The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Russia and Poland -- Is A Dark History Repeating?

Episode Date: September 15, 2025

The Second World War began after Germany and Russia invaded Poland. Last week, Russia invaded Poland again in a story that made headlines in North America, but for only 24 hours. We know why the story was eclipsed, but should we revisit? Dr Janice Stein joins us for her regular Monday episode on this and more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. Russia attacks Poland, and it's just a one-day wonder of a story. Dr. Janice Stein, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Mondays. And Monday means Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto. with our coroner of Foreign Affairs Watch, that's basically what we do on Mondays,

and this is a good one. Russia attacked Poland last week, and for a number of reasons, it was only a one-day wonder of a story. Should it have been more? Should it still be more? We discuss that today with Dr. Janice Stein. But before we do, a little housekeeping,

we always announce on Mondays the question of the week. And we've got a good one this week. Well, we always have a good one because you respond in big numbers to our questions of the week. And this week, here's the question. You may have recalled last week,

the governor of Utah, who was very much in the news, had this line, this suggestion for how certainly people in his state and his country and perhaps beyond should carry on in the future and it's based around this this is what he said social media is a cancer social media is a cancer so the question to you this week is do you agree with that

or do you disagree and obviously whichever choice you make why do you make it so that's the question of the week social media is a cancer agree or disagree and the reasons why you have until 6 p.m. Wednesday

to file your answer at the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com include your name and your location and once again 75 words or fewer that's the condition you got to be under that 75 word thing and people are counting

I've had letters from people saying I counted the words in that last letter and there were more than 75 well I'm not sure about that we do check these things and you can pretty well tell very quickly when the e-mails come in if you're over that limit and if you are you're out so there you go the question social media is it a cancer agree or disagree

and the reason why all right Wednesday 6 p.m. 75 words or fewer the mansbridge podcast at gmail.com name and location are a must requirement all right let's get to let's get to Dr. Stein

because this is an important consideration this week in terms of trying to understand our changing world and this was a big change last week you just have to look at history.

So let's get it started. Here we go with Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto, our regular Monday guest. So Janice, last Wednesday, the biggest story in the world was Russian drones attacking inside Poland. Within 24 hours, that story was basically off the front pages and the headlines of newscasts across North America and elsewhere. where in the world, as a result of the Charlie Kirk murder.

Now, arguably, the Poland story is much more important, but it did get replaced. And there's been little coming back to it since, although a lot of things have been happening on this story, and it's much bigger in Europe than it is in North America. And, you know, understandably so. I mean, let's not face it, when the Polish Prime Minister says, as he said over the weekend, this is the closest we've been to open conflict since World War II. You have to remember that World War II started because of the invasion of Poland by not just Nazi Germany, but also by Russia from the other end.

They sort of did the squeeze play on Poland. So I want to have a discussion on this story because there's a number of ways to go about it. But why don't we start from this? is this as important as it clearly seems to be to Europe? It is. It is important. Are we on the threshold of war? Matsukorsky said that's, you know, that's our,

we are certainly Peter, openly now, Europe is certainly in the middle of what we call it gray war. A covert war, you know, very similar in a way to what Russia was doing in Ukraine from 2014 on. But it's much more widespread. It's been going on. But that incursion of the drones into Poland just blew the lid off. So Europeans are now talking about it openly. This is another incident that just happened a month ago. People didn't talk about Ursula von Leiden's aircraft when she was traveling to Bulgaria.

Remind everybody who she is. Ursula von Leyen is the president of the European Commission, the highest officer of the European Union. You see her at all the summits, frankly, because she represents the European Union. And she's flying to Bulgaria and Russian jammed electronics on her plane. Now, right, that could easily go too far. That's right up at the edge. It could go too far if you don't have good pilots. And there's a building crescendo of incidents like that by Russia in the world.

last year. The Europeans have been aware of it, but reluctant to talk about it. Partly, I think, because they're worried about provocation. But when these drones, and by the way, the drones that crossed the border into Poland were dummies. They were decoy drones. They were not armed. they're there to confuse the Ukrainians so that the Ukrainians use precious interceptors to knock them out of the sky because they can't tell

whether they're dummies or not but of course when the polls gathered them after they hit the ground they were all dummies so think about this what's what's Putin's message to Poland

