The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - How Ukraine Is Going Deeper Into Russia

Episode Date: April 28, 2022

While the focus through the Ukraine war has been on Russia's invasion, it's clear now that the Ukraine forces are now starting not to just defend, but also to move into Russia with attacks of their own.  Brian Stewart is with us again today with his take on this development.  Also some of your reactions to the Moore-Butts conversation from earlier this week.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, that means your turn. But it also on this day means Brian Stewart. He'll be with us right after this. Ah, yes, Thursdays. We love Thursdays because we get to hear from you. And on this week, there are a number of letters that I'm going to highlight. And they're all to do with the conversation we had on Monday between Jerry Butts and James Moore on Canada's Place on the World stage. And it seems like it was greatly appreciated by a good chunk of listeners who tuned in either on SiriusXM or on their local podcast, whatever podcast platform you enjoy. Anyway, we're going to get to that in a minute.

But first, I wanted to touch base with Brian Stewart as you may recall from early last week we talked about how Brian was heading off for a week's holiday celebrating his 80th birthday in London just south of me here in Scotland and London is you know is his old hometown in terms of where he was based in his primary foreign correspondent years. And it's, you know, obviously still got a lot of contacts there, but he also is very, has his ear to the ground on what defense analysts and defense experts from around the world who focus on London and often go into London to have their discussions. So coming back to Canada, I wanted to touch base with the Murley to see what he was finding out in terms of the things that perhaps aren't being discussed enough by the rest of us. And that's where Brian's been terrific for us in this last couple of months, giving us a sense of what else to be looking for and perhaps

what isn't being talked about as much as it could be, giving us a sense of what's really going on on the ground in Ukraine. So that's our discussion focus point to start things off today and looking forward to it. So let's bring him in. Here's my conversation with Brian Stewart. So, Brian, you warned us some time ago, about a month ago, that at some point the Ukrainians were likely to cross the border and get into Russia with some of their strikes well it appears uh quietly that has been happening and not just across the border but uh getting inside by a fair distance tell us about it yes i think the big question was whether they'd have the nerve to do it knowing the russian ability to escalate really come back even harder

but they're seeing the evidence now seems very clear, even though the Ukrainian government's not saying anything very much about it, that Ukraine has struck several times quite deep inside Russia. And we're talking over 100 kilometers deep into areas like fuel dumps and missile development stations. And they're striking, it seems, with a number of possibilities here that NATO intelligence officers are still trying to figure out. They're using some helicopters and a few of the strikes, they think, but they're also using drones and they're also using a missile from the old Soviet era, the Tochka ballistic missile that both the Russians and the Ukrainians had. And they've used them, they believe, to strike at least at a major missile and artillery directorate where they're pouring out these missiles.

So they're crossing over. There's no secret in the military world that they're doing this. But Ukraine's taking a very, oh, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil in the military world that they're doing this but ukraine's taking a very oh they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil in this case approach and suggesting well they could be accidents the russians are very prone to accident accidents as they confessed when their their cruiser the moskva caught fire they claimed it was an accident, not being sunk by Ukrainian missiles, which it was. So they're trying to be very quiet about this. But definitely, they seem to have both confidence and the professional ability to strike inside Russia at a considerable distance,

well over 100 kilometers inside the border. And that opens the door to a very, very different kind of war that's got a lot of people with sweaty palms now across NATO and much of the world. Well, how is NATO reacting, or how do you think they are going to react to this news that the Ukrainians are moving inside Russia? Because, you know, in spite of the fact that Russia attacked Ukraine and has been inside Ukraine for the last, you know, almost two months, there has always been this feeling that if, you know, the Ukrainians went anywhere over the border,

they'd be provoking the bear to be doing a lot more than they're already doing. So is there a nervousness to the sense that the Ukrainians are now countering by going inside Russia? Well, there is a nervousness, certainly. And the Russians are doing everything they can to increase the nervousness by dropping suggestions that this kind of escalation, if it continues, could really lead to the use of nuclear weapons. I mean, the foreign minister Lavrov was saying just last week, late last week, I believe, that he hoped it would not come to that very unfortunate situation. But just mentioning the possibility makes people nervous. But clearly, the Ukrainian government is convinced that the Russians are bluffing and they're

not going to react at least anytime soon to these kind of attacks. And I think that's what they're telling Western nations. And some of the reaction of the West has been really curious, like the major Syrian senior British minister claimed that, you know, even using British weapons supplied to Ukraine, Ukraine had the right to strike within Russia at obvious military targets. That was, to my mind, a kind of extraordinary statement for a NATO minister to actually say, because it really confirms, you know, Putin's general paranoia about the West wanting to attack anyways. But it also gives him exactly what he wants to sell to the Russian people, that Russia, mother Russia, is under grave attack from the West.

