The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is It Stalemate For Both Ukraine and Gaza?

Episode Date: November 6, 2023

Some stunning remarks from the head of the Ukrainian military have analysts around the world wondering whether Ukraine has decided no one can win its war with Russia. At the same time questions are now being raised about whether, in spite of its military advantage, Israel can "defeat" Hamas.  Janice Stein is with us again for her regular Monday visit.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Stalemates in Ukraine and Gaza. Is that what we're looking at now? We'll talk about that coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. This is the Monday episode of The Bridge, and as you know, we often deal with international affairs. On Mondays, especially lately, Janice Stein has been with us, and she's with us again today. So first of all, welcome to another week. We're well into November now, crowding in on winter and the end of the year. I know it's winter already in a number of places in the country. Saw some fabulous pictures of sunrise in Manitoba the other day, and there was snow all over the ground. It's coming for everybody.

We know it. All right. The war on the front lines between Israel and Hamas is brutal. We know that. It's violent. Thousands are dying. Just how many are dying? Well, you know, we don't know that for sure because, well, no one knows who to

believe anymore. One thing is for sure, though. We know who's winning. Misinformation is winning. We'll deal with that second today. But first off, we want to talk about some truly stunning remarks in Ukraine from a man named Valery Solutiony. We'll explain who he is and why he's important in a moment. Both topics on tap today with Janice Stein, Middle East commentator, conflict management analyst,

and a founding director of the Munk School at the University of Toronto and Janice has been good enough to join us for the last month ever since the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel and she's been trying to put things in context for us, trying to help us understand what's going on. I like to describe it as sort of the stories behind the stories, the stories behind the headlines. That's what Janice has been trying to help us with.

And she's got a couple of really important issues to deal with today. So enough from me. Let's get at it with Dr. Janice Stein. So Janice, I want to start not on the Israel Hamas. I want to start on something we haven't started on in a month, which is the Ukraine situation. Because a rather startling statement from the head of the army in Ukraine, which has since been denied by Zelensky, at least Zelensky saying this is not the way he feels. But basically this document that came out suggests we're at a stalemate. This is kind of like the First World War when it was trench warfare

and both sides were kind of stalemated for a couple of years. Lots of people dying, but nobody really moving in terms of space from one side to the other. What do you make of this? Because it's quite startling, really. It's graphic in its declaration.

You know, this is a bombshell, frankly. It's a bombshell because it's very rare that you get the chief of the defense staff, that's equivalent in Canada, to Solution in Ukraine coming out and saying, we are stalemated. And I'm surprised. I did not expect that. It's just an astonishing document. How does he explain the stalemate? He says, look, two statements stood out to me and really, first thing he said is drones are more effective than artillery at defeating weapons. Now, you and I could probably talk about that one for an hour,

but off the shelf drones. So this tells you that the balance between very expensive weaponry and very cheap equipment is shifting, and that the advantage is shifting even in defense to very cheap equipment. That has just enormous implications for the battlefield of the future. And Zaluzhny is the first one to say this. You know, mass, money, strategic depth, all the things that we think matters on the battlefield just matter less when you can use very cheap weapons to defeat very expensive ones. But what we have here is a situation where neither side is defeating the other, according to him.

Yeah. Which makes me wonder, like, why would he say this? Why would he say this publicly? Was it kind of a pressure tactic on, say, the Americans or NATO to move more equipment their way, more money their way? Was it a move to pressure Zelensky to say, you know what, we are in a stalemate situation. It's time for some form of negotiations to go on with the Russians. I mean, you could kind of understand either one of those two. Do you think that's what's behind this? It could be, it seems to me, either one of two,

and we really don't know. The obvious one, which you can read in the long document that he put out, which, again, is astonishing. Nobody does this during the war, frankly, is we need to change our strategy. That's explicit in the document. What we're doing now, we're not only not going to win, Peter, there is an intimation we're going to lose. And why is that? If we keep doing what we're doing, why is that? Because he said his big error was underestimating how many casualties the Russians would take. And if this is a competition in dead and wounded, it's clear the Russians win.

They have three times as large a population as does Ukraine, and they can just take more. And he took responsibility. Again, astonishing. When he said, this is the mistake that I made. I underestimated the Russian capacity to absorb casualties. So at the obvious level, this is change strategy. Because if we don't change our strategy, we really are in jeopardy here. I think it also fits with huge concern in Ukraine right now.

