The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - How Do You Respond To A Nuclear Threat?

Episode Date: October 4, 2022

It's another Brian Stewart Tuesday as the former war correspondent helps us put the various elements of the Ukraine War into context while giving us a little history at the same time.  Plus, are the rich really getting richer?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. How to respond to a nuclear threat. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto on this day. I was looking at the Globe and Mail, reading the headlines in the Globe and Mail this morning, and one of them stuck out to me. It stuck out to me for two reasons, because it shows just how much our attention is still grabbed by this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and how much things have changed since this story really started in

February. Actually, it started a few years ago, but this year's version of it started in February. Here's the headline in the Globe and Mail this morning. Number of men fleeing Russia is larger than Putin's original invasion force in Ukraine. Now, the source on that is NATO. That's what they claim. But the images we've seen in the last week, two weeks almost now, since Putin announced he was going to be bringing more people,

drafting more people, young Russian men into the Russian army, we've witnessed thousands and thousands fleeing Russia. Some of them walking, some of them driving, some of them getting on planes, but they're getting out. They have no interest in fighting that war. So it's still a headline, and we're still interested. A lot of the mail I get is people saying, don't stop telling us the Ukraine story. Don't stop getting Brian Stewart on your show.

Brian, the former foreign correspondent and war correspondent, will be with us in a couple of minutes to discuss this week's findings, many of which revolve around this issue of nuclear, which has never been which revolve around this issue of nuclear, which has never been taken that seriously throughout this year, but it is being taken seriously now. The threat from Putin that he has other weapons in his arsenal,

and that means, translation, nuclear. So, as I said, brian coming up i'm why delay it any longer let's get to it because there are so many issues to discuss on this story still today months after it started months after we thought it would only last a few days. Here we are. Still in the midst of it. So here's my friend. In conversation with Brian Stewart. So Brian, this time last week we were using the phrase,

Putin's got his back up against the wall. Well, actually that'd be a good position for him today because today he looks like he's on the ground and everybody is demanding of him, challenging of him. Why are we in this mess? Why are we losing this war? Give us the latest example. I mean, it's pretty graphic. It is extraordinary to follow the media now inside Russia. I mean, people are coming out and making statements on air in prime time. We would never have guessed a month ago was even possible, two months ago. They're coming out on blogs, they're podcasts, they're coming out. The right wing is coming out saying what a mess of a war this has been made,

whose head's going to roll for this? And there's a classic i was watching one just recently a sergey marden who's a state tv host who has a big following and he's coming on after the fall of lyman which as we know fell in the last couple days a very major city lost to the ukrainians and he's basically said how is it possible we could have lost this? Who was in charge of this? How is it possible we didn't send reinforcements in? We're hearing now we ran away.

You know, we went into full retreat. Somebody says this is a complete mess, and it comes on top of several other messes. We've been retreating all over the place recently. Then he turns to this retired general, very hefty looking, classic form of a Russian general. And Hogback says, can you explain it, general? Can you explain exactly who's at fault here and what's going wrong? He looks like the poor general looks like, oh God, here we go. And he starts to say, I don't really know. I can't really explain it. I do know, however, that there's some kind of fault here. And it goes not from the ground up, but it's going from the top down, which means from the Kremlin down. And the moment he said top down,

the whole broadcast fell apart. He went to blank, so he was was gone but that kind of what it is is this kind of message now is being heard for the first time by the russian population i'd say in the last two and a half three weeks they've received more real real credible live information about ukraine than they had in the entire seven months before so And this is the new reality, that the Russians are losing big swatches of land, major cities, major supply hubs, and I think an awful lot of prisoners as well. And they're basically being routed. They are running. I mean, the Russian retreat, which is being described as, you know, an ocean, a sea of

metal, of abandoned tanks and trucks and you name it, is taking on a catastrophic appearance. Well, let me stop you and back you up a little bit. When you use that term, the new reality what is the new reality now the new reality is that is that after a long period of stalemate in the war which in which the russians dominated with artillery passed to a phase where the ukrainians managed to get in a superior weaponry and artillery and have pushed the russians across so long a front over a thousand mile front which is insane pushed them in the south and pushed them in the center they let the russians were left under resourced in the north the ukrainians saw this as an absolute perfect breakthrough attempt and they broke through and what they broke through doing was the kind of

