This week on Backstory with Dana Lewis former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov now in exile, discusses if a new Kremlin challenger has a chance in upcoming elections.
Tal Heinrich, spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, takes discusses the complexities of the Gaza crisis from the eyes of those entrenched in the struggle. Heinrich reveals the intricate challenges facing the IDF, from hostage rescue operations to the pursuit of lasting security.
And former Jerusalem Post Editor In Chief Avi Mayer and I discuss the contentious role of UNRWA, as allegations of terrorism send shockwaves through the United Nations, prompting urgent calls for reform or dissolution.
This week on Backstory with Dana Lewis former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov now in exile, discusses if a new Kremlin challenger has a chance in upcoming elections.
Tal Heinrich, spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, takes discusses the complexities of the Gaza crisis from the eyes of those entrenched in the struggle. Heinrich reveals the intricate challenges facing the IDF, from hostage rescue operations to the pursuit of lasting security.
And former Jerusalem Post Editor In Chief Avi Mayer and I discuss the contentious role of UNRWA, as allegations of terrorism send shockwaves through the United Nations, prompting urgent calls for reform or dissolution.
My collaborators from my political party just some of them are already in jail, some of them just waiting for their final court decision, also just sitting in jail. That's why there's dangerous and of course I didn't want just to leave with this risk anymore, and me and my family were left Russia right after these events.
Tal Heinrich:Of course, we will have to dismantle the overwhelming majority of this terrorist infrastructure, because we say that we want to see Gaza demilitarized and, once we eliminate Hamas, we don't want to see the resurgence of another terrorist group down the road that will use this infrastructure again and you and I will have this conversation again. So it's a big, big challenge.
Avi Mayer:Subsequently, we've learned that more than one teacher actually have held hostages in their homes, including some who are parents of children, who locked these hostages away without adequate food, water or medical care. But, of course, the big story in recent days, as you just said, were these dozen 12 or so UNRWA employees who have been found to be directly involved in the Hamas massacre of October 7.
Dana Lewis :Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. This week, russia, there is a new opposition leader who's been campaigning to run for president against Vladimir Putin. Does he have a chance? Will the Kremlin let him run? Well, it's likely notable questions, but you never know. We speak to former Russian Prime Minister, mikhail Kasyanov, on the election, the war in Ukraine and talk of seizing over 30 billion in Russian assets abroad and giving them to Ukraine for weapons and rebuilding.
Dana Lewis :But first Gaza and Israel's war to unseat Hamas and bring home its hostages taken October 7. Is Israel making progress in its goal to release hostages and destroy Hamas? In a moment we'll talk to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesperson, tal Heinrich. And when I was in Gaza, the biggest charity organization was the UN Relief Workers Agency, unrat. Some of UNRWA staff were involved in the attack on Israel and even held Israeli hostages. Now funding for UNRWA is being held by a number of countries, because why would they give money to an organization that appears to have worked hand in glove with a terrorist organization? It's a crisis for the UN, says former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief, avi Mayer. But first that interview with Tal. Tal Heinrich is a spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister's Office of Prime Minister Netanyahu. She joins me now from New York, hi Tal.
Tal Heinrich:My pleasure to be joining you, Dana. Good to see you.
Dana Lewis :Good to see you. Look, three weeks if I can just begin with what's happening on the ground, three weeks after the IDF says Northern Gaza is cleared, there's fighting in Northern Gaza. What's happening there? It's obviously not cleared, and does this speak to the resilience of Hamas?
Tal Heinrich:You're correct, it's not clear of all terrorist elements and terrorist infrastructure. The IDF still has work to do there. But when we said that the area was clear, we didn't mean that it's 100% free of terrorist elements, but rather that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad no longer function as an organized war machine in that area of the Gaza Strip. It's more right now about sporadic attacks, if you will, as opposed to what we still have in the southern parts of Gaza, like in Conde Unes, for example, and in the areas, the neighborhoods in the central part of the Gaza Strip where still you have these organized battalions. But in terms of our progress, they are on the ground. According to the IDF's assessments, we have eliminated more than 9,000 terrorists, arrested 2,300, and really took out the overwhelming majority of the Hamas battalions as an organized war machine. There's still much work to be done, more so when you think about the terror infrastructure that we're finding there.