And we have to prepare ourselves now for a major war, one that may not end very quickly, but may continue, and rally people towards what the Russians call a patriotic war, in which there's more of a move towards, a big move towards mobilization of larger forces. This, I think, has got a lot of the NATO thinkers and strategists really concerned that every tool you give Putin as an ability to sell the war to the Russian people and get them more involved in the war, emotionally involved and ready to sign up, ready to mobilize, is a real step backwards for the West's chances here. So I think what we're seeing across NATO, despite its very,

very impressive coming together on this issue, NATO plus many allies of NATO are showing a very strong front. There is a kind of strategic cacophony going on. Ministers in one country are saying things that other ministers in other countries are trying to downplay or avoid altogether. And nobody knows from day to day what blistering statement is going to come out of a NATO country that's going to alarm other NATO partners and certainly set the Kremlin to game planning and perhaps bigger escalations of the war. You know, mentioning that British defence person's comments also reflects also on on some of the American comments that have been made lately that deal with this situation and the intelligence factor and you know tell us about

that because that has also produced a certain you know what the heck's going on here moment absolutely this is wow I can't believe what I'm reading here. Lloyd Austin, the U.S. defense secretary, said just a few days ago that the object of the war and terms of selling the war to a public that initially was not interested in the war at all and was very hostile to the war in many quarters. It's getting more rallying of the population around the flag now. And these are statements that people are saying, well, why say that openly? Why come out and give a press conference or give an interview to a radio station and say, oh, yes, by all means, use British weapons even to attack inside Russia, or the American Secretary of Defense saying we're here to weaken Russia so it'll never be a threat again to any nation, NATO country. These are statements that raise the whole question of what is going on with people in

terms of talking to the media now or sudden numbers. And by the way, it's not just the Americans, the Brits, NATO. The Russians have been making some very curious statements themselves. The commander of the Russian Central Military District, one of the big chiefs there, Rastam Minakhaev, I hope I have his name right, said that Russia's goal is to involve the seizure of all of southern Ukraine so as to give Russia control over the Black Sea and access to Transnistria. That's a public statement from a top general that just if the Ukrainians need any more inspiration to fight, it doesn't look like they do. But if they did, that would certainly go towards rearming their morale. At the same time, Nikolai Patsraya, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, came up with a statement last week saying that Ukraine should be fragmented into several states blaming it on the outcome from western involvement in other words let's just break up ukraine into a whole bunch of little states this is handling your enemy the kind of uh material that their propaganda departments

absolutely love to have and their leaders can make hay with and also you may think that but you don't come out and say it there's always a concern by the way in second world war until the the declaration of demand for a conditional surrender from uh from germany that was agreed on by all the western allies although allies including russia uh that you mustn't start saying things like, when we get into Russia, we're going to hang 50,000 people and break it up into small states. That's giving your enemy a kind of propaganda fist and muscle that they should be denied. And the leaders were generally quite careful about warning what would happen to Germany after the war, trying to do anything to say it won't be as bad as many of the most extreme Nazis are trying to portray it. We're going to be

civilized about this. Instead, we have people, as I say, coming out to weaken Russia or to smash Ukraine into a whole bunch of small pieces to take all of Ukraine, southern and eastern Ukraine for Russia. These are statements that really I'm surprised as a news person, I'm kind of excited by seeing statements and truth coming out and ideas coming out. But as a military strategist, I think these are very questionable statements to be making. And it does, you know, some people are using the term strategic cacophony to describe what it's like dealing inside nato with every country has a very firm idea well you know how to not only address the system the situation but to speak about the situation it's ironic really

and then you kind of touched on it there a moment ago you know we we've spent our careers demanding information and especially in situations like this and sent telling the military quit covering up what the real story is here tell us the truth what's really happening what's the strategy behind this that or the other thing and they never did now suddenly they seem to be unless they're really holding back a lot a lot of stuff still they seem to be doing exactly that and we're all kind of gobsmacked by it all um that in fact both sides are are being seemingly brutally honest about what their intentions are and and how they plan to do things well it's certainly uh it's

certainly serving to confuse the media the media sometimes doesn't know from one day to the next what are the objectives here or what's going to be the game plan one week from now. I will say the Ukrainian government has been extraordinarily disciplined on information we still don't in the Western media. We still don't have a clear idea where most of their battalions are. We don't really have much idea what their air force is operating what strength is operating now what the where their missile ranges are they'd be very very discreet and certainly they're speaking very little of those attacks within a russian territory that we spoke about earlier so they're certainly disciplined uh and i you know as i write as reporters you know a firmly disciplined military censorship unit is not something we really wanted to see.