thing we haven't seen really in this war yet which was a breakout a punch through at tanks and light armor vehicles broke the enemy lines and then went hell for leather down the highways and just eating up uh territory taking towns uh taking prisoners uh wiping out coal columns of russian armor and tanks and have recaptured like 4 000 square miles of territory in the northeast at the same time there's still uh have an offensive going this is picking up steam the last couple days in the south as well so what we're seeing is defeats that can't be hidden any longer. It's not like one little town here, one little town there. The map hardly moves. Now the map has taken on almost a Second World War look, if you can imagine that, the breakthrough of one army through an enemy's lines and then spreading out and collapsing the line. And the Russians who have been watching this,

the military analysts, the ex-military types, the nationalists, the pro-Kremlin types, are saying this is a military disaster by any norm that we're aware of. And we're very worried because why are we so worried? Because nothing seems to be stopping it. At no point in this war do we seem to be able to turn around a bad situation and launch our own counteroffensive. We're getting counteroffenses from the Ukrainians.

Where are our counteroffenses? All we're doing now is giving up territory and towns and cities. And that's the new reality that this is no longer a secret in Russia. The news is out and it's got to be undercutting Putin's whole position, particularly as this latest fall of Lyman, which is a very big story, happens just a day after he was proclaiming whole sections of four regions of the Ukraine now part of Russia. Now, they're already losing parts of those regions.

And the latest statement of the Kremlin is, well, we're not really quite sure where our borders would be anyways. We're having a kind of rethink as to where we would have these borders. You know what that means. It's an incredible picture that you paint. And it's an incredible uh picture that you paint and it's an incredible story that continues to unfold now two weeks ago uh putin gave that speech that led a lot of people to believe that he was he was really threatening nuclear weapons the you know probably the tactical nuclear weapons. And how was the West going to respond?

Well, it seems while a lot of people and analysts have been talking this up over the last, especially the last week or so, the West seems to be sitting back and being very careful in the way they're responding. So walk us through that. Yes, that's very noticeable. First of all, there is an opinion of Putin in Western capitals that he's a bit of a, he's a saber rattler, but also a procrastinator. He doesn't like to take dramatic decisions at once.

He often drags his feet before making half decisions. And then when he goes in somewhere, as in the Ukraine, he only uses about half the resources he could have used. That kind of hesitation is part of the Putin makeup. They find it very hard to believe this man is going to sort of put himself in a position where he could basically be committing suicide, not just for himself, but for his nation. But beyond that, there is a feeling that if we have a coordinated response to Russia and speak very clearly to them, and I think this is a key thing we raised last week or the week before, but the essential right now is to have no misunderstandings. It's very important that Washington speak directly to Moscow and that washington speak directly to to moscow and london and paris speak directly to moscow and that's apparently happening the even

the top military types are talking to each other and what the what the west is basically saying is if you go to even a use of a tactical nuclear weapon a nuke, we will respond in a way that will have catastrophic results for you in a conventional way. We won't do the one nuclear attack brings another nuclear attack. We're not going to go down that road. We're not going to start exchanging nuclear missiles. So you don't have to fear that we're going to have you under attack from our nukes. But what's going to happen is we are going to bombard the blazes out of every Russian unit in the Ukraine. We're going to knock out the Russian Black Sea ports for your Navy. And we'll have all sorts of ways. We will have conventional attacks on your logistics, on your power positions, the rest of it, we will cause

enormous damage to you without going nuclear. And that's had the grave response. Be very aware in Moscow that we can't just sit back and say, oh, Russia fired a nuke. What are we going to do about it? I guess nothing. Because what does that present a picture to the world what does that present to north korea or china or an iran or in another country with nuclear weapons capabilities or wanting to have that capability it's because it kind of welcomes a free-for-all so know that there will be a response and the response will be shock and awe, but like you've never seen before. All right. And I'm glad you used that term, because that's the term that was used, shock and awe, about Baghdad in 2003, that that's what the Americans would do. And they proceeded to do just that. that so would you assume that at this point that the western forces led primarily by the u.s

