me bring in Tobias Elwood, General Keene, if I may. Tobias Elwood, I mean, I felt that one of the things that may have empowered Vladimir Putin to go into Ukraine, and President Trump said the same thing, was the very cack-handed, if not catastrophic withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. that that looked like it was America in a form of surrender. What did you think of that? What do you think of where we are with this war?

And actually, what does defeat look like now for Putin? Well, these are all great questions. Firstly, good to see General Keene, pleased to share a platform with him. But yes, I think Putin has seen that over 30 years, in fact, the West has become quite timid. And our humiliation in departing from Afghanistan, I think, was the Iceland another cake. That was the moment that he intended to strike. And we need to wake up that we are actually witnessing a turning point in our history. This isn't just about Ukraine. This is much,

much bigger. This is about Putin taking advantage of complacency over 30 years as we've withdrawn back on our military capabilities. Putin is very much now alignment with President Xi, with China and Russia forming an access and leveraging our timidity. What we're seeing at a moment, though, is an invisible invasion, as General Keene just implied, in contrast, incredible resilience and heroism from the Ukrainian forces themselves. But we haven't leveraged that. You know, Russia's ineptitude caught the West off guard. Remember, the U.S. even offered to Zoninsky a helicopter flight out. That's how they thought, how competent they thought Russian forces would be. But here we are, Ukraine doing an incredible job. Russia having to back away from Kiev,

move around to Donbass. That is the moment when they're regrouping, re-arming, they're starting to redeploy. That's when you launch a counter-attack. But where is the West? Where is NATO to leverage that? The big question I pose to the West, indeed to Britain and the United States,

is what is our objective? What are we trying to achieve in Ukraine? Is it to support Ukrainians to push Russia completely out of mainland Ukraine, or are we content with some form of stalemate occurring over Donbass? We need to clarify exactly what our strategic objective is.

OK, look, these are good questions. Let me ask General Keene, those questions. What do you think the West's objective is right now? And let me ask you also, General Keen, what is defeat for Putin and what is victory now, do we think? Well, first of all, I think we were very ambiguous about what our intent there. We started out by just arming the Ukrainians, certainly, to likely deal with an insurgency because they,

most people felt the regime was going to be collapsed. And then certainly the Ukrainians responding very positively, Russians responded very incompetently, and huge opportunity arose. It took the Biden administration far too long to make that transition and get them the weapons they needed. And finally, we're there. We are clearly doing that. I think the meeting that was held in Ramstein, where 40 nations showed up, 14 of them not European,

with Secretary of Defense Alston and Chairman of Joint Chiefs, the United States, Millie, that is significant. And what we have to do is continue that. In terms of the objective, the objective was never clear from the beginning. But now had it has come much more into focus. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs, others in the administration, Even the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is talking about victory here, defeating the Russian military inside of Ukraine, which is, I believe, should be our objective. It should have been our objective and unequivocally clearly stated from the beginning. And it's certainly when you have ambiguity like that, it actually leverages our enemy of Russia, to be sure, because they're not certain about what we're driving towards.

And that's why I think they've been surprised by the level of effort recently. I think there's still as opportunity here for that objective to be achieved. And we've got to double down and continue to robust support that we're provided in the Ukrainians, plus the moral support that they need as well. General Keene, great to talk to you. Tobias Elwood, thank you very much too. Really appreciate it. On since the next, a mega blow for Megan, the Duchess of Sussex,

has had her next day show canceled. Can she still justify our $100 million deal? That's coming up. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Unsensitive. Now, there were two nailed on celebrity certainties once war broke out in Ukraine. The first was that Angela and Joe Lee would at some stage fly over there

to make it all about herself, posing for numerous selfies with her adoring fans. Fortunately, some of the Ukrainian youth didn't get the Angie PR op memo. Look at the guy there with his headphones is completely ignoring it. Fantastic. The second, of course, was Madonna,

deciding that what we all needed to cheer ourselves up in these dark times was her doing this on stage in Colombia. Now, to be fair to Madonna, this did actually cheer me up. It did bring a smile to my face, just not, I suspect, for the reasons that she hoped. Well, joining me now is a veteran journalist attorney, Fox News host, legend, actually. Harado Rivera, Harado, what a joy to have you on my news show.

