On this Back Story a new season of international news coverage.
We begin with the death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth. Dana Lewis talks to British commentator Jo Phillips.
And from Canada ,Prof. Nicolas Kenny/ Simon Fraser Univ. on the future of the Commonwealth.
Plus the incredible counter offensive in Ukraine, we go to Kyiv and speak to Paul Niland.
On this Back Story a new season of international news coverage.
We begin with the death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth. Dana Lewis talks to British commentator Jo Phillips.
And from Canada ,Prof. Nicolas Kenny/ Simon Fraser Univ. on the future of the Commonwealth.
Plus the incredible counter offensive in Ukraine, we go to Kyiv and speak to Paul Niland.
But life of course consists of final partings as well as first meetings,
Speaker 2:I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow to my darling Maar. As you begin your last great journey to join my dear later, Papa power. I want simply to say this. Thank
Speaker 3:Hi everyone. And welcome to another edition of backstory. I'm Dana Lewis, back from a summer break and backstory now enters its fifth season. This is episode one. What a week it's been here in the UK, in London, where I am. The queen is lying in state at Westminster, the funeral to be attended by world leaders on Monday, September the 19th, the tears, the stories of past meetings, the lines of people waiting eight hours now and walking miles to file past the Coff. It's all very moving, respectful, and there is a new king king Charles III on this backstory. We'll talk about the future of the Commonwealth and of course the Queen's reign and what she meant to so many and Ukraine, a counter offensive that seems to have shredded Putin's invasion force in the Northeast Ukrainian forces have the initiative as they reclaim towns and cities taken by Russia. After the invasion in February, Joe Phillips is a commentator and has been a regular guest on backstory. Welcome back, Joe. I mean what a dark week for so many people.
Speaker 4:Absolutely. And I think, um, it has perhaps taken some of us by surprise the level and depth of sentiment, um, not just amongst the public, but also from world leaders, um, around the globe, who've paid extraordinarily, um, tributes to her majesty. Um, I mean, not least of all your own, uh, compatriot, just in Trudo. Um, and France, macro, Frances, uh, Emmanuel Macron, you know, who talked about she wasn't your queen, she was the queen. And I think, you know, what you've got is this sense of this person who has been around for such a long time. Who's, uh, you know, seen so many presidents, prime ministers leaders of multiple countries and faiths. Um, and, uh, it's a bit of a shock, I think.
Speaker 3:Why do I think that there's a lot more at play here and I'll let you give your opinion on than in, than longevity, that, that she appealed to people on a lot of different levels.
Speaker 4:Yes. I think part of it was because she was woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. So, you know, her face was on our bank notes, uh, on our coins. Pictures of the queen were in every public building, you know, from libraries to council offices, to hospitals. Um, and what have you, and, you know, any town in the country and around the world, you know, will have got, uh, a, a plaque somewhere opened by her majesty, the queen. She was also, I think, the most photographed and filmed living person until her death last week, because simply because she had been photographed, she was born and then constantly around the world on various tours and, um, and so on and so forth. So I think it was somebody, she was there. She was just ever present, but she was never, uh, sort of in your face. She was a, a, a constant and a calm presence, I suppose, you know, presidents come and go. We've seen Trump, we've seen Clinton, we've seen the bushes, you know, here, we've got prime ministers come and go. Um, and she has just been there all the time. And I think what has come across is the great respect and regard that people had for the queen. Um, you know, not least, you know, closer to home, closer to the UK in how she dealt with the Northern Ireland peace process. And the fact that when she went there, you know, she wore an Emerald green outfit. She shook hands with the, uh, um, Shinhan leader, Martin McGinness and all of those small gestures with so few words spoke volumes to so many people,
Speaker 3:You know, I mean, she's just a queen. So one would expect she had a, a healthy view of herself, but I mean, people say that didn't come across, that she was very focused in public appearances and anywhere that she went, whether it was a hospice or an opening of a, a new school or that she was very focused on giving to the people, uh, in front of her in a completely neutral political, uh, uh, character who just went out of her way in a very, even during Brexit, which was no easy navigation for her, with, with parliament deadlocked, she managed always sidestep the political issues and just, and stay very, very neutral during all of this.