Dana Lewis :Can you talk to the Wall Street Journal story where they're saying that maybe Israel's managed to get only 20% or 40% of tunnels, that there are so many more left? The number 300 miles of tunnel is often kicked around and I don't know how accurate it is, but it's a hell of a challenge trying to get down there, trying to eliminate Hamas. They're now talking about flooding some of those tunnels with water the IDF Yet at the same time you've got hostages there and it's mission impossible.
Tal Heinrich:Well, obviously the plight of the hostages is the top of minds in every decision-making progress at the central command and also on the ground in Gaza. When we eliminate these tunnels, obviously we have a certain intelligence and now we're on assessment to make sure that they're not there. Of course, we will have to dismantle the overwhelming majority of this terrorist infrastructure because we say that we want to see Gaza demilitarized Once we eliminate Hamas. We don't want to see the resurgence of another terrorist group down the road that will use this infrastructure again and you and I will have this conversation again. It's a big, big challenge. My colleague, elon Levy you're based in London he says that the underground metro of Gaza is larger than the London metro, which is insane.
Tal Heinrich:I myself went with Elon to visit one of these big tunnels, the one that is just 400 meters away from the heiress border crossing in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. Dana, I'm sorry on the personal level. I wanted to tell you that I was standing there inside this massive tunnel, the one that a vehicle can drive through. You see how fortified it is. You think of the iron, the cement, everything, all the resources, human work and money that was invested in it. You think this is insanity? They're so committed to this ideology and idea of obliterating Israel that they invest their effort and their everything in this instead of rebuilding themselves. I was there and I was thinking exactly as sort of what you said well, wow, this is huge, this is massive, and this is just one. It was just one.
Dana Lewis :So the question that I saw put to former Shin Bet chief Amy Eiland today was is Israel winning? And he said I can't say that because we don't know what the end game is. So how do you spell victory at this point?
Tal Heinrich:We spell victory once we achieve the three goals that we have set forth for this operation, for this war that we didn't start and we didn't want. We said that Hamas must be eliminated as the ruling governance body in Gaza and as an organized war machine, as a military wing. When exactly this will happen, and what does it entail? Will one terrorist still be alive or we managed to eliminate all of them? This is a decision that will be, of course, decided by the military press of the IDF, by our government, and we said that the hostages must come back home, all of them. That will be, of course, one achievement.
Dana Lewis :Let's hope those poor people get out of there, and you can only imagine what people have gone through over a hundred days being held, abused, tortured. Some are already dead. So that brings us to this discussion that there's a hostage deal in the works. But Prime Minister Netanyahu, your boss, stood there yesterday and said we're not going to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, despite what the negotiations may be in Paris between the USA and France and Qatar and others. We're not going to release thousands of terrorists. Who was he speaking to there? It sounds like he was almost speaking to the Americans, saying don't pressure us into a deal that we can't accept.
Tal Heinrich:Well, when the Prime Minister of Israel is speaking right now at the height of a war, I guess he's speaking to everyone around the world, not only Israelis. But I can tell you who he was speaking to today, and that is families of hostages. And he told them that the Israeli government, he himself personally, they're doing everything possible to examine every possible avenue to bring to the release, potentially, of more hostages. Now we know that what created the conditions back in November, Dana, was the military pressure that we exerted on Hamas on the ground. We were hitting them very, very hard and the terrorists on the ground. They wanted to breathe there, and so we had this framework which saw the release of some of the hostages.
Tal Heinrich:It has to be a combination of the diplomatic avenue that we don't expand on, for very obvious reasons we don't really discuss these terms openly, publicly, because these are sensitive issues. Human lives hang in the balance. But we are really doing everything possible to create the conditions, to create another framework that will see the release of more hostages. And you're right, we heard from the accounts of hostages who came back in November after 50 days or so in captivity and it's unbelievable to try to imagine what these who are still there for more than double the time are suffering through, including sexual abuse that we know for certain Is taking place there with some of the female hostages, because that's what one of the female hostages who came back told us.
Dana Lewis :Will you comment on the fact that at least one of those hostages maybe more were not only taken by members of UNRWA, the UN Relief Workers Agency, but in fact at least one of them that was released I think among that 50, came back and told stories about how he was held by an UNR teacher, how he wasn't fed, he was held in horrible conditions, and now you have revelations that there's at least a dozen UNR employees were involved in the October 7th terror attack inside Israel, of killing people, of taking hostages.