Thank you so much for joining us. Here's my pleasure. We haven't seen each other since. Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice in 2015. That's completely true. And in fact, why do we start with Trump? Because I was going to ask you about my interview, which is obviously ricocheted around the world.

It's attracted three Trump statements so far of increasing, well, venom and humor, actually, basically saying the interview was terrible, brilliant, great for ratings. I'm a loser. I'm finished and washed up. And then there was this clip last night from his, this was his appearance at a rally where he said this. I think it's coming.

Is it coming? We'll come to the clip in a moment. Harado, the point I was going to make it. He says in the clip that I've gone crazy. We've got it. I'm sorry. We're going to play it now. This crazy Pierce Morgan. Did you see that show?

Pears Morgan. Thank you, sir. Peers Morgan's show. You see Peers Morgan? He sort of had it. I think Peers is over the hill. He opened the show with an interview of me. I did him a favor. I didn't want to do a stupid show.

It's on Fox Nation. What is Fox Nation? What is it? They're going to love me when I say, What is Fox? It's on Fox Nation. He opened with great ratings when he did me. And then after my interview was finished,

he bombed, and he's now down over 70%. And maybe they'll someday learn that maybe they should hire me as an anchor. Should I go to work and say, we'll get that greatest ready? We'll sit there and we'll riff. I've got to say, Harada. I would watch Donald Trump if he did anchor a show like this. I mean, him live and unfiltered every night

would be fantastic. I doubt he's going to do it. But what was it? I just felt that it's a massive overreaction by Donald Trump to what was actually when you watched it, a really insightful, revealing interview, which most people I know saw it actually thought he came out of it pretty well.

I saw it, and that was the conclusion I had, Pierre. It was a pretty good interview. He asked all the right questions, the necessary questions. But as you know, He has profoundly thin skin. He doesn't suffer insults lightly.

He has a rule you hit him. He'll hit you back. Even if you didn't intend to hit him by even asking a question that he viewed as vaguely impolite, he carries that grudge forever until there's something else. Like J.D. Vance, the candidate here in the state of Ohio, running for Senate, has just been endorsed by Trump, despite the fact that it. he called Trump everything from, you know, I've got no doubt. I've got no doubt. I've got no doubt. I'll be, I'll be having a cup of tea with him. I was going to ask you two questions really about it, which I think

everyone is wondering. Do you think Trump will run again? Because Tucker Carlson earlier last week on the show doesn't think he will. And secondly, would it be a good thing for America, given how divisive and polarizing he was in those four years, albeit not unsuccessful in many ways? either. Would it be a good thing if he did? I think President Trump really wants to be president again. You know, I've known him since 1976. I've never seen him shirk from a challenge. I believe that he's really hurt by the results, the legitimate results of the November 2020 election. You know, he's egotistical. He wants to be back in the White House.

It's not that he's deprived of helicopters or huge jumbo private jets. It's just his ego has been rattled. And he has, it's a grudge. It's a grudge now, you know, with the Democratic Party. He wants to be back in the White House to evict them. Now, will he win? I don't know. He'd have some real hurdles to clear, not the least of which is that he's lost voters like me in the middle, who supported him, you know, pretty strongly until he decided not to abide by the Constitution of the United States. So he has that hurdle, but, you know, the Republicans have enforced amnesia. They decided not to remember January 6th or the rest of it.

So I think that he may, unless Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor, who's gaining momentum here, you know, decides to make a go of it. And Trump lives in Florida. He may, I don't know, I'm not sure how that dynamic works. The answer to your question is, I think he probably will run. And do I think that's good for America? I don't think that he will win. I think that there's too much baggage.