have a plan in effect that would be unleashed you know right away if something like you know if russia went to that extreme of using some kind of tackle weapons that they i think they sure i think they've always had a plan but they update the plan as the situation demands and i think from what the reports we've been getting that they're war gaming a response inside the pentagon and have actually had me for days i would think that they have been war gaming this with with the british i'm sure with other nato partners um at the very top military levels i would think they've been war gaming this since last march when the hints first came up that this could go to tactical nuclear weapons and they've just put in more officers on

it and more study on it and i think they're probably discussing it every couple days. They sit down in the war room at the White House and certainly the war room inside the Pentagon and say, okay, here's the plan we think is the best way to respond. They won't be leaving this to see what happens on the day of. You have to have something in place, even if you go back to that plan and say, well, wait a minute, there are a couple of things here we don't like, but you have to have the plan. So I'm sure there is one right now. I mean, I'm still trying to think of the binder, the huge binder it probably is. But it would have to be more than a plan.

It would also have to be the positioning of forces, right? around the world, whether they were sea-based with, you know, sea-launched cruise missiles or what have you, or land-based activities in different parts of that general region. Yes, and that's why, and this is agreed in Russia and Moscow and in Washington and elsewhere, that the nuclear capabilities of the powers are always on 24-7 hour alert. I mean, there's no time when they're not on alert. There's no time when there's not a plan as to how to respond to this level of missile fire or that level or a small level or a big level.

These are all written down so they have something they can turn to immediately. And when the crisis becomes heightened, as it is right now, they open up the plans and they discuss them around the table and they go on for hours on end, as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 62, which was a lot more tense than this, I well remember. So I think we don't have to wonder if people are thinking about this seriously. We know they're thinking about this seriously and have been thinking about it for months. And, of course, the key thing is to how do we deter Russia so that it doesn't attack with a tactical nuclear? What kind of words can we use to convince them what kind of display can we show to convince them that we will not sit back if they put a nuke into ukraine and do nothing because we cannot do that it's just simply not in our our nato survivability doctrine you know you don't accept a nuclear attack

and then wonder what you do next time. Just let everything go into confusion. There's no doubt in this last week or almost two weeks since that Putin speech, the media, much of the world's media, has been discussing this nuclear issue, this nuclear threat. Is there a worry that isn't making it into the media because there's so much attention being placed on the

nuclear issue sorry say that again peter sorry with so much attention being placed on the nuclear issue is there a concern that the media is missing another part of the story, that there's a major worry that the media isn't covering? Yeah, I think there is. And I've been scouring the media, both the mainstream and also the open source intelligence sites and the war sites and all that. And what worries me a little bit, I'm picking up, is that the reporters who have gone into the Ukraine and Russian borders. As you know, the border runs right in the north, right along between Russia and the Ukraine, and then goes into Belarus and Ukraine. And Belarus is more or less on Russia's side. So where once there used to be a very rare firing across the border, this is happening now, but it seems so small scale compared to all the big advances

and the surrenders and the threats of nuclear weapons and the annexation of territory that this may not be given the attention that it really deserves right now because it's apparently even tanks are pulling up across the border and exchanging fire. This could easily escalate. There's also intelligence that Ukraine is picking up that the Russians are amassing large amounts of armor and troop concentrations across in their own border as if they were planning to launch a major attack again. And whether this could be an attack to try and take the pressure off other parts of the line, or an attack to desperately show that Russia still is dictating the pace of this war, or whether just desperation, it's a possibility that the war could flare across

that border. And then I think we're into extremely hard to predict situations where threats of tactical weapons may become all that more common. And the Western response is going to have to become all that more determined and fixed. But these are just small stories now, but they're there. One tank guy, Ukrainian tank guy said, you know, we don't talk about it, we don't hear about it much, but it's all along the line now. We never used to see firing like this, but now it's happening all along

the line. You got a great letter in the last few days from a fellow by the name of Tyrell Bertram in Climax, Saskatchewan. So you've got listeners, as you'll see, right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, who look forward to these Tuesday kind of mini lectures from you on what's going on in Ukraine

and some of the stakes that are at play. But this is a good question. Listen to this. This week I was listening to the Tuesday podcast with Brian Stewart and hearing him talk about Russia's blunders and shortcomings in this war. And that left me wondering a couple of things. First, as an amateur historian, I know a little bit about Russia's military history. Still, I find myself wondering more about it and wondering if Brian or yourself could provide more insight.