As citizens, we sometimes wonder why shouldn't you be so open about this? Aren't you handing enemy intelligence and enemy propaganda departments tremendous gifts along the way. But really, I mean, if you look at the coverage of the war, and both you and I have been very firm in saying we're not criticizing the media. The media have been doing a fabulous job in many, many areas here. It's just that the way information is coming out

limits very much the reporting on the actual big military movements as opposed to the incoming rockets or the movement of refugees and the rest of it. So we're seeing barely a small slice of the war as it's really going on. We have to sort of listen, turn to our experts in TV studios and that to try and get a firmer picture or to our intelligence services if they are talking. Or to you. Because that's what we do here on the bridge. Listen, last point. This has always been fascinating information that you are bringing forward

and giving us things to think about. Here's one more because it seems to have created not a lot of discussion where it too is one of these really moments when we talk about sweden and finland wanting now to join nato um you know not that long ago just a few years ago if not a few months ago you never would have heard that what do you make of it? Well, I'll even go further. When we were reporters covering the Cold War, we would never even imagine seeing such a thing.

They were so firm in their neutrality. Finland, for very good reason, shares the longest allied border with Russia and was invaded back in 1939-40 by Russia and had a ferocious winter war with them. It's barely hung on to its independence. So joining NATO just seemed not even on the table, not something that somebody would even whisper about in a back room. And as for Sweden, they were so dedicated to their neutrality, armed neutrality, very firm neutrality, but so dedicated to it that the mere

thought of joining NATO again was something that would have appalled most Swedes and totally astonished the non-Swedes. So we're seeing, again, developments in the world that would have been unforeseen three, four, five years ago even. It's just the world being turned on its head time after time that we're having to try and make sense of. And it's just the world being turned on its head time after time that we're having to try and make sense of. And it's an extraordinary period we're going through. But clearly, Finland and Sweden have come to a conclusion. There is no safety outside of NATO. And at least there is communal safety within NATO that they will stand up for one another and that's their pledge and much better be under the uh the

the cover of nato than to be out there exposed trying to impress uh the kremlin with your claim that we're a neutral country and don't want to be involved in this that's not going to play very strongly in the kremlin in any case but it will will impress the Kremlin in a, I hope, one tends to hope, a growing awareness sense that the strategy they used in attacking Ukraine so brutally absolutely played against their best interest

in a wider strategic role. And in fact, this would be a strategic disaster for Russia if you look at the big picture rather than the nation-to-nation picture. Okay. We're going to leave it at that for this week, Brian. Thanks again, as always.

It really helped us understand, or at least think we understand, how this is playing out. Take care. We'll talk again next week. Okay. Bye-bye. Brian Stewart joining us once again with his take on the Ukraine story and, you know, some of the things that we haven't talked about a lot, some of the things that have been underplayed, and some of the things to keep in mind as this story moves on. You can recall when we first

started covering Ukraine in the fall, and then especially so in January and February as the war started, there was a sense this won't be going on for very long. How things have changed. Now the take is this could be going on for a long time. So the more information we have, the better informed we can be in terms of trying to understand the various issues that are at play in this conflict. All right. We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, some of your mail, some of your letters, some of your turn.

But first, this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode. Right here on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode. Right now you're on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform, whichever one that may be. However you're listening, we're glad you've joined us and we appreciate the fact that you're tuning in and giving us a listen. Okay. I got a lot of mail this week about Arctic Blue.

That was my documentary earlier on, you know, it was last week, and it's replayed a number of times on CBC News Network. It was originally broadcast April 18th on CBC Television. And Arctic Blue was a one-hour documentary about, well, about the Arctic, but about a couple of issues, climate change, obviously, but how that's impacting the whole Arctic sovereignty question and how Ukraine has impacted the Arctic sovereignty story. Well, the, you know, the timing of the documentary certainly helped. It was well-received and it had a very good audience for a documentary in prime

time on television. So we were pleased. Obviously, we were pleased with that. I worked on that documentary with an independent production firm in Toronto. And, you know, I got to tell you, we had a great time in the Arctic doing the story, but even better time knowing that it was well-received and people found it interesting.