So I know that that's a dodge of your question because I just don't know the answer. For instance, in Ukraine, what would have happened if Trump were president when Putin was rattling the sabres and mobilizing his army? Would Trump have reacted differently? He was friends with Putin? Maybe it never would have come to an invasion. But maybe, just maybe, when he called the invasion savvy and what was the other word, genius, that he would have kind of let Russia take Ukraine back.

I don't know the answer to that. We just had the White House Corresponders dinner. I've attended that a few times. You have been many times, I know. We've got a little highlights real here. It was a fun night. Let's have a look. This is the first time the president attended this dinner in six years.

It's understandable. We had a horrible plague, followed by two years of COVID. If my predecessor came to this dinner this year, now that would really have been a real coup. In America, you have the right to seek the truth and speak the truth, even if it makes people in power uncomfortable. Even if it makes your viewers or your readers uncomfortable. I stood here tonight and I made fun of the President of the United States and I'm going to be fine. I'm going to be fine, right?

I thought it was a very powerful conclusion there by Trevor Noah. I thought he had a good night all round, actually. He's zinging everybody. But I thought the speech he made at the end there about the importance of free speech and his ability to do zingers at Joe Biden's expense, which would never be tolerated in a totalitarian country, and a powerful impact, I thought.

Well, he said all the right things who are a very receptive audience. I was there in 2011, one of the many times that I have been at the Washington Correspondence dinner when Donald Trump was in the audience and President Obama just mocked him ruthlessly saying that he was ready because he had to choose between meatloaf and some other obscure sea lister

who had the hot tub in front of the White House. Trump was outraged by that. I am convinced that that was the night Trump decided he was going to run. I think you're right. President of the United States. He was going to show them. It's, again, it's that, you know, it's that same, you're seeing it in miniature, you know, the way he reacts to those kinds of challenges. And I think that that put him over the top. Then he decided, I'm going to show Obama,

I'm going to show everybody, I'm going to run for president, and I'm going to win. You've covered a lot of war zones in your time, very courageously, Harada. What do you make of Ukraine? We had a debate earlier about the nuclear saber rattling they're doing constantly now. But the scenes that we're seeing, we're sort of living this war in real time on social media like we've never lived a war before. How does this all play out, do you think? I think just in that last point, social media, now people with iPhones are doing as good a job as I did with two tons of satellite equipment. It is extraordinary. And the bravery, our Benjamin Hall, who lost his leg, has lost his crew. It's so dangerous. It's such, it's heavy combat. You know, I,

I so admire the coverage. Now, in terms of how this all plays out and where it goes and I heard your interview with General Keene, how it ends, I have no idea. But the nuclear saber rattling has rattled me as a child of the 1950s who used to duck under our desks at school in nuclear drills that would have been fruitless, who lived through as a cadet in Maritime College

the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, this is the worst it's been since then. You know, people have to understand that when people are talking about nuclear use of nuclear weapons, in a way that it is plausible, if remote, it is unnerving to me. It is absolutely so profoundly distressing to think that these world leaders would actively be considering. Now, what the word is now that Putin is going to use a tactical, tactical nuclear weapon to explode over the Black Sea or some unpopulated area in Ukraine someplace, you know, as a demonstration, that's insanity. It's insanity. It is ridiculous. Mutual assured destruction is what nuclear warfare is all about. And it's just so distressing to me that that world-loyal. leaders, even someone as nutty as Putin is showing himself to be, would be putting the world's

very survival in play. For what? For what exactly? For Dunbass? For, you know, some little shaving of eastern Ukraine? What exactly is it that Putin is so, you know, so angry about that he would end the world? I had a history professor very briefly, Mr. Fabragas, in social studies, who told me that he had no doubt, but that Hitler at the end of the war, if he had a choice and there was a button that said, end the world because we're losing or not, Hitler would have pushed the button.