Speaker 4:Yeah. And I think that's, you know, that's why people hold her, um, in such higher regard, I mean, who knows what her real views were about Brexit or about Scottish independence, we can only guess as only rumor and speculation who can guess what she thought about the various heads of state that she's had to entertain at Buckingham palace over the years for state banquets and, and great state equations and, and those people, you know, who she's had to visit in the Commonwealth elsewhere. Um, but that thing about, you know, saying little, uh, has really sort of born out, I think, because we are so used to hearing everybody's opinions as soon as they've even been formed, um, on Twitter and social media. And we know politicians are very quick to come out with airplanes, but in a way that sort of, um, mystery wrapped in an enigma made her much more powerful. So those little gestures from the clothes she wore, the jewelry she wore, um, and as you say, she always went out of her way and recognized that people had gone to a lot of trouble. It meant a huge deal to them. You know, whether they'd been queuing in the rain or, you know, standing on aching feet, as I'm sure she used to put up with. Um, but she had that beaming smile. She was a great, um, giver to people because I think she understood that people would remember their meeting with her or their encounter with her, for the rest of their lives
Speaker 3:And a great unifying figure. Would you comment today as we watched, uh, the casket Lee Buckingham palace, and then you saw the, the two princes William and Harry walking between walking behind the, uh, king Charles, uh, and prince Harry wasn't in a uniform and wasn't allowed to wear his uniform. What's the dynamic at play then
Speaker 4:Who knows what the dynamic is? I mean, Harry, I feel has brought this on himself and it will be interesting to see whether his memoirs, which were, are due out next month actually do come out. Um, because you know, like all families, there are tensions and there are rifts and then, you know, somebody marries somebody else and, you know, there's all of that sort of thing. I think there's no doubt that Harry, um, dis you know, he, he has been a troubled soul and I think he was very happy when he was in the army. Um, he then met Megan decided to make a life in America, um, and has burned a lot of bridges, I think with the Royal family. I think his father, the king, um, has tried to extend a olive branch. Uh, he mentioned the Harry and Megan in his, um, speech on the night of the Queen's death. Um, but you know, you can't do this and stand United if you've got a bombshell autobiography or memoir coming out in a few weeks time laying bare or laying claim to things that were said, weren't said might have been misinterpreted because you just stir it all up again. And, you know, you would think wouldn't you that actually, now's the time to say, actually, I'm not gonna publish.
Speaker 3:Do you believe the printed, uh, reports that in fact king Charles asked them to come outside of Belmore castle? And that's when they did the walkabout, the, the two princes in their way.
Speaker 4:Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, I think, you know, there's a point where, although it's a soap popular opera that is of interest to some people, this is, um, an event of great magnitude. It has constitutional, uh, implications for the king. And actually it's a time when you show unity. I mean, you know, you, this is what people are supposed to do at funerals and during a period of morning, and I'm quite sure that prince, uh, king Charles, as we have to get used to saying, um, you know, would've said something either kindly, or would've said, you know, bang your heads together for goodness sake. It's not about you. It's about your grandmother.
Speaker 3:You obviously had a lot of respect for the queen. Do you feel the same way about your king now?
Speaker 4:No. Um, although I think that generally people have warm to him, um, over the years, I think, um, you know, he, for him, it's very difficult, Dana, you know, he's 73 years old, he's been waiting to do this job from the day he was born. So he's been the longest living apprentice in the world for a job that only he can do. I think, you know, people have seen more of him, um, as the Queen's frailty became more apparent over the last couple of years. And, and the rest of the senior members of the Royal family took on more, um, of her duties. So I think people have warmed him. And I think, you know, you could see that in the, in the very warm reception that he got at the platinum Jubilee back in the early summer, but I don't think people will feel the same. Um, just simply because, you know, he's not the queen and the queen came from a different age and to a certain extent, you know, we were brought up to respect the Royal family, people who are now sort of youngsters as king Charles succeeds to succeeds to the throne are not necessarily going to have that same backdrop of that sort of postwar, uh, deference.
Speaker 3:Are you familiar with the, the term, the firm when it applies to the Royal family and, and how do you break that down for us? Because there's quite an article in the New York times today about king Charles, uh, his finances and the taxes that he's avoided in the empire that he's built.
Speaker 4:Yeah. And, um, those things will continue, um, to come and haunt him. Um, you know, there was, I think a certain degree of deference towards the queen, um, which is not going to be shown to prince Charles Kitler king Charles. Um, the firm is what, you know, the Royal family refer to themselves as, and the queen always said, you know, the firm comes first. Um, in other words, you know, it's that continuity, it's that sense of duty, um, above and beyond everything else, whether it's, you know, whatever's going on in you.
Speaker 3:So this is not when you hear the term, the firm to you, to me, that sounds like, um, the, the, the business environment of the Royal family, the empire, the business empire.
Speaker 4:No, I think you are, you are thinking of succession. That's a totally different thing.<laugh> um, no, I think it's much more about, you know, this is an organization, if you, like, I don't think it's so much about the finances and the business side of it, but I do think it is about the brand. If you like to put it in those sort of terms, even though it's not a sort of commercial thing. Um, and you know, there are lots and lots of things that are gonna happen in the next couple of years. All of those brands, whether they're dog biscuits or Wellington boots that were by Royal appointment, um, will no longer have the right to have that crest, um, within two years. So the king will have to decide who his suppliers are. And there are questions about the immense wealth, the income from the Dutty of Lang, uh, Doty of Cornwell, um, you know, the fact that he's not going to pay any tax on inheritance, um, and all of those things. And there is a sense, you know, now may not be the time for people to voice it, but I, Thomas Keneally, the Australian Republican and writer, uh, wrote a piece in the guardian today. Um, you know, and it is a very, uh, articulate argument for republicanism. Um, and I think prince Charles, as he was, was not hugely popular, I think there were various, um, revelations. I think people have largely forgiven him for princess Diana and Camilla he's. Now queen concert is, is actually I think very well respected and, and, um, people feel warmly towards her, but I don't think he will have the same degree of public affection that his mother had.