And I've had a lot of reaction to it in terms of may a lot of people have written in. Some people still writing in saying, hey, I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it. Where do I find it? And it's on CBC Jam now, so you can find it at any time at your own convenience to watch it on CBC Gem. There were a couple of letters, like this one from Kate Welsh, back in Stratford, Ontario. I taped Arctic Blue and washed it tonight with my husband.

I thought it was very well done, and I wanted more. I certainly was not aware of the sovereignty issues. Thank you for informing us on the Inuit communities and the dilemma that these communities face regarding prosperity and preserving the earth. Given all that we know about Russia lately, it makes me very nervous thinking about the ice melting and the increased accessibility they could have to the United States and Canada. Well, that's one of the issues. And as we pointed out in the documentary, there are a lot of countries who are looking at their futures as it relates to the Arctic.

There are seven countries involved in the discussions about who owns what in the Arctic. And what some of those new borders, in a sense, are going to be. So an important story. One that is not going to be disappearing any time soon. Now, most of the mail that has come in so far this week, not all of it, but most of it, and that's what I'm going to focus on, related to our Monday podcast, which we call conversation number two, between James Moore, the former Conservative cabinet minister in the Stephen Harper era, who was an MP for 15 years,

and Gerald Butts, who was the former principal secretary to Justin Trudeau. So, Jerry Butts was a kind of behind-the-scenes guy who had a lot of impact, was often called, you know, the second most powerful person in the Canadian government. So he was unelected. James Moore was elected 15 years an MP. But these two guys not only understand politics, but they understand the country. And they also understand that most Canadians would appreciate, you know, a discussion that's non-partisan, where there's a constructive sense to the talk that's going on. So we tried

this out first, I guess it was about six weeks ago. It was during the convoy or right after the convoy, the truckers thing in Ottawa, about governments and the role governments play and how Canadians were feeling about government and were they getting delivered by their politicians the kind of government they deserved? And that was a really good discussion between Moore and Butts. And I said to them afterwards, because we had a lot of reaction to it, why don't we try to do this every once in a while? And do it every week. Because at some point the partisanship is going to break open. But let's do it occasionally.

And so we waited for a while, and then we decided, partly because of Ukraine, let's have a discussion about Canada's role on the world stage. What we think we're doing, how we think we're being seen by other countries, and what needs to happen. And so that's the conversation we had on Monday. And just like conversation number one, this one too has been extremely well received by the audience. Not 100%. Some people didn't like it.

One guy wrote to me and said, and he did this after the Tuesday podcast that I had with Bill Fox. He said about the role of the media. Anyway, he said, why do you always only have liberals on your program? He says, I've been listening this week. Why do you always only have liberals? And I said, well, actually, you know, Monday there were two guests, and one of them was a former cabinet minister for Stephen Harper. Tuesday there was only one guest, and he was the former director of communications for Brian Mulroney.

So I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, pal. But nevertheless, let's focus on conversation number two. There was a letter from Diane Sabaran, or Deanne Sabaran, I'm not sure, from Winnipeg. And she writes, holy moly, talk about lots to think about and digest. Wow, a sobering, nerve-rattling, enlightening, necessary conversation you had with James and Gerald. And somewhat scary and disheartening. My Canada. You know, it has shifted my perception of my country. It's as if we live in a dream world here.

How to walk back from the abyss of potentially losing so much. How do we rise to the challenge of a new world order? I've known for a long time that we take so much for granted in Canada. This conversation has really brought this understanding and sharp focus. The insights provided by your guests make us yearn for leaders who can collaborate to best advance Canada's interests, for sure, and also act to make the world a better place, even in the face of their party's self-interest. My dreaming and technicolor? I look forward to your next conversation about how we choose our leaders. Well, thanks, Diane. Michael Wan.

He writes, just a quick note to say how much I have enjoyed the James Moore, Jerry Butts conversations. Such an intelligent, well-informed discussion. How great would politics be if our politicians sounded anything like Jerry and James? The Bridge is an outstanding podcast. Thank you very much. like Jerry and James. The Bridge is an outstanding podcast. Thank you very much. And these conversations are some of the best political commentary there is. That's kind of you, Mike.

