The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: Ukraine's dangerous escalation against Russia and the ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. The following is a sample of the Munk Debates’ weekly current affairs podcast, Friday Focus. Rudyard and Janice start the show with the biggest geopolitical news of the week:  the Biden administration gave Ukraine the green light to use  American long range missiles to attack deep into Russia, which was met with an unprecedented Russian response. How significant is this escalation?  Why, in his final 60 days of a lame duck presidency, is Biden so willing to take such risks? Are they setting up Donald Trump and putting him in a position where he can't cut a deal between Russia and Ukraine? In the second half of the show Rudyard and Janice turn to the other big geopolitical news of the week: the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense Minister Yoav Gallant. How will this affect Israel and its standing internationally? And as a co-creator of the court, does Canada have a responsibility to abide by this warrant should Netanyahu land on Canadian soil? And finally, what damage is this doing to the validity and legitimacy of these international institutions? To access full-length editions of the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The following is a complimentary excerpt of this week's edition of the Friday Focus podcast by the Monk Debates. To access full-length editions of each and every episode, along with all kinds of great additional benefits and perks, become a donor to the Monk debates. You can do that for as little as $25 a year, and you'll receive each and every year 50 Friday Focus episodes at full length. It's all available right now on our website. in just a few simple clicks. Triple W. The monk debates.com. Look for the Friday Focus option in our navigation bar, the top right of the website.

Make your donation, and we will send you each and every Friday a link to listen to the full-length edition of this program. Thanks in advance for your generous contribution. Welcome to the Friday Focus podcast for the 22nd of November. I'm Rudyard Griffiths, the executive director of the Monk Debates. I'm joined by Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Janice, you're coming to the program today from Halifax. This annual security forum is underway.

What's the mood there amongst officials? You've got people from the United States, Europe, around the world, thinking big thoughts on security during a high-stakes week. You're absolutely right. Redyard, we have officials from our own government. We have a very strong delegation coming from the U.S. Senate. We have leaders from NATO and from, you know, from Asia. I would have to say, honestly, Redyard, it is an apprehensive crowd.

They are looking out now at a world that is much more uncertain than it's been hard to predict. So just an enormous amount of, frankly, well, likely proved to be fruitless speculation about what Donald Trump is going to do or not going to do. And my view is, no one knows. I'm not even sure Donald Trump knows at this point what he's going to do. But a recognition. And, you know, every market hate uncertainty, Roger, as you know, officials and military leaders and political leaders don't like uncertainty any better. makes them really uncomfortable. And there's a twitchiness and edginess and a nervousness that I haven't seen in a long, long time here this year. Fascinating. Well, I want to pick up with you a

topic that we've discussed a lot on this show over the last number of months. It's one that has certainly concerned me as a big international risk. And that is the approval by the Biden administration for the use of American long-range missiles to attack deep into Russia using American geospatial targeting. So effectively, an American weapon system targeted by American satellites with, I hope, I assume, Ukrainians punching in the firing coordinates on the ground. This has, as would hard to predict, elicited a response from Russia. The first series of these attackums, that's the name of the missile, the U.S. missile, striking into Russia earlier this week. The Russian response was a unprecedented use of a intermediate ballistic missile,

a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads, to do. deliver a hypersonic warhead strike, multiple warhead strike, on a supposed Ukrainian missile factory in the town of Diennepo. Janice, what do you make of this? How significant are the events that we've seen here? It certainly feels like we've gone up another rung, possibly a big rung this week, in the escalatory ladder around this conflict. You're absolutely right, Richard.

This is an escalatory sequence. And to put the biggest possible frame on it for the moment, these next seven weeks or so until Donald Trump is inaugurated is an unusually risky time as parties on both sides position themselves to be prepared for what, Donald Trump will do on day one. Let me put it that way. The attack him's decision Biden made because Russia has 10,000 North Korean soldiers deployed now in Kersk, fighting on behalf of Russia.