Speaker 3:So he gets a honeymoon period, especially now because before he's the king, he is still just a son who is mourning the loss of his mother, but all of these debates and some of them will be quite substantial, uh, are to come, uh, and, and will affect his image with the British public, especially, um, in a recession when people can't afford heat at home. Things like, uh, you know, not being taxed on your inheritance and the millions of dollars. Um, it'll be interesting how it plays out in the British public.
Speaker 4:Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, and in the Commonwealth, I mean, we know that, um, there are several countries in the Commonwealth who want to have a referendum, um, on independence quite soon. Um, Australia has said they won't do it for a little while. Um, but we do need to have the debate. Um, and if we are not going to have it now during this period, because to a certain extent, you know, the king is 73 in a way he's a, he's a transition between his mother and that continuity towards his son, William, um, because clearly king Charles is not gonna be on the throne for 70 years. So it's actually how he behaves, um, and how he presents himself. I mean, he has spoken in the past of not living in Buckingham palace, but opening it to the public. I think the fact that he and, um, Camilla have done this sort of whistle stop tour, um, of the United Kingdom has done quite a lot to say, you know, the union, um, of the United Kingdom is very, very important. Um, and I think, you know, it, it's how he behaves again, probably how William and Kate, the new princes and princess of Wales behave. Um, and whether we see, um, a sort of, if you like a slimmed down Royal family, um, with, you know, far fewer hangers on, I mean, a lot of them have, have sort of disappeared over the years and have been slightly edged out. Um, but, uh, you know, you've gotta move quickly cuz as you say, it's a honeymoon period and it won't last long. And once we get into the winter, um, with the cost of living crisis facing people and of course, you know, very, very unfortunate timing that people who work at Clarence house were told yesterday that they might lose their jobs because the king,
Speaker 3:This, this was king Charles' residence. Right?
Speaker 4:That's right. Yeah. So that's his previous residence, which now is no longer may go to somebody else eventually. Sorry
Speaker 3:I interrupted you. They were told,
Speaker 4:They were told that some of their jobs will be going now, you know, anybody would've advised anybody in any company around the world that wasn't the best timing,
Speaker 3:Just wait.
Speaker 4:Yeah, just wait, uh, you know, don't do it because it just fuels that anger and that sense of, oh yes, it's all a pageant. And it means nothing. I mean, you know, I don't, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think there is a genuine affection for the queen. I think there is a genuine respect for what she stood for, how long that will last remains to be seen.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Well, and, and you can, you can take the temperature of that, of, of that just by watching people, you know, standing in line for hours and hours and hours, you know, in four and five mile lines around Westminster to go and, and view the coffins. So yeah, Joe Phillips, thank you so much for, uh, guiding us through a little bit of this and uh, we, we appreciate your insight. All right. Nicholas Kenny is a professor of history at Simon Fraser university, uh, in Canada and British Columbia, um, professor, first of all, you know, welcome. And can you gimme an idea, how is this playing out in Canada as we speak the first mourns are being allowed now to go and publicly view the, the casket of the queen? I mean, they are very dark times nationally here.
Speaker 5:Yeah. I mean, here in Canada, there's obviously been quite, um, surprising, I would say outpouring of, of, of emotion. I think, I mean the queen was, was 96. Uh, I, it, it, it didn't come as any great surprise that she would pass away, but what, uh, I think nonetheless struck a lot of people as is. I think, I think they were kind of surprised by their own, uh, emotional response to it. Um, now, uh, just yesterday, the federal government announced that that the day of the funeral next Monday would be a national holiday and, uh, several provinces, uh, followed suit, including, uh, here in British Columbia where, where I live, uh, meaning, um, uh, the schools will be closed and, and well, provincial employees will, will have the day off. Uh, it doesn't quite extend to the, to the private sector, but, uh, no, we're hearing all kinds of, uh, remnants about the queen and, and, and of course the reflection of, of, of what she represents to Canada and, and more broadly what, what the monarchy represents for Canada.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, can we talk about that? Uh, be because I'm a bit confused historically in that the, the government of pier Elliot Trudeau, uh, brought home the constitution, uh, where are we 40 years ago, right. Yeah, exactly. And essentially severing the constitutional tie to the monarchy. Now, did I go too far and say severing
Speaker 5:A little bit because in a sense, uh, although that repatriation oration of, of the constitution was sort of the, uh, kind of final step in the, in the full, uh, independence of Canada as a, as a sovereign, uh, nation, uh, we kept nevertheless an, uh, an important symbolic role in the sense that we, we maintained the queen as the head of state for, for, for the country, the head of state who, who purely a figurehead, this is purely a symbolic, uh, role. Um, and it never ever went beyond that. The, the, a lot of people say, well in the defacto ahead of state is actually the governor general. And then, you know, within the provinces, we have the left tenant governors. And these are the people who are responsible for giving Royal ascent to laws that are passed. They, they, they do, uh, ceremonial, uh, tasks such as reading the speech from the, from the throne at the beginning of a new legislative session, these kinds of things. But these are queen are
Speaker 3:Parliament. She would queen would do the speech from the throne they're in Canada. You had the governor general who, uh, I mean, he would also dissolve parliament when the parties came to him, um, and had the power to appoint a, a party to form a government as well.