Tal Heinrich:This is outrageous, I mean to people around the world. Many of them say, well, this is unbelievable. But to Israelis this is nothing but a surprise. Israelis have been used to it, have been speaking about it for years, how UNRWA is somewhat in bed with terrorism and preaches to terrorism in UNRWA schools. You know that a telegram group of 3,000 UNRWA teachers celebrated the massacre. You had teachers that Israel passed this information on to the UN agency who participated as part of the Hamas massacre. They crossed into Israel. Some of them the ones who weren't in Israel helped Hamas secure ammunition for the attack and secure logistics for the attack. One of them was involved in kidnapping a body of a soldier, another of a kidnapping of a hostage. So we know of at least two hostages right now who were held by UNR people.
Tal Heinrich:And it's not a bug in the system, it's a feature of the system. And the mere existence of UNRWA is flawed. To begin with, dana, the fact that this agency exists in an unprecedented way, dedicated to the so-called Palestinian refugee problem, which in its essence, if you boil it down, the existence of UNRWA is basically to put a question mark over the existence of Israel, to keep Israel as some temporary entity in the mind of Palestinians by telling them generation after generation you are refugees of wars that you started, and until until when? Until Israel will cease to exist. So UNR is flawed on so many different levels, but really what we revealed was just the tip of the iceberg.
Dana Lewis :Well, I know UNRWA is also in charge of giving out food and water and support for UNR eroding. Now it comes at an impossible critical time and I guess there'll be a lot of discussion about if you replace UNR, what do you replace it with? But very quickly, before I let you go, you know Hamas has gained popularity in the West Bank, as has Islamic Jihad. There are great fears by the Israeli security establishment of attacks that can occur, just like the one October, the 7th from Gaza into Israel could happen, from the West Bank into Israel. Are you worried at the Prime Minister's office that the threat is increasing? And how do you stop this popularity of Hamas in the West Bank now? And where is Fata? Where are the moderates?
Tal Heinrich:That is a very good question, because when you look at internal Palestinian polling of their own population, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank, you see that in the West Bank, 85% of Palestinians support the October 7 atrocities.
Tal Heinrich:They support Hamas's doing, which really makes you, you know, question and think of what the future could be like. And this is why we say that down the road, once Hamas is eliminated, we want to see Gaza demilitarized, but also the Palestinian society as a whole, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank, de-radicalized. Because without that, without that and you're in Europe, so you know better without the radicalization of extreme elements in the society, we can't have peace. We can't. And you know, you've seen, you reported that Israel has made peace with many other Arab nations because conditions on the ground were right for it when the timing was right. But processes have to take place and unfortunately some of these processes take time. But we hope that once we eliminate Hamas and we deal terrorism such a major blow as it deserves, moderate voices will fill in the vacuum and that the Palestinians would understand that terrorism will always be a dead end. So why choosing it?
Dana Lewis :It was a feature of the Oslo Accords, tal, and you know many believe that, even whether the best peace process in place, unless you de-radicalize Palestinians and stop celebrating bus bombings and suicide attacks, the violence would never stop and it never did. And Hamas jumped right in there and led that charge in terms of terrorist attacks in Israel. So what you speak about, you know, has been just isn't looking forward, but it's also leaning back and looking at what went wrong, oslo in the 90s. So, tal Heinrich, spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister's office, tal, good to talk to you.
Tal Heinrich:Thank you so much, Dana.
Dana Lewis :Avi Mayer is the former editor and chief of the Jerusalem Post and he joins me now from Jerusalem, avi, nice, to meet you.
Avi Mayer:Good to meet you as well.
Dana Lewis :Look this controversy with UNRWA, Canada. The US have paused funding to UNRWA, so of seven other countries I think, as we count now, uk, australia, italy, germany, the Netherlands, switzerland, finland have taken similar action. Is it fair or is this a slight overreaction right now?