Because I don't believe this was an accident. Well, that's what... Let me ask that question about whether accident or not. I mean, there were 450 drones fired off or let go or whatever the phrase is for Russia that night. 450 drones, of which 19 ended up in Poland. Now, the Russians haven't said anything. They're being very dodgy about what they say. but, you know, a normal person could look at that and say,

well, you know, that's kind of like an aiming error. It was an accident. They weren't supposed to go to Poland. You don't buy that. So what do we know? You know, and you're right, the Russians have been absolutely silent because they went either way, right? If you think it's not an accident, well, you're more careful

and you don't want to provoke, but that's not what happened this time. And I don't think the Russians, because the Russians actually have never had an open Russian miss of this time. You remember there was an incident a couple of years ago, but it turned out to be a Ukrainian drone that misfired. But one, one drone, 19, that's a lot of drones to go in the wrong direction, frankly. you get a straight drone that will go off for two or even three. But 19, I'm dubious that that was a targeting error, frankly. Could be, we don't know, but I'm dubious. The Danes, or at least the Danish prime minister,

and Denmark has been quick on this. They've sent in a couple of planes of their own to help the polls determine what's coming their way, if anything. But the Danish prime minister said this was a, they're just testing us. They're testing our resolve. They're testing how fast we can react. Right. That's what this is all about.

Right. So that's why I say the Russians win either way. Because how is it possible Peter that it was only dummies that misfired? That's what makes me think this wasn't an accident. If it's just targeting it, you're going to get a mix. But these were all dummy drones, right? So, but what does that tell you? If you launch dummy drones, you get to see the early response.

So, first of all, was polling capable of intercepting? What do the rest of NATO do? How fast did the information travel from Polish airspace to NATO headquarters? Did they don't do anything, actually, when it became clear that there was something over Polish airspace? So it is exactly that. At the very minimum, this is Russia testing NATO. And that's why to me, it's an ominous moment, frankly. So what would they take from, say, let's assume they were testing.

What would they take from the testing they were doing? I mean, the fact is Poland, aided by a couple of NATO countries, shot down all these drones. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the encouraging part, but mainly Poland, really. And Poland is the most alert, the most concerned, for good reason, for the historical reason that you just mentioned, Peter. They have only bad memories, frankly, of what Russia and Germany did to them in 1939. It was a treaty between these two, between Hitler and Stalin, where they just agreed they would divide Poland, and they never brought.

bothered to ask the polls, what they thought of the idea, frankly. They just did it with their armies, and it started World War II. So Poland of everybody, the most prepared, the most worried about war, and trying to ring the alarm bell in NATO. So it was really Poland that shot down those drones. You didn't see much from NATO headquarters, which is concerning, Frank. But what you did see after, I think, is a step-level change. First of all, Poland invoked Article 4.

Now, you know, what's Article 4? It's different from the famous Article 5 in NATO that we always talk about. It's the step just before Article 5. And what it does, it requires NATO members and headquarters to engage in consultations. So Article 4 puts this issue squarely on the NATO agenda. The defense ministers, the foreign ministers, leaders are going to have to talk about what a concerted response would look like. It's unusual. It's only been done seven times in the history of NATO before this.

So this is not a business as usual signal from Poland, frankly. It's not all that different, by the way, from Article 5. Because, you know, Article 5 only used once, not 11, was the only time Article 5 has ever been involved by NATO. And we all talk about it in a kind of common sense way that it requires all NATO members to come to the defense. It actually doesn't. That's not the language.

it requires all NATO members to assist. So you can assist financially, you can assist through sanctions. It's a very, very broad envelope of what NATO members would have to do for a NATO member who is attacked. But Poland was putting up a strong warning signal that they see this as great combat, as testing, as prelude to Russia. deepening and really testing NATO resolve curiously, Peter, in a way they never did under Biden following the attack on Ukraine. Again, just to put the context around the story and why I think it's so big, after Russia invaded Ukraine in October 2022, Biden came out with a statement, and he said,

to Vladimir Putin, any attack on one inch of NATO territory will provoke a response by us. That was stronger than Article 5. But if you don't attack NATO, we will not use force against you. So he committed to restraint by the United States as long as Putin's state. away from NATO. He did. During a huge resupply of Ukraine that came through Poland and Romania, he never attacked the conflict.