Speaker 5:That's correct, but only under the advice, according to the phrase of the prime minister and very, very rarely, uh, in history, uh, did a governor general ever, uh, uh, take taken decision independently from what the prime minister was, was recommending. So, um, it's it, but it, but it exists as a, a protective, uh, measure in case you do have a prime minister who, who goes off the rails or, or something like this. And we, we, we saw it come close well in, in, in the, in the, kind of, in the 1920s, but, you know, when Canada was still more, uh, attached colonially to, to the UK, we had, uh, Lord Bing, the, the governor general, who refused to act on the advice of, of Mackenzie king, uh, that's kind of ancient history, uh, as it were more recently, Mika<inaudible>, who was, who was governor general at the time, uh, that, uh, Steven Harper was, was re premier pushed back against his desire to parole, uh, parliament, but ultimately acquiesced. It was quite a, quite an intense, uh, moment, uh, where I am in, in British Columbia. We actually had a left hand, governor refused to dissolve parliament on the grounds that there had just been, uh, an election and the premier didn't like the results and wanted to have a new election, the governor general refused. So, so the role exists to, um, and he was,
Speaker 3:He found legally, you know, just before you move on from that, was he found to legally have a right to do that. I mean, there's a Canadian constitution, that's completely independent of the United Kingdom and the Monarch king.
Speaker 5:Well, that's right. But these are the representatives of the Monarch within Canada. Um, so, you know, in, in, in this case, uh, the left hand governor, uh, you know, was, was, was, was appointed by the prime minister on the advice of, of the provincial, uh, premier. And, um, there was debate at the time as to whether she could do this, uh, but it was, but constitutional scholars weighed in. And, and ultimately it was an important precedent setting moment, but I mean, these, these, these are, these are, are kind of, these are very rare instances, but I evoke them to, to show that that, that our political system, our system of governance in fact, does, um, uh, depend on the existence of, of, of this institutional, uh, framework. Right? So, so, so, so although it's a largely, uh, uh, symbolic day to day job, uh, the, the, the apparatus of governance in this country is built around that new, that, that, that, that, that Westminster parliamentary, uh, tradition.
Speaker 3:So what happens now, you, right. Certainly the popularity of the queen, um, may have put a damper on public debate about the future of the monarchy in Canada. Mm-hmm<affirmative> do you think now, under king Charles, once we get through this very hard 10 days of mourn, um, and then there P people start looking at king Charles, perhaps not with the same affection as they've had for queen Elizabeth, uh, that, that will fuel further debate about Canada's connection in the Commonwealth and to the monarchy in Britain.
Speaker 5:Yeah. There's, um, certainly polls that, that, that indicate that, uh, the, the, the, the affection for Elizabeth was, uh, much, uh, stronger than it is for, for, for Charles. And, and so there's two things. There's, there's Elizabeth, the woman who, uh, was extraordinarily, uh, admired and appreciated by, by, by the population. Uh, and then there's the notion of the monarchy. And so a lot of people have indeed raised the question. Uh, did we, did we keep that connection, that historical connection to the British crown, uh, you know, out of a sense of attachment to the queen and, and does that attachment to the monarchy outlive, uh, our affection for our affection, you know, the, the country's affection for, uh, for the queen. So there's an interesting, uh, debate there. I think it will take time, uh, to, uh, to, to, to develop, uh, these are complicated questions that, that don't get sorted out that obviously surpass the individual. I mean, the crown is the crown, right? Right. Whether, whether it's Elizabeth or, or, or Charles, uh, they, they, they are the person in that role, but the role, uh, stays the same. So you have to, uh, then ask yourself, or the country needs to ask itself, what, what do we do? And as I said before, our, our governance is structured around, uh, this, this institution. And so if you start to, uh, wanna sever those ties, then you have to think about what do we replace this, uh, with certainly what
Speaker 3:Would you replace it with as a called crime reporter? You know, a former crime reporter who covered the crown attorneys and the crown in, in the courts. And, uh, what, what do you replace it with? You just call it somebody.
Speaker 5:Yeah, well, you call it, well, you still need some kind of head of state. And presumably we would maintain our parliamentary system. Uh, we, we wouldn't necessarily move to kind of a Republican style of, of government that would, that's not in our, in our political traditions in this country. So you need to replace it with someone, what, some thing, someone, presumably you would keep that role of the governor general. The only thing is that that would be, uh, a, a position that was, you know, existed only within Canada, that wasn't kind of a, a representative of the monarchy. We would, we would have our own head of state and a lot of countries around the world have a kind of a, a symbolic head of state and then head of head of government, which in our cases is our, is our prime minister in a defacto way that, that doesn't exist in the constitution. So the problem though, and, and this is the important point in all of this is that, you know, there can, there, there can be debate about what it looks like, but in Canada, we have a very difficult, uh, relationship with constitutional change. As you know, you referenced the patriation of the constitution 40 years ago. Uh, that was, uh, a very divisive moment in, in a lot of ways in, in Canadian history. And it opened, uh, the, the, the door to 20 years of, of constitutional, uh, drama in this country. You'll recall the, the mech lake Accords and the Charlottetown accord, please
Speaker 3:Don't mention the
Speaker 5:<laugh> exactly things that nobody wanted hear about because when you start to, uh, open up the constitution, then suddenly different groups in the country have claims to what, uh, they want that new constitution to look like. And because of our federal nature, because of the, the vast territorial expanse and the cultural differences that exist within the country, because of our history with colonialism as well, it's very difficult for Canadians to agree on what a new constitution, uh, would look like. And that's why I think, I mean, we have a, since those,
Speaker 3:It sounds like that's why we
Speaker 5:Head
Speaker 3:In this to finish your sentence for you. That's why probably the federal government just wants all of this to go away.