And yesterday, a very senior North Korean general was wounded. Well, that's an escalation, frankly. and that's what the United States saw, and so they agreed. Now, what these attackums are just for our listeners to understand, they're not long range. They're described that way all the time, but that's not accurate. In fact, they're 300 kilometers, 190 miles in length. They cannot reach Moscow, the outskirts of Moscow or anything like that, but they are longer range than the previous short-range approval that Ukraine had.

They were actually designed to affect the battlefield in Kursk, not much farther, maybe 100 kilometers farther. Putin, furious, and he did two things. One, he lowered the threshold at which Russia would use nuclear weapons. And I actually think that's significant. That's a change in doctrine, which matters because he was using it to send a signal. And then he did what you just described. And it was clear signaling there.

It is, look, this is one of the missiles that we use. It's a hypersonic missile, really hard to shoot down because of the orbit of the flight path. And he's saying, hey, guys, I'm showing you that we have this arsenal and we could just as easily have a nuclear warhead. on this as we could have a conventional warhead. So it's all about signaling. Do I believe, bottom line, that right now Putin is about to use tactical nuclear weapons in this battlefield? No. And why not?

Despite all the escalation. Because the Russian army is doing relatively well on the front lines. Ukraine is in a pretty desperate position, frankly. The fight on the front lines. the ground is going badly for Ukrainians. They don't have enough artillery. They don't have enough ammunition. But the biggest problem, Roger, they don't have enough troops.

They don't have enough trained troops. And so it's pretty dark and grim for the Ukrainians. So despite all the fireworks, Putin doesn't have to escalate because his army is doing well on the ground. Yeah, I just want to be careful about kind of normal. analyzing this and because it has been a long escalatory ladders since those first javelin missiles over a thousand years a thousand years a thousand days ago it feels like a thousand years what I guess I disagree with is is the kind of extent to which I think we've become kind of frogs in a pot slowly heating up the water and eventually that water will

boil it'll boil over and there will be some tragic miscal calculation that could cause a jump, even another run up the eschatory ladder. And that's likely, I agree with you. It's not the use of a nuclear weapon, but it could be a strike. For instance, as Putin said this week, or maybe it was Medevi of his five-foot-two-inch prime minister. I'm five-foot-one. Be careful here, record.

About a potential attack on a billion-dollar missile base that the Americans have been building for the last 10 years on the Polish-Russian border. So I just weigh the balance here of the kind of norms that we are smashing in the final days of what is the lamest of lame duck presidencies. When, Janice, as you said, we know it is inevitable based on manpower, the relative size of Russia to Ukraine. that there is no chance of retaking Crimea. There is no chance of retaking the Donbass. This is moving towards a deal, maybe a very rapid and ruthless one,

that Donald Trump will announce on January 20th when he assumes the Oval Office. And I just question why in this final 60 days we are running these risks, we are smashing through these norms. We have now seen Russia, use an experimental high-tech intercontinental ballistic missile that is modified by treaty for intermediate range use on a city in Ukraine this is not a good precedent this is a precedent

which now potentially could be replicated by north korea into south korea by india into pakistan by Iran into Israel or vice versa. And I just, I think to ourselves, like, why are we so cavalierly for the sake of what is now an unwinnable war for Ukraine? And at best, hopefully an opportunity for Ukraine from some position of strength, given that's very large Russian losses over the last thousand days, to negotiate a form of settlement. Maybe it's a frozen conflict. Maybe that's all we can hope for.