You know, there are a couple of things here. First of all, I think he just spoke yourself saying October of 22 is February of 22, right? February 22, you're absolutely right. October's the other anniversary months that we talk about these days. all you have to do is kind of look at a map of Europe and especially of Eastern Europe to understand a lot of the context here

you have Russia, huge country in terms of dimensions and on its flank you have two of the three Baltic countries, Estonian Latvia, where a significant number of Canadian troops are stationed in that stationing

It seems like it's going to be extended. You have Lithuania, which is not bordering on Russia, but it's bordering on Belarus, which is basically, well, it's not Russia, but they're allied with Russia. They are so closely integrated, Peter, Belarus, and Russia. Very little daily. Then you have Ukraine. Poland is tucked in behind Belarus. Romania is tucked in, along with Moldova, behind Ukraine.

that you've got Slovakia and Hungary, which are sort of not really in the conversation on this issue right now. But you can look at Poland and understand why Russia may be testing. Big country, significant size, but also big in terms of army. You know, aside from Russia, it's got the biggest, and Turkey, I guess, It's got the biggest army in that region. It's certainly bigger than... Ukraine has a bigger army now than Poland.

Right. But of the countries, you know, of the NATO countries. Yeah. Poland big, bigger than Germany, bigger than France, bigger than the UK in terms of the size of the army. So you can see why Russia wants to know if you buy into the... This wasn't a targeting error theory. You can see why they were testing to see results.

Overall, through that picture, do you think NATO is handling this the right way? I mean, they've added a little beef to the picture, the Danes, as I said, and I think the, well, so there are a couple of other countries. France has said it's going to contribute a couple of fighters or three, and so is Germany pledging to. What do you make of the NATO response? on a military? So it's really interesting, Peter.

That's why I told that story about Biden right after. And you're absolutely right. It was February 22, the frame that Biden put around it. Russia did not test NATO under President Biden. They are testing NATO under President Trump. Without a coincidence, and after the Alaska summit, this is the first open test of NATO's military response that Russia engages in, and it comes after the so-called negotiations that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. I think that's the biggest factor in this whole story. That's the why of it.

I think Vladimir Putin smells an opportunity. Why would it be in Poland? You're absolutely right. That is a frontline state. And it has a government that is the most openly skeptical of Russia warns repeatedly that NATO has to do more to unify. its command structure to unify its intelligence sharing

to be better prepared and you know Sikorsky is the one who's warning that war that we're on in a almost too clever I have pun we're on a glide path to war

so I'm not surprised it was Poland where the test came I think the bigger picture is Putin doubts Trump's resolve and fundamentally he's a NATO

that is going to have to respond without the United States. Look at what Trump said afterwards. Oh my goodness. There are Russian drones in Poland. Here we go again. That's been the total response

from Donald Trump to this. Oh, but he said his patience is running out fast. Yeah. How many times has you said that? Multiple times. So what we're really facing here, and I think to me that's the big takeaway, we're seeing a NATO that has to respond without the United States if it's tested in Europe.

That's an astonishing factor. But half a dozen jet fighters? Is that a response? Well, you know, half a dozen jet fighters to 19 dummy drones is what we could say for now. Is that a response to what could happen in the future? Absolutely not. You know, as we've been watching the war between Ukraine and Russia, one of the things that we haven't talked about is Russia has stepped up its capacity to manufacture drones. drones. Ukraine has stepped up its capacity. I think Ukraine now has a capacity to manufacture

up to a million drones a year. Milk it. I mean, and Russia can, Russia is in fact rejuvenated its advanced manufacturing. It doesn't have to import drones anymore from Iran unless it wishes to. It stood up its capacity. Presumably, we don't have accurate data, unfortunately, on what Russia can manufacture. It's got to be more than a million because we're seeing this relentless increase in Russian drone attacks against Ukraine. Night after night after night, they're not racial. So we have a level of armament and readiness on the part of Russia, confident now that it's going to prevail against Ukraine. I think it's wrong, but that's irrelevant.

and prepared really to intimidate Poland. And it matters if you intimidate Poland. It matters, of course, for Poland. But it matters for Ukraine because so much of the military equipment comes into Ukraine from only two countries, Poland and Romania. That's where the first test would really take place. I'm sure that Rutka, the Secretary General of NATO, is not sleeping well. You mentioned Romania, and we should note that there was an incident of a kind over the weekend where there were drones ended up in Romania as well.