Speaker 5:I, I, I think so. I, I don't think any sitting federal government is going to be the one to push this agenda forward. This is, if, if this happens, it it's gonna come from, from outside of, uh, of the government, because it's a can of worms. It's, it's a Pandora's box for any government we
Speaker 3:Think. So you think, you know, if we move away from Canada into the broader Commonwealth of those 53 nations, um, some of them are having much more intense debate than Canada is. Yeah. For sure. Like Australia, I think it's fair to say. Do you think that, that, that organization, um, maybe splinter is a good word?
Speaker 5:Yeah. Well, we'll see. I mean, the thing about the Commonwealth is certainly Canada's not the only country having these, these conversations, as you say, Australia, several Caribbean nations as well. Uh, we saw Barbados last year, uh, several their ties with the monarchy. So, so, so in fact for Karen there's there's models for how this can, this, how this can be done, they Commonwealth exists as this kind of voluntary organization. Uh, it it's, it's not, you know, it's not like the United nations or anything like that. It's, it's not, um, uh, you know, it's not diplomatically, uh, it's, it's a, it's a soft power kind of, uh, structure, uh, that has, you know, if you look on their website, they, they, their, um, uh, priorities are, uh, environmental protection, favoring trade between member states, uh, uh, favoring, which,
Speaker 3:Which coincidentally, the, the king, um, has had a, you know, a huge environmental push. And maybe that is something that he would try to build on with the Commonwealth,
Speaker 5:Presumably. So it exists. And of course the Commonwealth games that, that, that is sort of maybe the most visible, uh, element of, of, of, of what this organization does. So it could continue to exist for historical reasons because people are countries are connected to this organization because of the, of the kind of voluntary work that it does. And already it shifted away. I mean, the Commonwealth was born out of the, what was used to be called the British empire with a very hierarchical relationship. The Bri, you know, the Britain was on top and then the other Commonwealth nations were, were sort of subservient to, to the crown. And then over the 20th century, that became a more egalitarian, um, um, uh, organization that was not hierarchical. That was no longer, even the it's not even called the British Commonwealth. It's just the Commonwealth. And, uh, and, and it exists, you know, it's for, for, for sort of diplomatic reasons and for, for, for smaller, uh, uh, countries to seek assistance from larger ones and, you know, spread of democracy and all that. So, so I think in terms of those, those historical connections, I don't see the, the, the organization falling apart, you know, the, the, the, the, that, that connection to the history of empire, I think is more and more tenuous, especially since the, the, the legacy of that colonialism is questioned in so many places around the world,
Speaker 3:Professor Kenny, if I can finish with you kind of where I began, and that is how this is playing, you know, I was anchoring CTV national news a long time ago in the nineties when princess Diana died. And, uh, I think I vastly underestimated the public response, uh, around the world. And, and I, I, I'm not sure I've completely defined in my own mind why people rallied to her, but, but certainly there was, there was sympathy for her. Uh, there was a sense of injustice around how her life had played out mm-hmm<affirmative>, um, she was the, you know, beautiful princess and, and on and on, but the queen, I think is a different situation. And if you had to put your finger on kind of the, the, the number one button on why Canadians and, and, and Bri and the British for that matter, identify with the queen. H how, what would you say? I mean, what, I mean? Yeah, she was a great queen. She wasn't very controversial. Was there something more in your mind that, that really made that connection?
Speaker 5:I think sheer longevity, uh, she, you know, she was around for so long in, in a stable way. She, she sort of, uh, embodied the sense of being, uh, very stoic and above the fray and, and, and able to navigate through all the, the tumult of, of, of, of, of world events, but also scandal within her own, uh, in her own family. Uh, but, but mostly, you know, through all that she was, she was also, she was always there, uh, most, uh, Canadians, just because we're talking about Canada, but, but most people who are somehow connected to the, to the crown have never known any other Monarch. Uh, and, and, and I think that is extraordinarily, uh, powerful, the sense of in a world of change. And, and, and, and, and we know how, uh, you know, politicians like to, you know, capitalize on, on change and an uncertainty. She represented, uh, a lot of stability. And I think that has a lot to do with, um, with that affection people, how have had,
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, public school in, uh, in Ontario, at kettle public school, north of Toronto, we sang God saved the queen. Do they still singing in school?
Speaker 5:I, I don't know. I, I, I don't, I don't think so. I think very rarely do, do schools still sing, God saved the queen, but, but, but some might on, on, you know, certain occasion for sure. But yeah, it's something something generations of, of Canadians have grown up with
Speaker 3:Nicholas Kenny professor at Simon Fraser university. Thank you, professor Kenny. It's really great to talk to you.
Speaker 5:Thanks very much. It was a pleasure.