How was Russia any help during the Second World War? Was success on the Eastern Front due to Stalin's military abilities or to his commanders? Does that mean that Putin is not the commander Stalin was? Or was it the fact that allies were there to assist the Soviets, even if that was mostly by meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill and other commanders, meaning that without Western support, the Russian army is dysfunctional and lacks ability. Thanks for the time. Love the podcast. Keep up the good work.

So it's a good question. Yeah. It would be a great mistake to ever downplay the Russian, the Soviet contribution, let's call it Soviet, the Red Army, as it was called then, contribution to the war. I mean, the vast majority of German casualties were caused by the Soviet Union. The vast number of German prisoners were taken by the Soviet Union. They broke the back of the Wehrmacht. It wasn't the campaigns in the West that broke the back of the Soviet Union. They broke the back of the Wehrmacht. It wasn't the campaigns in the West that broke the back of the German army. It was the Russian campaigns as they rolled. Now, they did have considerable help from the West, but it wasn't decisive, I think. The Russians

were already producing a very good tank, the T-34 of their own. And they had shown an ability, guided in part by the terror of the regime, to mass just gigantic armies of millions. And I don't want to put it down to all terror, because there was an enormous element of patriotism that runs through Russia, Rodinia, an almost mystical belief in the motherland. And when attacked across its own borders, whether it be by a Napoleon in 1812 or a Germany in 1941, the Russians do come together as a nation and make the most extraordinary sacrifices to win. And also, of course, in both wars, they always have a huge ally that's probably bigger than anyone in the West, and it's called General Winter.

The Winter came in and broke the French army and it broke the German army. And what is the big difference is that Russia has performed, in a sense, brilliantly in both those major wars, even though they had many setbacks in both of them. But they haven't performed very well in other wars. In most wars, you can think of, going back to the Crimea, the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, and the First World War, where they were broken and fell into revolution. Now, the war against Finland in 1939-40, where they were shown up very badly by the Finns in Afghanistan. Time and again, the Russians, when they move outside their own borders, lose that fighting for the motherland determination. And their weaknesses then come to the fore, not their strength.

Their weaknesses being bad command structure, very poor intelligence, loads of corruption, inferior training, too many armored vehicles of different types they can't supply very well. All of those time and again come to the fore. We saw that in Grozny and Chechnya when they attacked Georgia and they couldn't quite pull it off as they wanted. Ukraine in 2014 when they first moved into the Donbass. And now, horrifically, we're seeing it all laid out.

It's almost like a master class in where the Russian military, when it goes beyond its own borders, can go wrong. Bad planning, bad intelligence, contemptuous downplaying of other people's sort of superiority complex, and a chain of command that nobody can really make head or tail of, and an unclear explanation of what they're in fighting for. So I'd say yes, on two sides, I would never want to fight against Russia inside Russian borders when their homeland was at stake. Outside, it becomes a very different matter, which is, of course, why Putin brought four regions of the Ukraine inside Russia and declares it as Russia, because then he hopes all the draftees he sends to fight there will have that fight for the homeland determination. But the problem is, they've already said they're not quite sure where the borders of the homeland

is inside those regions. So the soldiers are going to be saying, well, we're asked to lay down our lives for the homeland. We don't even know where our own borders are. It's just confusion upon confusion. I hope that's not too long-winded. But I'd say give the Russians plenty of credit for beating Napoleon and beating Hitler. They deserve it. But again, they had a lot of help from the winter.

They had help from the West. And outside their own borders, their record has not been very good. What about this issue of Stalin as a commander? You know, Putin obviously is trying to be a bit of a strategist, military strategist here. It's not worked out so well. Was Stalin, did he let the generals fight the fight? And he stayed out of trying to tell them what to do like hitler tried to do but um but what about stalin was he did he let the generals do the general work well one mission remember two years before the war he almost

destroyed the soviet military himself when he had a purge of the generals when he knocked knocked off something like 80% of the generals, the good, the bad, and the indifferent were all falling. There was a terror. But when the war broke out, he was kind of a mix, an interesting mix. He did intervene a lot, but he picked several really outstanding generals. Zhukov, Marshal Zhukov, Marshal Konev, Melanovsky. These were all incredibly famous names during the Second World War. And there's a good argument that Zhukov was the best general of all the allies in the Second World War. And in fact, let's face it, the best general of any army in the war. But these were powerful figures, toughened. They'd come through the purges alive.