Now, that one smaller scaled and maybe it was an accident, but they ended up in Romania. The two countries, as you say, that are used as supply routes into Ukraine. I want to go back to Trump for a minute because it's easy for some of us, and I plead guilty to this, to automatically play the Trump as a Putin puppet card. If you don't play that card and you look at it straight up and you ask the question, what are his options? What could he do at this point? well again

what did Biden do he said and you know it's so interesting that's why I go back to the words in that statement because it was issued in May of 2023 actually came out

and how bizarre is this Peter came out as an op-ed in the New York Times that Joe Biden wrote himself but it was so carefully crafted by his team beforehand. And he said an attack on one inch of NATO territory, we, the United States will respond. So we joins the United States in this at the hip,

but then says something very important to Vladimir Putin. If you don't do that, no regime change. No NATO forces will cross the border. into Ukraine and into Russia, which is really the key issue for Putin. And that deal held all this time. What are we at the same time after the summit in Anchorage, one other set of conversations went on, which is what does security guarantees look like for Ukraine and the French, the polls, not the whole.

actually said, no, we're too worried about our own security. But the Germans talked about putting not NATO forces, but European forces, into Ukraine, behind the lines, not at the front, but behind the lines, if there were a ceasefire to guarantee European security. That's a, for Vladimir Putin, that's a non-starter. This is what he used to justify the war. This is his greatest fear that there would be European military forces, even if they were small in Ukraine. I think this testing that is now going on is a response to both of these.

To a Donald Trump, let's assume he's not a Russian puppet because there's no evidence that he is, frankly. But he's fettless. He says one thing. and then he says another thing, and everything is we'll know within two weeks, but we never know within two weeks. He lost credibility in terms of making a kind of statement that Putin would believe.

And the Europeans who are deeply worried about the Warren Ukraine. And, you know, I've heard polls talk privately. It's as long as the war in Ukraine goes on, That distracts Vladimir Putin from us, but we're the real target. You know, in terms of options for Trump, he, you know, he talks about, you know, we can have tougher sanctions. You know, you can have the sanctions argument until you're blue in the face about what impact, if anything, that does. Just to interrupt you on that one, look at the feckless sanctions response. On India, 50%.

sanctions on who on India for buying Russian oil not on Russia well I suppose his other option could be to move forces in that direction I mean he's he's beefed up his forces in the Caribbean closed into Venezuela he could

I one assumes he could send troops he could move some naval formations around in, you know, in the Mediterranean or? He's not going to want to do that. He's not going to want to do that because there are two factions in a tiny national security establishment in the United States right now. There's the isolationist faction. We pull back from the world.

We're done with that. And there's the China faction. We need to move forces out of Europe in order to concentrate our forces to, far higher degree in Asia. And that conversation actually starts under Barack Obama, to be fair, and it's gone on. But the first thing he needs to do, Peter, he needs to repeat with conviction in his voice, any attack on an inch of NATO territory, we will respond. He's never said that.

He's questioned NATO. You know, everybody who works in this field understood he didn't have to do anything to NATO, frankly. He didn't have to withdraw force. He didn't have to cut funding. His own skepticism and doubt and occasional disdain for NATO that he expressed repeatedly is enough to undermine the credibility of NATO with Putin because the United States is so. important as a military contributor to NATO. Here's my last question on this before we take our break and move on. And it deals with the European partners in NATO.

Do you think they have, I don't know, given up on Trump probably is too strong a phrase, but that they are prepared to move on without immediate help from Trump? I mean, it seems to be just by the stationing of the aircraft, moving aircraft into that area, and the tough words they've said all week. I think it's a new NATO, Peter. I think the Europeans have gotten a message. They understand now that they are responsible for their own security. What do they really want from the United States?

And under the new world that they're in, they want air support because they don't have it. And that's huge, and that will take 10 years if they're really serious. And they want really good intelligence, which the United States is unbeatable at until Trump royalty intelligence community. I'm holding my breath, frankly, on that one. But those are two big assets that only the United States can provide. So I think the Europeans, you know, starting for the president of Finland and, on down. Everyone is wants, does not want to antagonize Trump. They want him involved just enough

so that they get those two critical assets in the event of any kind of crisis. But they're very clear. Well, they're not going to get troops on the ground from Donald Trump. And so there is a new focus in Europe, which is very serious. What do we have to do to build up our military capability? Who's leading Finland? Draft in Finland. Sweden, Poland, the Baltics, all the countries who have very active historical memories of terrible experiences.