Speaker 3:Paul island is a writer commentator, a resident of Kia. He also runs lifeline Ukraine, a charitable support crisis line for army veterans. Uh, and we've spoken many times. Hi, Paul, how are you doing? You must be happily, uh, shocked as many of us to understand how successful this counter attack and strategy by the Ukrainian army has been in the heve region.
Speaker 6:Uh, I was shocked by the speed of it. I was shocked by how fast they were able to move into the occupied areas in, in heke. But, um, I'm, I'm not only pleased about the developments there, the progress that the Ukrainian army had been making, but I'm also quite pleased about what's been happening in the south as well. We have to remember there's two different fronts presently, and, uh, what's happening in here. Sun is, uh, is equally important. And, um, there there's been gains that have been made there in previous days as well. So yeah, all across the battlefield, there's, there's good news for the Ukrainian armed forces.
Speaker 3:So do you think that this denies deprives Putin's army of victory in, in Luhan scan esque?
Speaker 6:Absolutely. Yeah. Um, the, the, some of the towns that have been retaken have been, um, important railway hubs, and we know that that's, uh, one of the main means of Russian logistics. They, they use railways for transporting most of their ammunition. So having, having taken them back in the hard give region, yeah. It certainly puts a dent in what Putin was hoping to do in capturing the rest of, uh, Danette skins that he hadn't, uh, previously taken in 2014. It, it, it really strikes a blow to that, but more, it strikes a blow to, I mean, we know that the morale amongst the Russian armed forces is already rock bottom anyway, but it strikes a blow to their psychology because, you know, as, as, as frontline troops are retreating fleeing, you know, in, in haste, they're coming against
Speaker 3:Running for their lives and leaving dozens and dozens of, of tanks and armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces changing out of, out of uniform. I mean, this was a serious route,
Speaker 6:A very, very serious route. Yeah, exactly. And, and what I was gonna say is that when they're meeting, when they're retreating and they're meeting their, their colleagues who are supposed to be, you know, in, in the rear ensuring up the rear side, um, the, the, the panic is just going to be spread and manifest throughout the entire Russian army. And as well again, if I link it back to what's happening in the south, you know, the Russians that are sitting there in Heron, whether they're in Heron city on the right bank, or whether they're in Heron or blast closer to crimee, they they're also seeing that they're, they're comrades are being routed completely routed, and they know that that's coming for them next as well.
Speaker 3:How do you read? So the, the change in rhetoric in Russia, like for instance, I'm reading today, uh, bog Dan beco, the member of the council for interethnic relations under the president of the Russian Federation speaks out on television saying for two months, Ukrainian armed forces and military equipment have been masking in the area, all telegram channels have been writing about it. Where was our reconnaissance? All of their heads should be laying on Putin's desk hacked off at the base. Of course, this is a tactical defeat, and I hope it'll be very sobering. I mean, we have not heard anything like that, uh, from, from Russian propaganda channels since this started back in February.
Speaker 6:Yeah. But it, it's, it's very interesting how that's phrased though, Dana, the way that you just read it out. So their heads should be taken off and put in front of Putin. What they're, what they're deliberately trying to do is to avoid blaming Putin himself, but at the end, well, not at the end of the day, at the beginning of the day, at the beginning of this phase of the war, that was, it was entirely Putin's decision. And, and the, the, the catastrophe that has followed since is Putin's responsibility. So, you know, it's, it's interesting that they're trying to spin this away from blaming the, the, the top man himself, but yeah, well,
Speaker 3:I mean, and there's, there's a little bit of, uh, you know, there, there's a little bit of practice nuance in there for them too, right? Because if you speak against Putin, uh, in today's Russia, that's a pretty good guarantee that you're gonna be picked up by the, the FSB or the security services at night and thrown into prison. So you, you criticize as much as you can, but you never quite attack president Putin himself, but it seems slowly to be turning that way.
Speaker 6:Well, either thrown in prison or thrown out of a window of, you know, of a eight floor building or, or whatever it is, we, we see there been a few of them. It, it, it happens all the time, but I mean, what they did at the beginning of the war in Russia was they, they criminalized, uh, any, uh, criticism of the armed forces themselves, right? So, you know, they, they, they tried to paint this broad brush and it, it's not just the criticism of Putin, but, uh, any criticism of the war effort supposedly lands people in jail. I, I, I read a statistic last week that something like 3,800 administrative, uh, cases have been opened against people who've complained against the war. Well, you know, 3,800 out of a population of 144 million, there's really not enough internal objection, uh, from the Russian population yet. And I think one of the reasons for that is because they simply don't, they don't know what the casualty count is. And there, there was a document that was released last week, which was from, uh, Russia's own finance ministry, which was, this
Speaker 3:Is on payments to families.