We just had a journalist here from the Kiev Independent who wanted to talk about one thing, the House in Washington, and what those Republican votes are going to mean, and did we think they would really hold up military assistance to Ukraine. So it's entirely possible that this was orchestrated to put pressure on Washington, who's preoccupied with the war in the Middle East, a hardcore Republican opposition to military assistance to Ukraine. You saw them split apart those two issues. The Ukrainians are really, really worried about this. Zelensky says he doesn't agree with what's written here.

Well, exactly. Of course he can't, but at the same time, he lets the guy keep his job. So that's what I don't understand. Yeah, well, of course he has to say he didn't agree. He lets the guy keep his job, but he fired the guy's best friend who's in his office, who's head of special operations. That's a warning shot, right? I need you, but you did this once. You never do it again or you're next.

But what does that tell me, Peter? There's infighting now. As frankly, the stalemate that we're talking about was obvious to you, it was obvious to me, it was obvious to every military expert, and this is not news. What's news is that he made this public. And what we're seeing now is that there is infighting inside at the very senior levels between Zelensky and his generals about the way forward here. And that's got to be worrying in a small country like Ukraine. And it must be extremely worrying for those who are at the front line,

who are doing the killing and the dying every day. What is it that the document says that in four or five months of the counteroffensive, they've moved 17 kilometers on the front line? And with thousands of deaths, with thousands of debt. So I'm sure he's in part reflecting that frustration. Very interesting, again, vivid description. He said what motivated him to write this was a trip to the front lines in Adjika where he saw it up close. I'm sure he heard this frustration from men at the front who have just taken incalculable numbers of casualties

not to really move forward in any meaningful way. So he ends on a note, we need breakthrough technologies. That's what he's really saying. Well, breakthrough technologies don't come along every day, frankly. And the breakthrough technology, and he was saying this too, which is really, really interesting to everybody who's interested in military strategy. You know, the breakthrough technologies are not coming in the air or the latest tank or even the vaunted attackams that Ukraine pressed so hard for.

They're coming in electronic jamming. They're coming in drone technology. They're coming at this interface between civilians who are inventing this stuff and militaries who are adapting the technologies in real time. Now, Ukraine is actually very good at that, much better than the Russian army. So I think this was really a push to get Zelensky to change, to move into change strategies. What, just before we leave the Ukraine story, have you heard anything through your, you know, constant conversations with different people in different parts of the world,

your recent trip to the U.S.? Have you heard anything of a serious nature that would suggest there are, you know, negotiations at any level going on to end this? No, on the contrary. appreciated in any meaningful sense, but I did hear a CIA, a rumored CIA estimate that Russia has taken 300,000 dead and wounded, which is far higher what is than the number that is in the open press. So if that estimate is even roughly correct, you would expect once this document comes out, you would expect some sort of back channel signal from Putin. Is this the time now to start negotiating? So we may be in front of that kind of initiative, frankly. Can you see any level at which Putin could agree to negotiate?

I mean, what's the exit strategy for Putin at this point? You know, that's going to connect in a way to the story we're going to talk about. But if there are two people in the world right now, Peter, that have an all-in bet on Donald Trump, one of them is Vladimir Putin and the other is Bibi Netanyahu. Both of them were a year away from the election and both of them i would think would make a big bet and double that uh that trump wins that election next november i think we have to wait that out certainly where putin's concerned i think bb has much less time than Putin does. Wow.

It's really quite something, the Ukraine story, because it's one that we didn't think was going to last a week when it started in February of 22. And here we are ending 23 and still going on. Let me just say this, Peter. I think it will go on through the winter and the spring. There's no indication from Zelensky's people. You know, we have something in Canada called the Halifax Security Forum that is just in, that's coming up in 10 days. And so we're busy with conversations.

Well, people are going to come. And everything we're hearing from the people around Zelensky, there is absolutely no intention to give up. So I would assume that we will go well into the spring and summer of 2024. It will converge around the U.S. election. You know, I'm glad you mentioned the Halifax Conference because when it started, I don't know how many years ago now, Peter McKay was, what, the defense minister, and he was, he pushed for the- 16 years ago.

16 years ago. He pushed for the idea as a member from Atlanta, Canada, of the Harper government. And, you know, there was this little conference, but it grew in stature in terms of who was attending it, in terms of different governments from around the world at pretty senior levels. And it's taken on a significance.