He would have ended the world. I remember how upset I was by that. Is this the same thing? Is Putin now playing with the button because he may lose this ridiculous, stupid war? And bravo to Ukraine. Bravo to Zelensky. They're kicking bud at great cost,

but they threw the world's second most powerful, or third most powerful army out of the region around the capital, and now Putin is trying to pick up the pieces in the east side. You know, I think that this is horrible. What's going on with Putin and Bravo to Ukraine and the Western allies. You know, that's one thing about Trump. I don't know. Would Trump have held NATO together with the UK and would he have held them together

to have a united front against Putin? He hated NATO. Half of NATO wasn't paying the 2%. He was so disparaging of them. And it sounded like he wanted the Atlantic Alliance gone that he didn't even think the United States should be in NATO. You know, what if there was no NATO now? Yeah.

You know, I think that there's so many interrelated questions. As always, Harada, brilliantly observed from all your experience. I was going to throw you a question about the Duke Duchess of Sussex, but frankly, it feels almost an insult to ask you something so pathetically trivial after what you just said. It's not really, because I follow Prince Harry into Helmut Province in Afghanistan. I missed him by a week, but all the American GIs were singing his praises. I know he's kind of drifted away from that, but he was a hero in 2008. I'd love that guy back. You know, my brother-in-law, actually, my sister's husband,

when he taught Harry and William at Sandhurst Military Academy. He was in charge of their training, and I think we'd love to see that Harry back. Harald, great to talk to you. Thank you so much. You're coming on. Okay, Pierce. Thank you. Unsensored next, Jokovic Murray and Nadal

of all's attack. Wimbledon's decision to ban Russian and Belarusian athletes from this year's tournament. I'll speak to tennis legend Martina Rattolova. That's next. Welcome back to Piers Morgan Unsensit. Raffa Nadal says Wimbledon's ban on Russian players at Wimbledon is unfair.

Well, Sergei Staskowski retired from tennis in January. It's now taken up arms to protect his homeland in Ukraine. He took to Twitter to say, Raffa Nadal, we competed together. We played each other on tour. Please tell me how it's unfair. Oh, it's fair that Ukrainian players cannot return home. How is it fair that Ukrainian kids cannot play tennis?

How is it fair that Ukrainians are dying? And Sogeo joins me now, along with tennis legend, a nine-time Wimbledon winner, Martina Ravela Lover. Well, welcome to both of you. Soge, let me start with you. There was a powerful tweet, and there's no doubt when you read that tweet and you think about someone like yourself who played tennis competitive for Ukraine for many years and has now gone back and has now joined the battle against Putin and his genocidal rampage,

there's no doubt everybody, I'm sure, will feel huge empathy with you. The question becomes, I guess, that where do you take the argument? If individuals rather than nations, rather than teams, for example, If individuals get punished for the behaviour of their leaders, then you could end up with a lot of people getting banned, year in, year out, for all sorts of reasons. Surely they can, but unfortunately, the regime in Russia created a delusional reality for Russians.

And the top athletes, they have that reach, they have the audition for their fans, and they could tell them what's really going on. And honestly, if the Russian players, and Belarusian players would come out and say publicly they condemned the invasion, that they would really say that they're against the war. There will be something everybody would then consider about banning, but they're staying silent.

Saying no war means if Ukraine will stop shooting, the war would be over. But it's not true. If Ukraine stopped shooting, there will be no more Ukraine and no more Ukrainians. So the question here is it's not about whether it is good to ban somebody or not. It's a question whether it's normal to stay neutral when your country is killing innocent people. Okay, well, Martina, it's obviously that's not normal. Obviously, it's disgusting.

I think we all agree with that. But it's really about, I guess, the precedent that's being set here, and I raised a point earlier at the top of the show, that if you had the same kind of logic, for example, you know, after the Vietnam War, after what many you think was the illegal invasion of Iraq, for example, then a lot of American stars would be banned from tournaments that they ended up winning.