Speaker 6:Exactly right. Payments to families. And, and that, I think the number was 48,383 payments have been made already. And there's still many more being processed. And that was before or on the, the, the, the Eve of the hard counter offensive as well, which is obviously resulted in a lot more, a lot more Russian deaths. Um, and by, by
Speaker 3:The way, we don't know what the Ukrainian death toll is either end. The fact is, I mean, a lot of military analysts say that when you start advancing and counter attacking, you know, you can suffer four to five times the number of casualties. So no doubt Ukraine paid, uh, a price. We don't know how high for that counter of
Speaker 6:That's actually one of the things that I, I, I, I refuse to touch on when I'm, when I'm sharing news on social media, you know, reports of deaths of specific Ukrainian soldiers. Um, but it's simply because many of them are my friends and I, I, I just can't even contemplate it at the moment. We, you know, in the final reckoning, after the, after the victory, that's that, that that's when I'm gonna be taking stock of that. But I, I, I can't let that blow me at the moment. I, I, I need to focus on the things that, that, that we can talk about that are, that are positive. And, and those things include the, the delivery of he heavy weapons that, um, have enabled Ukraine's counter offensive, the, the retaking of territory, the isolation of, you know, the, the pocket of troops that is in he, on city. That, that's the kind of things that I wanna talk about. But yeah, for certain, for certain middle, the losses on Ukraine side are also going to be, um, very, very heavy. And I, it, it was interesting to see and, and ballsy as well. I, president Linsky went to museum today, you know, and, uh, you know, to go and see the, the troops on the frontline of a town that was just liberated days ago. Right. And, and one of the things that they did there that was very poignant was they, they stood, um, a minute silence for those who have fallen, but I I'll look at that. I'll look at that after, after this is all said and done,
Speaker 3:Is there a sense of foreboding at times, because you see, you know, with, uh, the advances on the battlefield, by Ukraine, the Russians begin to get cornered in certain areas. And there is talk even that, you know, in the south that soon, the crimee may come under the long range artillery of the Ukrainian army. I mean, you're talking about airfield, you're talking about the home of the black sea fleet. Mm-hmm<affirmative>, um, the, I mean, the, the Russians can get very desperate very quickly. And then you have people like Dimitri ViiV, who was the former president and prime minister. And, you know, he's president Putin's poodle on the security council. His rhetoric is always kind of off the charts. And some people say that it, it it's, you know, alcohol induced at times, but I mean, he's talking about that this will bring world war three.<laugh>
Speaker 6:Yeah. I saw that as well. Um, I mean, that's, that's literally the best reaction to med, isn't it just, just to laugh at him, right. I mean, what, what world war three? What, what the, the, the, the, the thing that people have to remember, and I was discussing actually, an article on this escalation rhetoric, uh, earlier on today. Um, what, what can Russia actually escalate with? You know, how would they fight
Speaker 3:Nuclear, new nuclear weapons is the fear.
Speaker 6:Well, but I mean, the thing about the way that the Russian, uh, military command is structured with regard to, uh, issuing that order is that is the, it, it's not just the choice of one, man. It's not just, you know, the, the insane lunatic that is Vladimir Putin. He doesn't have sole authority to, to do this himself. He needs the buy in of his generals. And, and they know, although it's always missing from, you know, the propaganda evening TV talk shows, when they're talking about annihilating, the United Kingdom, which you know, is where he are sitting and, you know, they, they, they're always talking about these kind of things. And
Speaker 3:Thank you for reminding me about that. Yeah. When they're talking about a nuclear tsunami of, of water covering the island. Yeah. I, I heard
Speaker 6:That ones. Yeah. That's what they said. And that was like, I know two months ago they said they, they threatened to do something like that, but, but what they always don't factor in, or don't talk about is that there, there would be an immediate counter response. I mean, by, by going nuclear, Putin is going to ensure the destruction of Moscow and St. Petersburg and men, you know, many, many Russian citizens at the same time. It's, it's, I I've, I, I mean, I grew up in the area era when we were talking about mad, you know, mutually assured destruction and, you know, that's, that's what I always think about. And, and, and, you know, try to, yeah.
Speaker 3:Uh, but I mean, it may not be that Paul, you know, where, where there's a massive nuclear counter strike, right. I mean, it may be that the, the west and NATO and America then starts doing conventional strikes inside Russia. But certainly, I mean, you know, the rose Gotham, Mueller, who I know very well, who was one of the chief arms negotiators under the start treaties, she even, she has come out expressing fear that Russia could go nuclear and that they continually she's urging Western leaders continually to warn Moscow of what the potential costs of that would be if they bear to use something like that.
Speaker 6:I mean, but that's what I'm saying. Right. They, they already know in actual fact what the costs would be, but it's right to be reminding them that they should just never go there. But it, but again, you know, like if, if, if you look at the, the, the, try to follow a chain of logic to get to that point with, with Russia's, uh, land forces being routed again, hammered in the, the conventional conflict on the ground one sec, uh, how, how did that then lead to them? You know, having justification for the use of nuclear nuclear weapons. It, it, it just doesn't, it, it doesn't, it, I, I, yes, it's right. To, as you say, keep reminding them of the consequences of this, but I just don't see it happening.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, let's pray, you're completely right. And, uh, and, and that we, we don't even have to contemplate something as, I mean, it's crazy as that, but what, tell me, where do you think that this goes from here? Is there a sense there that the Ukrainian army, which may be slowing down a little bit, I mean, you can't push on days and days and days without resting, refeeding your troops refueling. Yeah. Um, is there a sense that this is gonna stall now for the winter? Or do you think that we'll see even bigger cities fall, uh, in, in the south, as the Ukrainian army has momentum now, and that maybe they may go after, you know, areas in the, in the Dawn bass, um, and in even crime me itself.