They knew how to talk to Stalin. But even then, they were somewhat fearful of Stalin. Stalin would interfere. He would say, that city's not going to fall. I don't care how many soldiers die, but we're going to hold it, and you're going to hold it or else. And the or else really meant something bleak in the Soviet Union at that time. So he was often very tone deaf Stalin. He missed a lot of things. He misread intelligence a lot. He misread warnings that Russian Germany was going to attack in 1941, severely misread that. But he did hold, when the backs were against the wall, in the winter of 41, 42, probably it was his iron fist that kept everything together when it had to

be kept together. And after that, he was smart enough to pick really successful generals, ruthless generals, incredibly ruthless, but very, very good generals on the whole. All right. I've got time for one more question, which brings us back to the current conflict, the Ukraine story. And that's this issue of prisoners of war, which has come a little bit into the forefront once again. Yeah.

You know, it's very interesting. I was watching a Ukrainian podcaster who's been covering the war, being very upset after Lyman. He said, well, I suppose this is a victory, but where are the prisoners? I've been telling everybody we're going to take 5,000 Russian prisoners,

and in fact, they've all run away, and we don't have many. The Ukraine won't say how many prisoners it has taken in this war. I'm half wondering if, in fact, the Ukraine government let the Russians flee out of encirclement at Lehman because they're not quite sure of what that would ratchet up in the way of the escalation of the war. What Putin is very fearful of, many people think, are pictures, these newsreels, or as we used to call them, news shots of long lines of Russian soldiers, their hands behind their heads, being taken prisoner, hundreds and maybe thousands, because that has an image of defeat that dead bodies

actually don't have. That really goes viral around the globe. And the war conventions, Geneva Conventions and others, trying to discourage countries from putting prisoners on display like that. But certainly, a lot of Ukrainians would like to see Russian prisoners paraded en masse to really bring home the message, because Ukraine has been doing a considerably good job of saying to the Russian soldiers, why die for this crazy war? You don't have good rations. You don't have good supplies. Come over to us. We're going to feed you. We'll give you medical help, and we'll exchange you one day for getting one of our own people back.

So why not surrender? Surrender en masse. And that can really break an army. Remember, we both covered in our way the first Gulf War where the Americans sent out messages to the Iraqi troops in the Kuwait border. Surrender. Come on. We're going to really treat you well. And they just

started to surrender by the tens of thousands. And the army just collapsed. So anyways, that's a big issue in this war. I'd certainly like to know how many prisoners the Russians are giving up, how many are surrendering en masse. Because if it began to go from a company here and a hundred people there to maybe 300, then 500, the next thing you know, 1,000 are coming across the lines with their hands up. That is the kind of movement that can lead to the decay and collapse of an army. It's happened in the West. It's happened in the East.

It happens everywhere. And that's a sign to really look for prisoners. All right. We're going to leave it at that. A fascinating discussion on so many different levels here today, Brian. We appreciate it as we always do. And it's funny, you know, week after week we wonder, boy, is there going to be enough to talk about this week?

And every week there is. Lots of new information each week on this conflict that we've seen so many ups and downs in over the months since it all started in February. Remember those days? They were supposed to last three or four days and the Russians would be parading in Kiev. But it sure hasn't turned out that way. Listen, Brian, thanks so much. We'll talk to you again next week. Okay, Peter, thanks.

Brian Stewart. And isn't it know sitting in a history class listening to Brian I've been doing that for well almost 50 years whether we've had lunch or dinner or just sitting around the studio or sitting around our offices, talking about various things that deal with military conflicts of the past, military conflicts of the present. And here we are doing it again. And hopefully there are more people benefiting from it than just the two of us. And I love some of the terminology he uses. Now, come on, Brian. Newsreels, my gosh, they even predate us. That's how old that term is.