You know, in Canada, we like to think everything we do is like really important on a global scale. Actually, this one is. It really does have a significance, right? Well, you know, I have to say, I am conflicted here. I chair the board of that forum, so full disclosure. But it is, I think, one of the three or four most important in the world right now. We have Halifax and we get a huge U.S. delegation always, which is very interesting.

Senators and House members. There's Halifax, there's Munich, there's Shangri-La, which is the Asian one. So it really is on the map. And we are getting a very, very large delegation from Ukraine this year. And picking up no noise whatsoever that they either that they there are any back channel negotiations or that they see this ending any time soon. OK, we're going to take a quick break and then we'll come back

and do a little discussion on the situation with Israel and Hamas. That's right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge right here on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. I'm Peter Mansbridge, glad to have you with us. Janice Stein is our guest, as she has been on Mondays recently.

As we've talked, well, we just talked Ukraine, we're going to talk Israel and Hamas now. Janice, you know, I've kind of asked you this before, over the years really, when it gets around to the Middle East, and especially Israel and the Palestinians, the question being, who do you believe? Right? And you say, Peter, come on. You know, it's like anything else. It's complicated, but you've got to decide who you're going to listen to. You're going to check the facts etc etc and that's how you'll determine how you

personally will make decisions about who to believe on the different claims and counterclaims um yes that is the case and that is what we should do but we live in a world now that's so farly far different than anything we've experienced before uh there was another report just this week talking about the degree of misinformation surrounding this story, Israel Hamas, is greater than at any time on any subject ever before. And with that, trying to determine who to believe or what to believe is extremely hard. But that's where we are. Talk to me about misinformation

and this story. You know, for sure that is where we are. And actually what we're seeing, Peter, is information war. It's part of the strategy. So at the same time as you're fighting on the battlefield, you invest resources in information strategy too. So in this case, Russia and Iran got it early. That may be because they had a little warning this was going to happen, whereas that was not true in the case of Israel. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of messages. You know, one that really stuck in my mind, and I can tell you so many stories here, but one that really stuck in my mind, you probably saw the video. It went viral of the riot in Dagestan in the airport when a plane landed, allegedly with refugees from Tel Aviv. Well, people have done the research now, hundreds of thousands of messages,

warning of a massive influx of refugees in the day or two before on telegram, repeated and repeated and repeated and escalated that day to the extent where the airport was mobbed. The people actually never disembarked from the plane. The plane landed and then was rerouted. But this was an entirely fabricated story that got some people estimate over a million messages on a social media app in the 48 to 72 hours before that incident happened. So look how powerful this is. This is the first Middle East war that is being fought on social media is cut way back on content moderation, as we know. Certainly, whatever you want me to call it, X or the former Twitter, no longer moderates content. So it just becomes a venue where really well-crafted messages, and what do we mean by that? Highly emotional messages are the ones that get retweeted and retweeted and retweeted and just

change the landscape. And as you know, the print and broadcast media are behind. They're behind. So it's an entirely different world. Now, let me talk about one other thing, which we also saw, which is the cutoff of cell phone and Wi-Fi communication in Gaza. It's happened three times since Israel went in on the ground. Well, why would that happen? Well, I have no evidence but little doubt that it was Israel that did that for two quite different reasons that nevertheless reinforce one another. One, you cut it all off and you make it impossible for Hamas leaders

to communicate with each other, except if they have landlines in the tunnels, which they may well, but they could not see and share information about what was happening above ground. So just cut it off. The second equally important one, Biden and Israel was way behind in the information war. So what you do not want are cell phones and video coming out of an active battlefield. And in fact, very, very little got out in that first 48 hours after the ground forces went in. That's an attempt at controlling information space. That's an example of how these two are working together. You have to see information now as a battle resource. That's what it is.

And it's not a one-way street, right? In terms of both sides have a different, I don't know, sophistication, too strong a word on how they play information to try and impact their side's position yeah you know i would say the asymmetries are really interesting here because it tells you a lot about the war right um hamas has good allies that will help here very experienced in disinformation. So Iran, you know, tremendous cyber capabilities and very, very good. Hezbollah is very good at it. Russia, as we know, is one of the best. And they were all mobilized out of the gate.