Speaker 6:Yeah. I, I was reading a very good thread yesterday from Lieutenant general, mark Erling. And he was talking about exactly that, like, if, if your troops are pushing forward, the maximum that you can allow them to do that for us. Yeah. I read the same live days. You, you saw the same one, right? Yeah. I mean, the, so, you know, that's, they've reached that point. They, they must be exhausted. And, and so it's right. That they are resting them for a period of time before they recommend when, when they reengage because of where they are geographically, it is going to be, uh, coming down towards the donas from the north and also Ukrainian forces are, are prodding into, uh, the, the Danette and Gans areas as well. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And I mean, it's important, and I know, you know this, but I think maybe a lot of other people do that, that that's not some, uh, vertical or lateral, um, frontline that once you take the hair sun old blast, then you start coming around. You know, it's been described as kind of a, a, a left wheeling, uh, wagon wheel where you start coming around behind and trapping a lot of Russian forces who by the way, have been cut off by this long range artillery taking out bridges, cut off from re refueling and, and food, uh, and support. So, I mean, indeed it, it changes just not the hair, sun, um, area, but I mean the entire battlefield.
Speaker 6:Yeah. So, I mean, if you, if you go back to, uh, her sun and that actually links back to, uh, the, the last question that you're asking as well about, about crimee crimee has already seen several attacks there. Um, the S air force base being the, the biggest one, obviously. Um, but, but yeah, once, once her son has been liberated, then yes, very much crimee is in play. And it is within range of the high Mars and crabs and seizes, the, the, the heavy weapons that we've, uh, received from the us and, and, uh, Poland and France, respectively, and, and very much the return of, of, of crime. It is a part of the stated, uh, war aims of Ukraine right now, and, and has been almost since the, the, the 24th of February, when this escalation came, it was okay. Everything, you know, Minsky's obviously dead and, and, you know, all bets are off and everything is on the table and, and returning all of Ukraine's territories, including the areas of Donast that Russia occupied in 2014 and including the, and peninsula, that, that is, that is where this war ends. That that is what is the, the, the ultimate objective. And it is, and is absolutely right as well. There was an interesting thing, actually, let me just tag this on, um, SGE Sean of the, uh, Kremlin appointed head of, of crimee, uh, has, uh, said in recent days that there's going to be serious fines and punishments for people who are chanting Ukrainian, patriotic slogans, or singing Ukrainian songs in crimee itself. And so, you know, I saw that and I, I just went, I'm so grateful that he's confirming that the remains a great deal of, of, uh, you know, patriotism for Ukraine on the peninsula and, and that he's worried about it, you know, and the other thing that shows that, that, uh, the Russians are very worried about the, the, uh, position of crimee as well, is that lots of military families are, are, are being moved out of the peninsula and back to Russia, proper Russia itself. Um, so they, they know what's coming last
Speaker 3:Question to you. Do you think that this silence is a lot of the, um, criticism in the west from people are saying that the economic price of this conflict is too high. Let's try to impose some kind of peace negotiation or settlement that it's just a frozen conflict. It could go on for years that, that this counter offensive by the Ukrainians has, has shown that actually victory could be in sight.
Speaker 6:Uh, victory is, is in sight. Uh, I, I don't know how long it's gonna take us to get to the finish line, but certainly victory is sight because, because the Russians are collapsing everywhere and they will continue to collapse the, the other, the other thing that Ukraine is able to do as well. I mean, we were talking about the rest in, in the hardcover, uh, region be because they had to, but, but Ukraine is able to pick which, which targets it wants to go after next. And, and so it, you know, immediately with the success of, of hard give, there were hits again on the bridge that isolates now, the Russian troops in hit on itself yesterday, uh, yesterday, I believe it was, there were, uh, hits on the Russian base at an airfield just outside of Meli Topo, which is in Zia or blast as well. They can't sleep anywhere. So, so yes, the, the, the victory is insight. Whether whether that, um, you know, shuts up, uh, certain parties who are complaining about the economic cost of supporting Ukraine or, or whatever, I think Ursula under land said it today with, with the first lady Ukraine's first lady in, in the European parliament with her that, yes, the, there is a price to be paid in dollars, but the price that Ukraine pays is in lives. And I mean, you, you know what I do, I, I, I don't put a dollar value on a single human life. I, I, I, I, I, I think that that is something that is every life is, is priceless. And, um, that's that, that's the cost that we are paying here. Uh, it, it's not, it's not about money. It's, it's about, it's about liberating because you asked as well about, you know, freezing the conflict and having a, a negotiated settlement. It it's about liberating. The people who are on these occupied territories. And this is something that we've been seen over the last week, especially is, is how they're greeting the Ukrainian troops as they roll through their villages and come into their towns and cities they're crying, and they're hugging them and saying, we've been waiting for you. Yeah. Everywhere that the Russians occupy it. We, we, we, we are going to uncover more and more evidence of torture and war crimes in all of these places.
Speaker 3:Paul nylon. Great to torture you, Paul. Thank you so much
Speaker 6:As always. Thank you, Dana. All
Speaker 3:Right. And that's our backstory season five begins. Check out my newsletter for analysis on big news stories. Dana lewis.dot com. I am Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening. And I'll talk to you again soon.