Thank you. As I mentioned, it wasn't all flattering. I shouldn't say flattering is not the right word to use in this letter from one of our listeners, Kevin Chan in Mississauga, Ontario. He just wanted to point something out, something that bugs him a bit when discussions are made, especially about China. And China took up a good chunk of time in this conversation with Morin Butts. Kevin started off with a sentence he knew I'd like. I listened to your podcast while you were on your Arctic tour many months ago. I would say Arctic Blue on CBC brings alive the podcast with full-blown Technicolor.

Thank you. Right. Now let's get into why he was really writing. It's a fairly lengthy letter, so I'm just going to isolate one part of it that Kevin had to say. And it's this issue surrounding China. Why there is this group of people who always think we can go anywhere in the world, we Canadians, and demand the people in these other places to live how we live and to practice what we believe.

Have we not learned enough tragic lessons from how we treated Indigenous people in Canada and the Indians in the United States? We were here to help and to civilize the people who we don't know anything about, yet we know better. The civilized people is now dominating this continent, but it is built upon many tragic stories, dark histories, and genocidal policies. Fast forward to the modern era. We continue to export our values to faraway places regardless of the people, history, culture, and local believing. The book Support to Resistance, Strategic Purpose and Effectiveness by Joint Special Operations University details cases how U.S. administration used disruption, coercion to enable regime change in foreign countries.

And most recently, we witnessed what a mess we have made in Afghanistan. Once again, we know better, or we think we know better. It's either our way or no way. You hear the point that Kevin is making, and this is this assumption when we started really increasing relationships with China, especially on the economic front through the 90s and the early 2000s, this assumption that China would change in its political ways as a result of achieving some of the benefits that a different kind of economy could have on that country.

Well, we've grown to realize that that was not going to happen, or it certainly hasn't happened as yet, if anything, quite the opposite. Take the benefits of the economic changes, but their political position is no different. If it's different at all, it's more stringent than it was before. So I hear you on that, Kevin. Don't agree with you 100% on the way you phrase it, but I hear what you're saying. It comes from Nunziato Manorino. And this, too, is about Moore Butts. Great podcast today. True confession, I'm typically doing something else while listening.

No offense. But today, Moore's Butts stopped me in my tracks, and I had to sit down and listen. These two longtime adversaries speak with intelligence, mutual respect, and out of love and concern for Canada. They've left partisan politics behind. Love it when they revisit decisions made by the opposite party and acknowledge that the opposition may have gotten it right, or that they were relieved that their own position wasn't adopted because it was later proven wrong. Great question on which issues should be dealt by Team Canada. Let's face it, we all love it when Team Canada is on the field,

whether it's a free trade negotiation with Chrystia Freeland and Ronna Ambrose for Team Canada, or Sidney Crosby and Christine Sinclair leading the charge, Canada needs more Team Canada. Shouldn't the majority of the major issues facing our nation be handled by putting our best players on the field? Most issues cannot be contained inside our borders or within a four-year mandate. Reconciliation, climate change issues today cannot be contained that way. Funding our NATO commitment, pandemic response, or our universal social safety net, these issues are bigger than any one political party.

Thanks, Dino. Dino Manorino. All right. Those are the letters I'm highlighting this week. There were many others that came through different topics and over some of the encore editions that we highlighted during the Easter break. But I wanted to bring these up to date. And if you haven't listened to the Butts More conversation from this week, go back in your podcast and grab it

because it is a good one. It's a very good one. All the programs this week have been great. Yesterday, great one with Bruce Anderson on Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth about Elon Musk and the Twitter purchase. And the day before that, on Tuesday, Bill Fox

talking to us about the media and where it is on the landscape of information these days and how that relationship works out with the public. All right. I'm heading home. I'm heading home now that Today's podcast is done And I'll be back in Toronto

Somewhere between now and tomorrow Episode of The Bridge Which of course is Good Talk for Friday And Chantelle Hebert will be there Bruce is now taking a bit of a break. And tomorrow, filling in for him will be our good friend Rob Russo, the former Bureau Chief for Canadian Press, both in Washington and in Ottawa, and the former Bureau Chief for the CBC in Ottawa.

So Rob will join us with his comments, along with Chantelle, of course. And I'm sure we've got a packed agenda of discussion points to go over. Hope you'll join us with his comments, along with Chantel, of course. And I'm sure we've got a packed agenda of discussion points to go over. Hope you'll join us. All right, I'm Peter Mansbridge signing off for this day from Scotland. I'm looking forward to getting home to Canada. And we'll talk to you again in 24 hours.