But boy, Janice, I think we have to be careful about becoming a frog in that boiling pot and being concerned about how close we may be to 100 degrees and a full boil. I just don't think we're there, Roger, right now. I was very worried, and you remember this. I was very worried in October 2022 when the Russian army was reeling and Ukraine was pushing them back. It was the time of the first Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia, which was very successful. And Putin threatened then in much the same way. And to their credit, the United States took that threat very, very seriously.

and the probability of an escalation was 50%, which is very high. And there were very serious conversations between the Secretary of Defense in Washington and Minister of Defense in Moscow and between the two chiefs of the defense staffs. And assurances were given to both sides. So it's not that officials don't get it. We're in a very different place right now, and you just said it, this is a grinding war. both sides have suffered huge losses, but Ukraine, frankly, right now is reeling. There is no incentive for Vladimir Putin to do something reckless, and he's not a reckless decision maker. Unfortunately,

this transition is, as you rightly put it, the lamest of the lamest of the lamest of the lamest ducks. It is too belong and maneuvering for position all targeted for January the 20th is a risky game and that's what we're watching right now. But I think there is a ceiling on how far this moment will go. Those attackums, let's just understand what they are. They're medium range. Yes, Janice, yeah, I think you explain that to us. But again, I just like, let's not normalize this.

This is an American weapon system using American satellite targeting data to attack a pure nuclear power. Now, just as a thought experiment, Janice, imagine in a future Trump presidency. He has said that he will declare war on the cartels. He will potentially use the American military to attack the cartels to northern Mexico. Let's just play it a little game. Imagine Trump does that. The Mexican army becomes involved because it's an attack. on their sovereignty and suddenly you have a low-level hot war on the US southern border

between Mexico and the United States and then China shows up and starts arming the Mexicans with sophisticated Chinese ballistic missiles that begin to fire from Mexico into Laredo Texas using Chinese satellites to refine where they're hitting inside the continental United States, how do you think the Americans would react to that? I guess the thing I'm trying to do is just get us thinking a little bit about what the shoe is like on the other foot. It's a good question.

All of our time immersed in this kind of flow of like Western military analysts and security commentators who I think are so far and so deep into the kind of NATO group think that, you know, at times we need to break out of that and understand what it's like to be on the other side of this, not to validate for a moment Vladimir Putin, who's a war criminal and should stand trial for his crimes against humanity, but to understand the risks that we're running that we might better appreciate if the shoe was on the other foot. Look, I think it's a great point, Richard. And let me

say quite bluntly that the United States has a much lower tolerance than almost anybody else. We all remember the most dangerous moments we ever faced, frankly, during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba, 90 miles offshore. And President Kennedy was willing to risk nuclear war, frankly, over that. So your point is valid. I just think, paradoxically, because the Russians are now in actually having military success, even at a huge cost, Putin can afford to threaten and to signal and to warn. But I do not think this is the moment of great danger here. The desperate country here right now, Roger, let's put the shoe on the other foot, okay?

The desperate country right now is Ukraine. That's the problem here. So some of this is to reassure Ukraine as the United States moves forward to this transition, which is potentially for Ukraine just to make it or break it moment. It is not that for Russia, Richard. And that's why I'm sanguine, relatively speaking. here. Well, this would be my last point of why I'm not saying what it, because I think we assume so much about Putin and we assume so much, it's always Putin will do this, Putin will do that,

he's rational, he's calculating, he's that cold KGB officer that we've known for last 30 years. The reality is that Putin had a maverick mercenary march on his capital to 18 months ago. He had a surprise attack that Ukraine's allies did not approve into Kursk and the capturing of Russian sovereign soil for the first time since the Second World War. We don't know, Janice, what the pressures are around Putin, what the Russian security establishment that Putin relies upon to stay in power. Think about all this. There are a lot of people who are way more hardline, nationalistic and hawkish in Russia than Putin. Again, Putin's a very bad guy who should stay in trial for his crimes. But many times, I think to myself, we're lucky that we have in this high-stakes, high-risk eschatory situation, that cool KGB officer making some of these calls.

But again, it assumes that he operates in his own power vacuum. And I just don't know that we can always take that to the bank when we have these reassuring conversations that, yes, he'll be rational. The Russians will be rational. This will all unfold according to plan. All we have to do is wait out the 60 days. Ukrainians can fire not only attack him's, but sophisticated. French and UK powerful thousand kiloton cruise missiles, similarly targeted by NATO geospatial systems into Russia territory, blowing up Russian infrastructure.