That was not true for Israel. The United States, for instance, as a government, doesn't engage in anything like the level that either Russia or Iran does. But what the Israelis had, it has control of the Palestinian Wi-Fi and cell phone networks. And that's just an enormous resource in an active battlefield. So it just shows you where the bases of power are so different, but each important. The Western world has seen demonstration after demonstration going on for the last few weeks. This past weekend has been no exception with huge numbers in streets of, you know, the major Western capitals. Now, obviously, there's a depth of feeling on that side, on the pro-Palestinian side for those demonstrations,

and those are mostly the demonstrations we're seeing. How much of that can be attributed to the misinformation movement that's out there? I'm trying to word this carefully because clearly there is a deep feeling on that side. But we have not seen, to this extent, these kind of demonstrations organized the way they are, very well organized in different parts of the world. So let's start, Peter, with the fact that there are approximately 9,500 dead in Gaza,

and that's the latest number to come out. We could go off on a Biden-led tangent here about how valid those numbers are, but let's just take that number as real, which I think it is. So that alone, I think, would be enough to get maybe not only pro-Palestinian demonstrators, but even people who are just outraged by the level of civilian death in this conflict into the streets.

But there's no doubt, and again, we've been tracking it, that we are seeing repurposed pictures from, for example, the conflict in Syria. And how do we know this is happening? Because there's a picture of a child badly, badly burned in the Syrian Civil War, same child showing up now, except that child is located with Gaza in the background. So there is an added element here of really effective social media strategy that is highly organized. And demonstrations themselves

come together much more quickly than they did 20 years ago because everybody has a cell phone. And you SMS and you text. And we actually first saw that really happen in the Arab world in the Arab Spring in 2011, where text messaging was so effective in getting people out into the streets. And I think we're seeing that all across the world now as people come out into the streets. And these demonstrations have an effect. You were probably watching this weekend the public opinion polling on swing states in the United States. popular support in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, where there are large numbers of Arab American voters, frankly. Now, the election's a year off, and campaigns matter, and it is way too early.

But these media are very, very effective mobilizers. There's no question about it. I can't ever imagine a conflict in the future, Peter, that doesn't allocate resources, planning, strategy to what I'm calling the information war right at the outset. All right. I have one other topic that's related to the situation in the Middle East, and that is, you know, you mentioned Biden's situation, but overall for the Americans, they have an enormous task force in the eastern end of the Mediterranean, among other areas in the Middle East. But they've got a couple of aircraft carriers.

I saw a picture over the weekend of kind of the lineup of the two aircraft carriers and all the associated other ships, destroyers and supply ships that were following along. Now, they're there supposedly as a deterrence, right? A deterrence for Hezbollah not to get involved, for Iran not to get involved in a direct way and direct action, and Syria, Lebanonon you name it now what would it take for the americans to actually go beyond a deterrence you've got this huge force there

um yeah what if they were to what would have to happen for them to take action of some sort? I think I'm going to surprise you with my answer here, Peter. And you're right. It is mammoth. And there are 2,000 deployable U.S. forces that can literally deploy in an instant. I think only the United States would only deploy under one condition, if Iran directly got involved in any way in this. I think if Hezbollah did, it would not. There is one audience for this deployment. It's Iran. And that's about all. Very interesting. Really interesting what happened this week, because Nasrallah, who's the head of Hezbollah, came out with a very measured speech that actually infuriated Palestinians, and the Saudis came out slinging this morning,

you know, calling them functionally cowards, that they were sitting on the sidelines. But why is that? Because those missiles, those Hezbollah missiles, are Iranian-provided. There is no question about that one. But they have very specific terms. They are there as the forward deployment to prevent Israel from ever attacking Iran. That's what they're there for. And the message must have gone, this is not one of these situations. And so Nasrallah says, this is entirely Palestinian, the Hamas action, right?

It's not us. It's not Iran. This is entirely Hamas generated, which was really a message. We are not going to use this scarce resource, these forward deployed missiles. You have to see them as forward deployed by Iran to deter Israel. Well, United States did exactly the same thing, if forward deployed to deter Iran. So there is a tacit conversation going on. People don't think about it like that, but there is a tacit conversation going on between the United States and Iran. They actually are communicating quite well here.

That's fascinating because, as you say, you'd have to be pretty naive to think that Iran isn't in this up to their neck from behind the scenes right now in terms of its support for Hezbollah and its support for Hamas. They're very involved. But if they are at a level dealing with the U.S. on this, that could lead to a lot of places that could make the situation better. If one believes that anything that the current Iranian regime would lead towards that?