Avi Mayer:Look, unrwa has been a problem for many years. Some would say that it dates back to its very foundation, in the aftermath of Israel's war of independence in 1949, when it was granted this mandate. That is quite different than that of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Whereas the UNHCR is tasked with the resettlement of refugees and essentially ending the refugee status, unrwa exists to perpetuate the refugee status of those Palestinians who it serves, which is why you've seen the number of Palestinian refugees, or people classified as Palestinian refugees over the loon over the past 75 years to millions and millions around the world, including those who have required citizenship in their current places of residence.
Avi Mayer:Over the past 20 years or so, various different organizations have raised concerns about all sorts of ties between UNRWA and terrorist groups, as well as UNRWA's own operations, which are viewed as being tainted by incitement to violence, the deal generalization of Israel's right to exist, anti-semitic tropes and so on and so forth. For many years, there have been all sorts of charges about UNRWA's ties to Hamas, that it can only operate in Gaza because it's in cahoots with Hamas in many respects, that many of its employees are, in fact, hamas members and, in fact, that has come to a head during the current conflict. Just a few weeks ago, when I was still at the Jerusalem Post, we published a report that was first circulated by an Israeli journalist named Al Mugh Boker, that one of the hostages in Gaza… If I can jump in, because you've packed a lot in there.
Dana Lewis :But that's really that post that you put up is what led me to ask you for the interview, because you wrote that an Israeli who had been held hostage in Gaza he was the captive of a teacher employed by UNRWA, and that UNRWA later on turned around and slammed your report at the Jerusalem Post, essentially saying it was ungrounded, unfounded. How dare you? What did they say to you?
Avi Mayer:They said exactly that, that they had not been presented with evidence that these are unsubstantiated allegations, and they requested very strongly that we remove the report from our website. You got it wrong.
Dana Lewis :You got it wrong because you only said there was one.
Avi Mayer:Right, exactly.
Dana Lewis :In fact there's now at least a dozen UNRWA employees that have been named and that has been provided to the US, to the White House, as well as a number of countries. So you didn't get it wrong. But you spoke about one case and I know that I shouldn't inject any humor in what is a very serious situation. But the fact is that you know, in fact they got off pretty lightly in your story compared to what's come out now.
Avi Mayer:Yeah, I mean look.
Avi Mayer:Subsequently we've learned that more than one teacher actually have held hostages in their homes, including some who are parents of children, who locked these hostages away without adequate food, water or medical care.
Avi Mayer:But, of course, the big story in recent days, as you just said, were these dozen 12 or so UNRWA employees who have been found to be directly involved in the Hamas massacre of October 7th. About half of them are themselves teachers, which is astounding when you think about it. Others have other roles within the organization, but they played an active role in kidnapping, massacring, transferring weapons to Hamas on the day of the massacre, and one report that just came out of short while ago by the Wall Street Journal said that, according to an intelligence estimate, about one in 10 UNRWA employees in Gaza are somehow linked to terrorist organizations. That's about 1200 people. So in the aftermath of the first revelation about the 12, we were hearing many critics saying you know how could you judge an entire organization based on the actions of only 12 people? Here we see we're talking about 1200 people, which is about one out of every 10 owned police. That is an organization that is entirely compromised and requires substantive reform.
Dana Lewis :I want to explore that a little bit with you. I mean, the US National Security spokesman, john Kirby, said today it's serious, but you shouldn't impugn the characters of 10,000 employees across the region that UNRWA is operating in.
Avi Mayer:Look, that is certainly Admiral Kirby's prerogative. I think the situation is much deeper than that, and we've known it for many, many years. This is an organization that is tainted from the very core of its mandate. Its previous director has said explicitly that has a political mandate and that you know we can't do anything about it. We just operate within the confines of that mandate. The mandate itself is wrong. If it is just perpetuating the problem, which is what it's doing, then perhaps the mandate needs to change or the organization needs to be dismantled and the refugees handed over to the UN High Commissioner for refugees and their status made equal to the refugees of any country around the world. I think that is probably what we need to explore. Perhaps not at this moment, when UNRWA is doing important work in some respect in Gaza, caring for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population there, but at some point in the future a reckoning must come and the organization needs to either reform or be totally dismantled and be absorbed into another country.