You know, Macron got the message. but he represents, he's so weakened by the domestic politics in France, merits, the Chancellor of Germany, hedging is best, and he also has a very tough situation in Germany. So the two big European powers, and the U.K., as you well know, Stormer is really challenged at home now. So the three big ones are probably the weakest at home. It's the smaller members of NATO turn the page. And this is a different NATO. Well, we're a small member of NATO too. We're not in Europe, but we have a history.

We were one of the first countries that declared war on Germany when they attack Poland in 39. Are we in this game? I hate to use that. You know, I think we are. I think we are, Peter, for two reasons. The first is the really important one that you just mentioned, is that we have a serious commitment of horses on the ground in Lafayette.

It was sent there to shore up the front lines. And again, what really meant why we do it is not because the numbers, if this really escalates badly, will be material, but it is a signal of commitment that we have boots on the ground and that we're committed to NATO. I hope very much that we're going to extend that.

I think it's a very important commitment that we've made. It's real. We provide valuable logistics and other kinds of support. I really hope that this government, because we'll have to extend And that will consume a lot of our scarce military resources, as you know.

So doing that says we won't be able to do other things, but I hope we extend that commitment. The other reason we're in is Canada cares more than many other countries about Ukraine. It's a bipartisan cross-Canadian consensus, you know, from the, From the prairies to the east, we have the largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. And Ukraine really matters. And if you think Ukraine matters, NATO matters. Because this in a funny way is a more real NATO than we've ever, then we've had since 1949, frankly.

Okay. We're going to take our break. We'll come back and we'll move off this. topic and we'll touch a little bit into the what are we missing stories and there's a couple there that we want to touch on before we wrap it up for today but first of all this break will be right back after this and welcome back you're listening to bridge the monday episode of course with dr janice stein from the monk school the university of toronto you're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform.

You sent me a note, said you want to talk about Japan and Nepal, so I went scrambling, looking through the wires to see what was the story breaking in those two places. It's really not a story of immediacy in this moment, but it's a story that is really important, and they kind of link it together, actually. They do. Away you go. They do. Actually, Peter, there were riots in Kathmandu, peaceful Kathmandu. The prime minister resigned and fled the country.

The military took over, but handed over the reins of power immediately to a Supreme Court's justice, very similar to what happened in Bangladesh a year to a group. go, what caught my eye is, and the protesters, young people, all young people, that just flowed into the streets, and the T-shirts they wore said, Gen Z. That was the name of the opposition movement, which is what, in my head, tied these stories together. Why were they furious? Well, there was a story of some corrupt politicians that were linked to the ruling elite. That's one thing that runs through it all.

Nepotism, corruption. Inflation in Nepal. And inflation is a trigger in every single one of these that we're going to talk about. and a sense that young people, the 35s and under, it is this generation that's driving global politics in a way, right now, the 35th and unders. They skipped everybody between the boomers, and they went right to these folks, that their employment opportunities were diminishing. Precipitated, by the way, once the protesters start to take the street,

I ban on social media, but the government opposed. That is a step too far for anybody under 35. They're not going to take that one line down. So instead of what happened in the Arab Spring, for instance, in 2011, when they banned social media, they were able to disrupt all the demonstrators because they were using social media to organize no longer. Now it's a provocation which redoubles the protesters' commitments. So this is a story of under 35s who are frustrated by the lack of opportunities they see. Now, you wouldn't expect this in Japan.

The oldest country in the world is aging more quickly even than China. It's conservative. It's, you know, if you've been such a fan, Peter, it is the most compliant rule-following society I've ever been in, and it's so orderly. Well, the dominant liberal Democratic Party, which is a big tent conservative party that had previously lost control in the elections for the lower house, lost control of the upper house. of the Japanese Parliament that died, to whom? To a party called Sanseko. Who voted for it? Young men, under 35.

Again, inflation. Now, in Japan, inflation of 3% is considered high. That's because they've come off 20 years of depletion. The second issue in Japan, which led these young people to flock to Sanseco, to tell you the extent of the change, the last election, they had one seat in the upper house, 14, this time. Japan has opened up to immigration because they're so old that they need people in the economy. and Sanseco

very familiar rhetoric to what we would see in Britain in Germany in France and in the United States anti-immigrant you know we had a terrible assassination

in the United States of somebody Charlie Hick who had talked a lot about the great replacement theory which is a dog whistle, frankly, for immigrants coming in. That was the script in Japan, and the prime minister resigned as a result of his loss of control now in both houses.