Well, I think there's no question here that they have each communicated with the other their lines of restraint here, and we're only going to cross them if you cross them. And that's this quiet conversation that's going on. Now, you know, where has the United States also sent anti-ballistic missile systems in the last 48 hours? I think there's some in Iraq because there are U.S. bases in Iraq. There are some in Saudi Arabia. So they are doubling down on the insurance, Peter, to say any attack on any U.S. bases will prompt a response or any direct involvement by Iran in this fight will prompt a response.

But in other words, we're going to leave this to Israel and Hamas. If you look at the last month since October 7th, are we at a more critical point today than we were at any point in the last month, given what you just outlined there? Yeah. We're at a more critical point, Peter, because after a month, I still see no path to victory for Israel in this one. You see escalating pressure. The first week of the ground offensive, and they're talking about months, and I do not believe they have months. I think they have weeks, frankly, that's all. But despite the speed with

which they were able to move their army in and circle Gaza City and virtually cut the north off from the south, they have not degraded Hamas's military capability. Rockets are still being fired by Hamas into Israel, right? So if the goal is never mind removing or destroying Hamas, which frankly, to me is rhetoric, rather than a real military objective. But if the objective is to degrade Hamas's military capability, that's still in front of them. And that is going to cause casualties. So the demonstrations you saw this weekend in the streets, I think, will be as nothing compared to what's coming. And as we've witnessed in other recent conflicts in the last 20 years, you can defeat your opposition on the battlefield. Doesn't mean you can defeat the ideology that they represent.

No. And that's classic with Hamas. No. And, you know, to get ready for the halifax forum i had to write something um and the bottom line peter there was a great military strategist that brian and i must have each read multiple times he's's famous, called Clausewitz. He wrote 150 years ago. He said one really astute thing. War is politics by other means.

It doesn't matter sometimes how good your battlefield strategy is if you don't have clearly defined political objectives and understand how you're going to achieve them, you can win the battle and lose the war. That's a problem in the Russia-Ukraine war. It's a problem in the Israel-Hamas war, frankly. Well, on that note, we'll end the conversation for this week with no guarantee other than the fact that we're going to have more to talk about a week from now. And we'll see how that unfolds.

Janice, thanks again for your time. We always feel better informed after talking to you. Thanks so much. So true, right? We always feel better informed and prepared to discuss and debate the issues after listening to Dr. Stein. Imagine sitting in her class over the years. A lot of, you know, there's a lot of people that graduated from the Munk School,

the University of Toronto. And, you know, I confess I'm somewhat biased here because I'm a distinguished fellow at the Munk School. I'm not quite sure what that means really, but nevertheless, I do have a relationship with the Munk School. But students who've been through the Munk School process are dotted around the world in governments and private companies and other universities analyzing foreign affairs. And we can proudly state that they got some of the basics of their education here in Canada.

Okay, I have an end bit for you before we leave because I'm trying, as you know, to at least once a week do something as it relates to climate change. Now, I don't sit here and profess to know the solutions, and occasionally I'll interview people who might have some ideas on that front. But what I like to do at least once a week is point to something that's happening somewhere in the world that shows you that, in fact, this is real. Something's happening somewhere in the world that shows you that in fact this is real. Something's happening to the climate

and there's causation as a result of it. So here's the latest example. And I can give you a little bit of personal background to this. When I was two, I don't really remember it, but when I was two, I traveled through the Suez Canal on our way from Britain to what was then Malaya. And then four years later or so, I traveled back. So on that journey, I do remember going through the Suez Canal when I was like six years old. And, you know, how amazing it was, what it meant in terms of world trade, all of that.

And the big ships that sailed through the canal. Well, we all grew up knowing that there were canals all over the world. I traveled on the Rideau Canal. But talking about big world-dominating canals, there are two, right, that we tend to think of. The Suez Canal and the Panama Canal. Well, this story is about the Panama Canal.