Dana Lewis :What's the alternative? I mean, I've been to Gaza hundreds of times as a correspondent over the years. I'm sure you've probably been there. I mean, the UNRWA hands out you know, I've seen them handing out, you know, water and powdered milk and rice, and I mean they're a frontline agency. They are in an environment which is run by Hamas. I'm going to get into the organization, no matter how good your screening is. But I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt either and I want to ask you do you think that they completely not only failed in that respect, but turned a blind eye to what was happening in their organization, how deep Hamas was infiltrating the organization, using the organization maybe as a front and to protect the Hamas military wing?
Avi Mayer:Look. According to former UNRWA officials, there are no pre-employment screening procedures in place. They, essentially, will hire pretty much anyone, and so, yes, we know as a matter of fact, up until this point and this was admitted by former directors of the organization that there were Hamas members. Now we know that it's at least one in every 10 members of their team who are somehow affiliated with either Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other terrorist organizations. That is profound. That is an organization that has a very deep set problem, and so you asked what the alternative is. I think the alternative is very clear. What is the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem? The UN High Commissioner of Refugees, which deals with every other refugee case around the world. The Palestinians are the only group that has their own.
Avi Mayer:What would that do? What would that do? I'm sorry, what's that? What would that do if you move that? Well, the UN High Commissioner of Refugees is an organization that has a budget in the billions, that deals with millions upon millions of refugees around the world, and it simply is not tainted in the same way that UNRA is. It is an organization that is unfortunately tainted to the core. It has been compromised for many, many years and it simply needs to either reform and do so seriously, with an independent investigation looking into what all those problems are and how they can be addressed or dismantled and absorbed into UN High Commissioner of Refugees. I don't see an alternative.
Dana Lewis :Where do you think we're headed right now? I mean, in Jerusalem there was a conference last night that had a lot of right-wing members of Netanyahu's cabinet in there, including Ben Gvir, who's you know former Kach member, and you know they were dancing around the idea that they relocate Palestinians out of Gaza. I mean, is that not beyond extreme? Do Israelis support that? Do you think, or do you think, that that is gaining momentum within Israel?
Avi Mayer:I think the overwhelming majority of Israelis are horrified by the notion of any return to Gaza on a permanent basis. The notion of resettling Jews in Gaza, I think, is one that is entirely far into the vast majority of Israelis. What you saw at that really unfortunate conference in Jerusalem last night, which, as you said, was indeed attended by members of this government, was a display of extremism that is highly unrepresentative of Israeli society. What Israelis want is to live in peace and security. That can only be achieved when the hostages are brought home and Hamas' capacity To ever carry out a massacre like October the 7th is dismantled. That is the goal here. The goal is not to repopulate Gaza, and I hope that we're able to achieve those goals very soon.
Dana Lewis :How does it end? Is it military reoccupation of Gaza? I mean, if you don't bring settlers back, is it continued military occupation of Gaza, which may go on for years? And behind the scenes, what are you hearing? Do you think that there is momentum for an international effort now to bring about some kind of Palestinian self-rule in Gaza that will replace the extremist group Hamas and get them out of them?
Avi Mayer:There are various proposals being floated at this time. From what I'm hearing, it is likely there will be some kind of Israeli presence in Gaza, at least till the end of the current year, until the end of 2024. We'll not look the way it does now. There will probably be far fewer troops actually on the ground, but Israel will maintain the capacity to come in and deal with terrorist activity as it resurfaces, as it almost certainly will. As for longer-term arrangements, we've heard various conversations about a multinational force, perhaps populated by Arab states in the Gulf, coming in and taking responsibility for security of that territory. But yes, certainly we would want to see some kind of Palestinian self-rule reemerge in that territory, one that is not tainted by terrorism like Hamas, or by associated with terrorism, as the Palestinian authority in the West Bank currently is. What that looks like remains to be seen. There are various different proposals floating about. We certainly hope that that's something that can be effectuated as soon as possible.
Dana Lewis :What a big remain to be seen, chapter that still has to be written. Anyway, avi Mayer, the former editor and chief of Jerusalem Post, great to talk to you. Thank you so much.
Avi Mayer:Thank you for having me.
Dana Lewis :Mikhail Kasyanov is a former prime minister of Russia and now he lives in exile in Europe. Mikhail, welcome, I use that term and you can correct me in exile precariously, because you left Russia willingly when the war happened in Ukraine, but now you probably cannot go back.