What is your view about this? Well, first, I want to say, Sergey, bravo to you. My head is off. I was just so brave to be doing what you're doing. Truly, unbelievable. As for the players, as you say, it could be a slippery slope. Because what is the option for the Russian and Belarusian players? If they support the war, I mean, I say if they support Putin, obviously,

openly, they should not be allowed to play. But if they go against it, what does that happen, what happens to them, what happens to their families, etc.? They would literally be forced to defect in order to play tennis. And I think you're making a very unfair situation, obviously horrible situation in Ukraine, you're making it worse by doing this. I think the players who did not support Putin, who actually have spoken out against the war, like Povych Ivanov has openly spoke about it. I think Rubleff wrote not note to war on the camera after a match.

It's such a fine line to walk if you're from those countries. And there is no good way out of it. So my heart goes out to everybody involved in this. But if the only option is for these players to leave their country so they can play tennis, I think that's unfair as well. Sergei, I mean, the precedent, I would say immediately this brings to mind is Saudi Arabia's warmongering in Yemen, for example, hasn't led to a ban on Saudi competitors, for example, at the Olympics.

It hasn't stopped them hosting a Formula One Grand Prix race. So there's a lot of hypocrisy here, isn't there, about the way that we view conflicts around the world and how we punish people? Surely there is, but let's say Saudi Arabia doesn't possess any nuclear weapons. And Saudi Arabian kings, but not threat Europe, was airstrike, saying that the missile will land in London,

was in 200 seconds. It's going to land in Berlin in 160 seconds, on a mainstream TV, with your anchors saying these words and lines. So it's a pretty different situation, I would say. When you're preparing your nation, which is Russia, to basically say that there's no world without Russia in it. So they are preparing their nation,

if they're going to lose the war in Ukraine, that they're ready to end the world, is that something everybody should consider? I mean, I've got to be honest with you. I think, Martina, it's a very complicated issue. I actually thought long and hard over the last day or so about what I thought about this. Once I heard about this ban from Wimbledon,

I understand that Wimbledon, for example, they're really doing it at the behest of the British government and the heavy sanctions they brought in. They're sort of taking their lead from the government, which some people might think is a bit cowardly of them to stand behind the government, but I can understand them taking my lead in that way. And they wanted to avoid it's been reported

the potential spectacle of the men's tournament being won by a Russian competitor. And for example, the Duchess of Cambridge, who's the patron of Wimbledon tennis, presenting him with an award and giving Putin a massive propaganda prize. I mean, this is the problem, isn't it? If you do allow them to compete and they win, Putin gets his moment on the world stage. Absolutely.

And that's why we should not have been rewarding these horrible countries with international competitions, whether it's the Olympics in China, the World Cup in Qatar, World Cup in Russia, etc. Saudi Arabia, as you said, the F1 races. So it legitimizes these governments, and that's not right. On the other hand, tennis is a very individual sport, but it's like it's a Norman situation. I know if I was living in Russia right now, I would probably be moving my family out, as are many people that can leave the country because it's just such a disaster and what they're doing is so, so wrong. But it is just sad that it would have to come to that. But I think if I were living there, I would probably be doing that. But there's no way

of winning this one way or the other and the loss of life and destruction. And it's just unimaginable. But I don't know if banning players from playing tennis is helpful one way or the other. Sergei, I want to end with you because you've gone back. You've retired earlier this year. You're now You've joined the struggle. What is life like for you in Ukraine? In Ukraine, Kiev is getting better. First two weeks were brutal, honestly. Now, the Kiev is going back to normality

because there's no other way. But in general, in the 9th of May, I think it's going to be the main time where we'll see what's going to happen because Russia is paying to do a full scale. I don't know, call in arms. I would say, I don't know how it's called in English. And then, unfortunately, for many of us

who would be put back into reserves, most likely we'll have to go back to active duty. So the next two weeks are going to be crucial and we just hope that the world will stay at one piece of it is. Well, we wish you all the very best, so good to you and to your family and indeed to all Ukrainians. Martine, I just want to ask you quickly

before we let you go about Boris Becker. Someone you know incredibly well who's now in prison, an extraordinary fall from Grace. Yes, Boris had had some really bad advice and then he made some really bad decisions and now he's paying as high a price as you can I just hope that he'll be okay and that he'll come out all right on the other side.