But the idea was you'd go to a movie, you'd go to a cinema. And I don't claim this happened in my childhood. Maybe in Brian's, he's a couple years older than I am, but I don't think so. But certainly through the 30s and 40s, you'd go to a movie theater and they would play a newsreel, you know, heavily written by government censors in this country and in Britain and in the United States, uh, that dealt with various international issues. Uh, and, but it's great to look at them again now,

uh, in, in, in today's world, look at the old, those old newsreels and see how they played out. Um, anyway,

moving on, we're going to, uh, take a quick break and then, uh, and we'll come back with, you know, what I love to call, N-Bits. And welcome back. You're listening to the Tuesday edition of The Bridge.

I'm Peter Mansbridge in Toronto this day. You're listening on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform. You know the term, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Well, that may be only half right these days, at least according to Forbes magazine. Let me explain. Forbes writes,

After a roaring 2021, the 400 richest people in the United States, along with many Americans, have been hit by rising inflation and falling markets. As a group, this year's Forbes 400 is $500 billion poorer than they were a year ago. Don't you feel sorry for them, those poor people. Their total net worth stands at $4 trillion, down 11% from last year. The minimum net worth required to make the list of 400 also fell by $200 million to $2.7 billion. It's the first time since the Great Recession

that America's ultra-wealthy aren't richer than the year before. Forbes calculates net worth using stock prices from September 2, 2022. Sounds like they want to try and arrange a tag day for these poor men and women who are just getting hammered by the economic conditions. Now, it's interesting that Forbes doesn't rate the 400 poorest people in America when they calculate this list, but one assumes they've been affected by the same things. Inflation, perhaps not falling markets because they probably are not involved in the markets, but they're certainly hit by inflation. So one assumes the 400 poorest are poorer this year than they were last year.

But it is an interesting statistic that the rich, at least this year, are not getting richer. Here's another end bit. Each year, U.S. News & World Report calculates who they feel, based on their research and their interviews and their polling, I guess, which are the best countries in the world? And their list has just come out.

Switzerland has claimed its number one spot. They reclaim it. Countries ranking after a one-year hiatus are the ones that they monitor the most closely, obviously. But here's the list, because I know you're just thinking, okay, Peter, let's get to the point. Where's Canada on this list? Well, the top 10.

How can we stretch this out? Let's start from the bottom. Number 10, Denmark. Number 9, France. Number 8, United Kingdom. Is Canada going to be on this list of the top ten? I wonder. If you're wondering how they come up with these rankings,

it's a survey done by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. They look at everything from, well, there's 17,000 people talked to, and they look at the attributes of various countries, from how dynamic they are, how committed to social justice they are. Quite a few. All right. Number seven, Australia. Number six, Japan.

Number five, Sweden. Number six. I said number six, Sweden. Five was Sweden, six was Japan. Four was the United States. Now, can we have a drum roll, please, for number three? You got it. Number three in the world rankings of best country, Canada.

Boy, that's really going to disappoint those in the Freedom Convoy, isn't it? Number two is Germany. Number one, once again, is Switzerland. Now, if you're wondering, as I'm sure you are, what about the ten lowest ranked countries in the world? Who are they? Well, I don't think this is going to surprise you. The lowest ranked country in the world, number 76.

That's how many countries they do. Myanmar, number 77. Zambia, number 78. Oman, number 79. Lebanon. A lot of Lebanese Canadians. They're not going to be happy with that. Number 80 is Algeria. Number 81 is Serbia. Number 82, Kazakhstan. Number 83, Iran. Number 84 84 Uzbekistan, and number 85, the lowest ranked country in the world. I was reading it upside down. I thought that was Myanmar.

But no, the number 85, the lowest ranked country in the world, is Belarus. Belarus. But Canada, number three. ranked country in the world is Belarus but Canada number three that's not bad you know if you believe in the US News and World Report we're number three in the world in terms of the best ranking that's how we're seen not by by just ourselves, but by others. And all you got to do is travel the world. As I've done, and I know many of you have.

And when they find out you're Canadian, they look at you with envy. Most look at you with envy. Okay, that's going to wrap it up for this day. look at you with envy. Okay, that's going to wrap it up for this day. This Tuesday, tomorrow, Wednesday, we have Smoke Mirrors and the Truth. Bruce Anderson will be by. And I'm sure Bruce will have any number of different things to talk about.

That's tomorrow, right here on The Bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.