Mikhail Kasyanov:Absolutely, I cannot go back. That's why I just left Russia when they started to adopt just legislation under which they can put in jail just people for criticism. And we have a number of examples and my collaborators from my political party just some of them already in jail, some of them just waiting for their final court decision also just sitting in jail. That's why there's danger and of course, I didn't want just to leave with this risk anymore and me and my family left Russia right after these events.
Dana Lewis :It has to be emotional. I mean, you're a patriot. You worked next to the president, you worked in the Kremlin, you worked for the country. You rose to one of the highest ranks in terms of the political landscape in Russia. You then fought, as an opposition person, suddenly to be saying that you're a foreign agent and cannot go back to your country. These are dark days.
Mikhail Kasyanov:That's absolutely strange and it took them a year to decide whether to name me as a foreign agent or not. Because there's the information that even in September last year I mean 2022, where already just my name was put for consideration and that took them a year to make a decision and maybe they were waiting for the permission of Putin so that whether it's possible to name former prime minister who worked with Putin first, his first term, just as a foreign agent. That is absolutely strange and that's for an agent. That is some kind of bazaar, because these people in power, Putin's team, if we can call it the team they believe that critics of Putin's regime could be the crazy people of foreign agent. And that's what they've chosen for me, just for an agent. And that's what already just more than 200 people and more than 300 of different organizations named.
Mikhail Kasyanov:As for an agent, just for criticism of Putin, for criticism of the war yes, they are correct, I condemn the war, I criticize Putin, I walk part of Russian anti-war community. That's what they also are just incriminating me that it is dangerous organization because we're against the war. All these facts and, as a result, just a strange, strange name. But it is the fact, the law. They produce this for an agent, that is, we are not for an agent. We're agent of our country, of our motherland. As I said, we are, of course, patriots of our country and we'd like much better. We're good for the country, but it's good for the country. In Putin's mind, that's completely different. His people believe that their enrichment and their ruling and the keep the power that is the good for the country, but not as us and other many millions of Russians who believe that we should live in a prosperous, I would say civilized country, part of Europe.
Dana Lewis :Do you know Boris Nejeshtyn, who is now running, attempting to run against Putin for president, and what would you say about him?
Mikhail Kasyanov:Oh, what I can say, just the most important thing, is what I have to stress, that he continued to keep on the opposition and openly discussing this and describing this not in a very, I would say, direct way, but very clear, very clear, with the more delicate manner of describing this as a crucial mistake or something like that. And I think, and I almost sure, that he will not be registered for the second part of Iran because of this position, because just people would like alternative. They don't know who Nadezhda is about, but they would like to vote for the person, whatever person is, who against the war, who wants to stop this war as soon as possible. Nadezhda right now represents this opinion. That's why there is a growing popularity of him, and I'm sure that they will not I mean Kremlin, putin will not take this risk to register him for the final run, because just people could definitely could go to the voting stations and put the ballot, but of course, the result will be predictable.
Mikhail Kasyanov:Putin would win, but the risk that people, and a lot of people, including many officers, military officers and from the police, they would understand they voted against that but result could appear just as Putin wanted. That would create a public risk and a risk of, I would say, demonstrations, protests on the streets. I don't think Putin would take this risk. That's why Nadezhda will not be registered.
Dana Lewis :Do you think it was a mistake by the Kremlin to let him get so far now, because it's become quite public? Or do you think that they wanted to create the atmosphere of a democracy, even though we know that these elections are not democratic?
Mikhail Kasyanov:They wanted to create an atmosphere of democracy, but they don't care much about that. But in fact there was nothing, as I would say, potential methods to cut him from on this stage, just simply to put a jail, just for criticism. But they didn't do this and they wanted some kind of landscape to appear that many people and they would like. The outcome just visiting just polling stations would be high. That's why they're thinking this way. They didn't know that Nadezhda will continue to have such anti-opposition and people would continue to support and demonstrating their will to put signature for his registration. And I think that it's already just. They run too far.
Dana Lewis :You think it's getting away on them, that it's getting out of control for them?
Mikhail Kasyanov:Not getting out of control, but much more difficult for them and much more risky for them, as they expected.
Dana Lewis :What happened to you when you tried to run for president? Because you were very organized and you traveled the country. You had a real grassroots organization, parnass, and you had local election offices. Tell me from your experience what did they do to you to stop you?