My heart goes out to him and his family. He made some really bad mistakes. And, you know, he's paying for him dearly. So I just hope he'll be okay. It is an extraordinary situation, isn't it? I mean, I know Boris quite well. I have a interview, the first interview with his wife, Lily, tomorrow, actually, on this show. It's a tragedy for them, obviously.

A lot of people don't feel any sympathy for him. I think that he, you know, he did what he did and he committed financial fraud and he should pay his price. But he was such an idol in the sport of tennis. It just seemed extraordinary. He's now behind bars. Yeah, I think the first time it happened, I don't think it was his fault as much as it was of his advisors. But he got let off because of who he is. But because of who he's, I think they paid more attention to what he was doing.

And then the second time it happened, it definitely was on him. It seems, from what I've been reading, he should. should have been smarter than that. But, you know, he didn't hurt anybody. He was just trying to save his own property, but that doesn't excuse, obviously, shirking taxes, et cetera. So it's just, you know, as tennis players, we depend on other people to tell us what's right, what's wrong,

lawyers, CPAs, et cetera. I've gotten some little of the advice over the years, nothing illegal. But, you know, lost some money because you depend on these people to do their job so you can do yours, not to excuse what Boris did. And again, he's paying dearly. and I just hope his family survives it intact and most of all, Boris does,

because, yeah, this is really rough. Yeah, well said. Martina, lovely to talk to you. Thank you very much indeed. Thanks, Chris. And nice to talk again to Sergio that we lost a connection at the end, but we wish him and his family all the very best. Unsensored next.

China's zero COVID policy shows, well, zero humanity, as most countries are getting on with the virus. How long can China hold on? That's next. Millions of people in China are still living under the world's no traconian lockdown measures. The face of the country's brutal zero-COVID policy continues to emerge because this footage of a man in Beijing who sealed himself into his car because he feared he might have the virus.

Residents in Shanghai have staged screaming protests from their homes. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, who's a longtime advisor to Chinese leaders. I'm the author of How Chinese Leaders Think joins me now. Welcome to the show. We haven't got much time. I'm really sorry, but if you can just explain to me, How long can this go on this zero COVID policy in China, given the reaction from the people there? And can it work? It'll go on for the rest of the year through the 20th party Congress, which is probably in November.

It's important to understand three reasons why the lockdown policy is in place. First, putting people first is the leadership, President Xi Jinping, the party's highest objective, their mission, and saving people's lives is the top of the list. estimates were that there might have been 200 million cases, 2 million deaths in China, if they hadn't done the draconian lockdowns in the early days. Secondly, because of the early success with the original virus, China has claimed that their system for putting people first is the best in the world, better than the Western liberal democracies.

So that puts a marker down on the street. Third, the 20th Party Congress, for people not familiar with it, is the most important event in China's political calendar. It occurs every five years. It establishes the leadership, the top people, which in China is the most important aspect, and China needs absolute stability, especially in Beijing, until that time.

So I don't expect any changes from significant lockdown. They'll try to modify it a little bit, as we see in Shanghai as they can, but no significant changes until after the party Congress, and after that, there will be and has to be, a relaxation of the zero-COVID policy just to keep the economy going. Robert, thank you, brilliantly articulated. It's a fascinating situation there, and I appreciate you joining it. Sorry, we need a more time, but appreciate it. Thank you.

Well, forget the farm police. It's time to worry about the speech police, I'm afraid. Well, internet search giant Google is rolling out a new inclusive language function that helps people avoid using PC words. One of the problematic words is mankind, apparently. to give you something out of the idea how ridiculous this is. Before I play the most famous TV clip in history, I now have to issue a trigger warning.

Here's the clip. Sorry, Mr. Armstrong. Offensive, triggering. You're going to get banned next. Okay, that's all from me for tonight. Tomorrow I'll be joined by Boris Becker's wife, Lily, for her first exclusive interview. In the meantime, whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored.

Thank you.