It was in the New York Times just the other day. And the headline is, Drought Saps the Panama Canal Disrupting Global Trade. Drought, right? So get ready for the second shoe to drop on that headline. But let me give you the background. Let me read you a little bit from this Peter Eva story in the New York Times. And you can find it with that headline or just Google Panama Canal News, New York Times. Here's the way the story goes at the beginning of it. For over a century, the Panama Canal has provided a convenient way for ships to move between the Pacific and Atlantic

oceans, helping to speed up international trade. But a drought has left the canal without enough water, which is used to raise and lower ships, forcing officials to slash the number of vessels they allow through. That's created expensive headaches for shipping companies and raised difficult questions about water use in Panama. The passage of one ship is estimated to consume as much water as half a million Panamanians use in one day. That's a lot of water. The problems of the Panama Canal, an engineering marvel that opened in 1914, so just over 100 years ago,

and handles an estimated 5% of seaborne trade, is the latest example of how crucial parts of global supply chains can suddenly seize up. In 2021, remember this one? One of the largest container ships ever built got stuck for days in the Suez Canal, choking off trade. And the huge demand for goods like surgical masks, home appliances appliances and garden equipment during the pandemic strained supply chains to their breaking point you know on that suez canal issue ships were having to go around the bottom end of the african continent to get to their trade markets in the far east in panama lack of water has hampered canal operations in recent years,

and some shipping experts say vessels may soon have to avoid the canal altogether if the problem gets worse. Fewer passages could deprive Panama's government of tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue, push up the cost of shipping, and increase greenhouse gas emissions when ships travel longer routes. Though Panama has an equatorial climate and makes it one of the wettest countries, rainfall there has been 30% below average this year, causing water levels to plunge in the lakes that feed the canal and its mighty locks. The immediate cause of the El Nino climate phenomenon, which initially

causes hotter and drier weather in Panama, but scientists believe that climate change may be prolonging dry spells and raising temperatures in the region. So here's the last fact. This is interesting. Well, it's all interesting. At its normal operation, as many as 38 ships a day moved through the canal, which was built by the U.S. and remained under its control

until 2000. The canal authority in July cut the average to 32 vessels from 38. In this week announced new limits that are likely to lead to fewer than 30 passages a day. Further reductions could come if water levels remain low. The Canal Authority is also limiting how far a ship hull can go below the water known as its draft, which significantly reduces the weight it can carry. So you see the implications of that. I mean, the story goes on, and I invite you to find it and read it because it's quite fascinating. And the impact something like that has on world trade, on world prices,

all of it. When ships have to start paying extra to get in the queue or making the decision in the case of the Panama Canal to go around the bottom tip of South America, that adds time, cost, and has its impact on the climate. So there's a number of angles in that story that definitely fit into our climate change story of the week. All right, that's going to wrap it up.

Tomorrow, I've got Sam Nutt coming back again. Samantha Nutt from Warchild, Canada. And we're going to pick up on that point we closed out with Janice about, because Sam goes to a lot of these countries where there are a lot of difficulties going on and children are the main sufferers from it. But that last point about you can lose the war but win the battle, that's what Sam is likely to suggest in our conversation tomorrow, is the growing case in a number of these instances around the world

that they're no longer trying to win the battle on the battlefield because they're winning the war in the minds of people. Right? So we'll have that discussion tomorrow. I think you'll find it interesting. Wednesday is Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth. Bruce will be by. Thursday is your turn.

So if you have some thoughts on any topic, please send them along to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. And please, please include your name and where you're writing from. That's Thursday along with a random renter. Friday is good talk with Chantel Hebert and Bruce Anderson. And don't forget, I forgot to mention this on last Friday, but Saturday morning now you can get my newsletter, which is kind of a, it's not a review of the week.

It's a review of some of the pieces that I saw during the week that don't get normal attention, which I think help us in our thought processes on any number of different issues. And so it's, you know, I have fun putting it together. You can get it at nationalnewswatch.com. If you go to National News Watch, which is a news aggregator, specializes especially in political stories and Ottawa stories.

First of all, you get the advantage of belonging to National News Watch. It costs nothing. You know, just log on. But you'll see at the bottom of the page when you Watch. It costs nothing. You know, just log on. But you'll see at the bottom of the page when you go to nationalnewswatch.com, you can subscribe to my newsletter. Push a button. It costs nothing. You just have to fill out your name and email address.

And, you know, please do. We love new subscribers. We just started a couple of weeks ago. We've already got thousands, and we're quite excited about putting this little newsletter together. It will go into your inbox every Saturday morning by 7 a.m. The idea is 7 a.m. Eastern. The idea there is you have something to look at on the weekend, something to read. You don't have to read it all.

Go to the ones that, articles that interest you. But it's not long, you know, six or seven pieces I'll be directing you to, suggesting this is a good read. I found it a good read. You might too. So try that out. It's called The Buzz. You know, we have The Bridge and we have The Buzz.

So join us if you can. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.