Mikhail Kasyanov:Yeah, correct, and that time that was a completely different time. It was almost democracy existed and at that time we all believed that there was a chance to change, not to allow Putin to go this route. What we come now, nobody could expect that we could come. But at that time, of course, as you correctly mentioned, that political group, political party, just was organized and we were prepared for this, collecting the signatures and the trouble of the country. But they didn't expect the Kremlin, they didn't expect that popularity my popularity would start to raise so rapidly. Within one month of colleague's signature my rating was 6% and in one month it was 18%. And they understood that at that time not Putin but Medvedev was running from Putin's team and at that time just was absolutely dangerous and it was a great risk and I believe just we potentially could have wind those elections, one of the selections as a general support basis, on the basis, on the basis of the general support. It didn't happen. They caught me on that stage. What as they going to do this?
Dana Lewis :They tried to say what? The signatures weren't valid. The people who supported you were not real people. Fictitious signatures, I mean they did everything.
Mikhail Kasyanov:They were two million signatures and they say 170 they don't like and out of this 175, 35, they believed was not put by real people. But it was just technical reason. But of course everybody knows what actual political grounds were for that.
Dana Lewis :We're sitting in one of the Baltic countries which sit in great fear of what's happening in Ukraine right now, that they believe that Europe and America are going way too slow on weapons supplies, that we're reaching a dangerous precipice where Russia will continue not in eastern Ukraine but they will threaten other sort of NATO frontline countries. What is the mood where you are and what do you believe? If you were to take a snapshot, historically, of where you think we are and where we're going, what would you say?
Mikhail Kasyanov:You are correct that, in terms of Baltic states, people here, and politicians in particular, are just very much concerned about that because they understand how Putin hates these countries and the people of these countries. That's why, of course, they have all reasons to think this way that if Ukraine will be defeated, it means just next step would be Baltic states. They don't want to be unprepared. That's why they're very nervous and asking other NATO members to support them. I think just the NATO members are just doing this. But in talking about Ukraine, I believe that all these I would say mass which we take I don't think just we correct what. But what's going on in the US right now just in terms of not agreeing on adoption of the support or package, the support for Ukraine. But I know I talked to politicians of both countries there just half a year ago and all of them just raised bipartisan consensus on the support of Ukraine. But internal problems, internal disagreements, just blocking the support Unfortunately it has already has an effect on the situation in the front in Ukraine.
Mikhail Kasyanov:Ukraine and all, of course, the information and I would say the landscape provides that some kind of fatigue come and European countries just will not be so actively in support, but I talk recently to European politicians that there is also absolutely great consensus and the readiness to continue support Ukraine. That's what we need right now, as soon as possible. Decision, positive decision in the US. I'd like to believe it will be soon, Although I disappointed that that didn't happen in December. I thought and earned as soon as the Congress will reintegrate just the process. Now it didn't happen, but I'd like to believe they will make the decision soon. European Union on the 1st of February going to make this decision too, and I'd like to believe that Ukraine would feel just very solid grounds and continue to defend themselves. They are sovereign in here.
Dana Lewis :Because what will Putin do? Do you think he's content to keep Eastern Ukraine, maybe some expansion along the Black Sea coast, or do you think that his goals are much broader than that?
Mikhail Kasyanov:There was, of course, much broader. The goals were much, much broader, but right now I think just Putin already switched the war for war and attrition. He managed during one year to switch Russian economy on military stands and, in fact, just those production facilities which were left for decades after Soviet Union collapsed over Soviet Union. Now just they reintegrated all those production and they produce a lot of ammunition, or maybe not all such high-tech quality, but that is a lot of things and it's 10 times the quantity, 10 times bigger than Ukraine can use just right now.
Mikhail Kasyanov:That's why just they believe that competition of potentials, economic potentials and human potentials, Putin, he believes that he would win. That's what. Also he believes that fatigue already come and just expecting that Donald Trump will win elections and then just reconsider the attitude to supporting Ukraine. I think all these factors combinational factors and he will wait. I don't think that he's going to have another offensive operation in spring, as some people say, because just he already have also facing internal problems and there will be more growing problems in economy and financial system in Russia. But of course he believes that he will win the war of attrition, competition of potentials. He believes that West will fed up of supporting and allocating so much money and sooner or later they will press Ukraine to sit down and to accept Putin's terms of capitulation.