And all of this is just, hey, you know, it's fine. Putin's got this. He'll act rationally. He'll think this through. I just think that's incredibly risky, incredibly presumptuous. You know, let me make just two quick comments, okay? Because it's perfect. The argument you're making is a perfectly reasonable one, frankly.

And decision makers do take it into account. They're constantly trying to improve their understanding of how he thinks, and they have a lot of good sources. There's two guys when the water starts to heat up that always come up front. One is Method, whom you just quoted, and we know he is really among the most hawkish. And the other is a kind of military blogger Karganovich, who Garganov, who reliably comes out with the most extreme scenario. So, frankly, there is a bit of a discount factor with these guys. I'm not relying on Putin's cold-blooded rationality here.

I'm relying on the fact that Vladimir Putin senses a win on the ground in the battle and with Donald Trump becoming president. You don't have to be hyper-rational to get that as the leader of Russia. And all the posturing in the world is understandable, but that's what it will be, because it makes no sense to put those two gains at risk, Richard. It's huge for him. Agreed. And, you know, I guess along the way, we'll just shatter more norms and more intermediate range.

They're gone anyway. Yeah, but this is not a thing to kind of take lightly. This is not a thing just to kind of roll over, you know, in the 60 days left of this lame duck presidency. We're going to pay a price for years to come for what I think are just reckless, dangerous decisions by the Biden administration that, frankly, they have no authority to make, given how catastrophically they handled their own domestic election. And the extent to which their whole foreign policy agenda has been an abject failure, from Afghanistan to the Middle East, to Ukraine. They've blown it all. And now they're making these big shot calls, you know, in the final days of his government before the resumption of Trump. I don't know. If anything, if a cynic in me, I would think that they're trying to box Trump in. They are. They want this conflict to escalate,

precisely because they don't want Donald Trump in a situation where he can do a deal. I would think maybe the real cynics in the Biden administration are maybe to themselves quietly thinking, you know what, if we have an attack on NATO troops by Russia, that might not be the worst thing because that will institutionalize this war for America, for the West, and it will ensure that there is no deal that Trump can cut with Putin if American or other NATO troops have died, you know, in a Russian strike on a NATO country. And God help us. if that happens in terms of how big the next rung up the exulatory ladder will be after that event. There's a final quick comeback on that one because that is such a cataclysmic scenario that you just put on that table.

Let me just say again, these missiles at the United States are just given to Ukraine and the UK as well. They are not going to affect the outcome of the war. That is unfortunate, but it is true. It is not a game changer on the battlefield. The Russians know that just as well as anybody else, Richard. And secondly, if Biden and his team have been motivated by one constraint this whole time, it is to make sure that no NATO forces are ever on the ground to prevent any kind of confrontation between Russia.

And NATO, that has not changed. Indeed. I just, the world is upside down. The hawks are doves. The doves are hawks. Democrats, you know, howling for strikes, you know, on Russia and conservatives, Republicans and others worried about war. It's a world turned upside down.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. I wish the Democrats would go back to their roots and understanding the value, the importance, the fragility of peace and the necessity to, you know, avoid some of the worst consequences that are always there in the wings and the shadows. when great powers collide. Let's take a break. We'll be back right after this short intermission

to discuss the international warrants that have been issued for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and Jojav Galant, Israel's defense minister. What does this all mean? What's Canada going to do about it? Let's talk about that right after this break. Thanks for listening to this excerpt of the Friday Focus podcast

to get full-length editions of each and every episode. of this program. Simply go to our website, www. The Monk Debates.com. Click on the Friday Focus tab in our navigation on the top right of the site. Make a donation as little as $25 a year of 50 cents an episode. And we'll send you not only the full-length editions of each and every Friday Focus podcast, but all kinds of special offers, perks, access to events, and additional content.

You can do that right now by becoming a donor to the Monk Debates at triple W. Monk Debates with an S.com.