We're going to have a new prime minister. Does that matter? Japan is a very important player in all of Asia. We may be back to the rotating governments that the Japanese had for years, but This time, driven by a very, very different agenda. So when I look out at Asia, in Japan, Nepal, this year, last year, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, all being roiled by the under 35s who feel that they're being shut out of opportunity by the political systems in which they live. and a men-women divide. Right.

But this is not just restricted to, you know, Asia. No. I mean, we're seeing in the States. We're seeing in Britain, as you said, seeing it in Germany, France. And to some extent, we're seeing in Canada. Yeah. The people who voted or, Mr. Carney, the largest group was over 50, the people who voted for Pierre Pollyavra, he made

huge inroads in this last election in the under 35s and increasingly meant. And increasingly about the immigration issue, among others. Yeah. So we can tie a story together, a global story. You know, it's hard to connect Kathmandu. with Edmonton but there is a story here in Ohio

there is a story that runs through a thread that runs through all our politics look I think the boys are not all right what do you mean I think we're failing boys in school fewer of them

are graduating from high school. Fewer of them are getting admitted into university. Fewer of them are graduating from university. As long as there are vibrant construction industries, they find employment.

But I look at my own university, Peter. A law school, 70% women. A medical school class, a majority of women. That's not to say as a woman that I am not. And even engineering is doing better with respect to women. And that's not to say that I am not beyond thrilled to see women. But when I see fewer and fewer

men finishing university, as somebody who looks at the world all the time, there's one fundamental difference between angry men and angry women. Angry women march, they organize. They've got a lot of social capital. They build networks. They push. They can yell at times. That's not what angry men do.

Angry men use guns in every country in the world. or knives. Oh, boy. So when they're, we have angry young men, and that's the problem for everybody in every age justice. It was a problem when we had systemic discrimination against it. You know, listen, I was, I'm not unaware of the problems with young men. Yeah.

And the reasons why many of them are, are angry about the state of the world. What I had not realized until you just said it is this, you know, lack of graduation, lack of maneuvering into universities, I had not realized that. I don't know why I didn't realize that, but that just makes the problem worse and more difficult and they're going to be an extreme challenge to, you know, to governments and to businesses as we move forward. And to the, you know, and to our society, Peter, you know, let me make, let me just tell you what I've been thinking about, which may sound frivolous, but when you get an education

gap like that, we know this between men and women. marriage gets more difficult, families get more difficult, childbearing drops. It affects, you know, the most important fundamentals of our society. It's not a healthy thing for thriving democracies. And this is going to have to be for another conversation because we're out of time on this one. But boy, you sure left us with a lot to think of. and all, as you always do, on everything we've talked about this week, but especially these last couple of minutes.

But we'll leave it at that for this week. And we will let our brains try to settle on that one as we get ready for next Monday. So thanks again, Janice. We'll talk in seven days. You in a week. Well, okay. So you got a lot to think about here. after this conversation.

And that's it, Dr. Janice Stein, director of the Monk School of the University of Toronto. Glad to have her with us, as always. And this week, being no exception, she's definitely left us with a lot to contemplate. Only got time to mention tomorrow. It's every second Tuesday is conversations with more and butts,

the more butts conversation. and this one being number 23 coming up tomorrow. The alternate Tuesdays are Raj and Rousseau, the reporter's notebook with Althea Raj and Rob Russo, and they got off to a tremendous start last week and got a lot of very nice mail about that new addition to the bridge lineup. But tomorrow it's Moore Butts conversation,

and what are we going to discuss tomorrow? We kind of touched on this, I think, around we're buts number 10 or 11 or something, where we talked about how to get make things less partisan. We're going to take it up a level tomorrow. We all know what happened last week in the United States. We all watched the governor of Utah talk about how we need to disagree better and of asking the question,

can we agree to disagree with respect and not hate? We want to have that conversation with Moore and Butts, who have made their name for us by having great non-partisan discussions, conversations. And we're going to step it up tomorrow by asking that question of them. You know, how do you disagree better? Can we agree to disagree with,

respect and not hate because we've seen elements of that here too so we want to we want to talk to James Moore and Jerry butts about that question tomorrow so join us the question of the week you heard it earlier

and if you didn't dial it back to the top of this podcast and you will get a sense of what it is because you've got to get your answers in within the next 48 hours or so. All right, that's going to wrap it up for today. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

Thanks so much for listening. It's been quite an hour. We'll talk again in almost 24 hours. Bye for now. Thank you.