Dana Lewis :What do your European context? I know you talk to politicians a lot and you talk to people in the EU. What do they say about a possible reelection of Donald Trump as president and the dangers to not only Ukraine but a wider NATO and European Union, and what are they doing to prepare for that? Do you think that they are preparing for a Trump presidency as best they can, whether that be domestic weapons production, or will they continue to support Ukraine and go it alone? Just Europe and Ukraine if the US is not back?
Mikhail Kasyanov:That's interesting question, but it is of course, better to ask those European politicians, but my impression is that of course they are very much concerned about that. I think what happened in the past, especially relations with the European Union and all the sanctions and quotas etc. And barriers in trade and also problems within NATO, that's what of course, people already know, just how to tackle these problems here. But of course, talking about Ukraine, that's the most important issue. The European Union without United States would not be capable to support for the such extent so that Ukraine could win this battle. But nevertheless, I believe in the European politicians, also believe that even Trump, but assuming that Trump is a president, but in any case he couldn't have a consensus and to get just everything settled in Congress, but, as I said, be part of some consensus or support.
Mikhail Kasyanov:Ukraine exists and strong, but the only technicalities. But I think that will be the adjustment. Somehow we will see a lot of negative talks and a lot of populistic talks, but that will create delays, that will create a problem for Ukraine. But in general terms, I think that would be maybe not at such scale and at such direct way support as current administration provides for, but I think that will be. In any case, transatlantic unity continue to exist in terms of supporting Ukraine.
Dana Lewis :Last question to you. There have been a lot of people campaigning, especially people like Bill Browder and others, campaigning for Russian assets that were frozen both in the US and in Europe to simply be seized now and turned over to Ukraine, especially given the fact that there are the delays and funding coming from the EU and coming from the US. Do you think there's a danger in doing that, or that would be a wise decision to turn over frozen Russian assets in European and American banks to the Ukrainians?
Mikhail Kasyanov:There are two types of those assets. One of them private assets. I mean just different, call them oligarchs or whatever, billionaires or whatever stuff. Here it is completely different. Things that should not be seized in any case in terms of just because they don't condemn the war. That should be different consideration. Because there's private property, there's untouchable thing for existing of the world order existing right now. That should be consideration, individual basis on what is our generation, et cetera, et cetera. They I think they're doing this. But other part of assets, the central bank, international reserve, central bank, 300 billion US dollar, that is a different thing. That's what discussion is going on about, that the main problem, what I expect now and see, of course, everyone is concerned about just whether these such a step, if those assets are seized, whether they create a problem of destroying the whole financial system existing right now. I am a bank, all these situations, just different organizations with supporting countries, et cetera.
Dana Lewis :Because since today, and also the whole monetary system of seeking haven in the US dollar.
Mikhail Kasyanov:suddenly, so that's what I also mean about that too. Yeah, that is the, since this time it never happened. Never happened. You should have known it could destroy the whole and mental attitude for this monetary system. But what it could be used, and I believe just they're trying to walk out the model just to have it as a pledge for the potential loans to Ukraine, so that for reconstruction of the economy and et cetera, et cetera. But then on the later stage, when the Ukraine wins and put in defeat, and that will be a different discussion. But right now I think there will not be not possible to have such a tough step and to seize these assets and to create a precedent which will be widely discussed in the whole world and would create a negative effect for international monetary system.
Dana Lewis :You're not a fan of doing it.
Mikhail Kasyanov:I'm, it's not the right question, I'm just. I see the problems. I see the problems I don't want the world order will be. Will be, I would say, destroy. Putin already tried to destroy just international security system. He already just on this. But if we already just to add to them destroyment of financial system, that what will have in the end? And this world building everything in the beginning and from the stretch, that will be very difficult. There will be mass in the whole world. We already see just some problems in the Middle East and Ukraine, russia and just other in Africa, et cetera, et cetera. But where we can end up, that is difficult, difficult way.
Dana Lewis :Prime Minister Mikhail Kassianov. Always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you so much.
Mikhail Kasyanov:Thank you, Dana.
Dana Lewis :And that's our backstory this week. Share the podcast if you like it, and we'll bring you more. I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening to Backstory and I'll talk to you again soon. You, you?